Advertisement

Public Perspectives of the New Genetics

The Citizens’ Jury Experiment
  • Rachel Iredale
  • Marcus Longley

Abstract

This paper describes the process of the Citizens’ Jury on Genetic Testing for Common Disorders which was held in Cardiff in November 1997. The Jury’s principal recommendations are included and this experimental method of public consultation examined.

Keywords

Focus Group Genetic Testing Public Consultation Expert Witness Democratic Deficit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crosby, N. (1996) How Should We Live Together? The Philosophical Underpinnings of the Citizens’ Jury® Process. Unpublished Paper: Centre for New Democratic Processes.Google Scholar
  2. Dienel, P. (1978) Plannungszelle, Opladen: West Deutsche Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Fishkin, J. S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Form, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hogwood, B.W. and Gunn, L. A. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Institute for Public Policy Research (1996) Citizens’ Juries: Towards Best Practice, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
  6. Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1994) Consensus Conferences A Review of the Danish, Dutch and UK Approaches to this Special Form of Technology Assessment, and an Assessment of the Options for a Proposed Swiss Consensus Conference, London: The Science Museum.Google Scholar
  7. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Amos, A. (1996) ‘The New Genetics and Health: Exploring Lay Perceptions’. A paper presented at the British Sociological Association Medical Sociology Conference, University of Edinburgh, 20–22 September 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Lemkow, L. (1992) Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Some European Perspectives, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
  9. Lenaghan, J. (1997) ‘Citizens’ Juries: Towards Best Practice’, British Journal of Health Care Management, Vol.3,No.1. pp 20–22.Google Scholar
  10. Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd Edn. Qualitative Research Methods Series Vol. 16. California: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Neuberger, J. (1994) ‘What Sort of Information Should Be Available to the Public in an Open Society’, in Marinker, M. (ed.) Controversies in Health Care Policies, London: BMJ Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  12. Turney, J. (1996) ‘Public Understanding of Science’, Lancet, Vol.347, 20 April, pp 1087–1090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams, S.J. and Calnan, M. (1996) ‘The ‘Limits’ of Medicalization?: Modern Medicine and the Lay Populace in ‘Late’ Modernity, Social Science and Medicine, Vol.42,No. 12, pp 1609–1620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Iredale
    • 1
  • Marcus Longley
    • 1
  1. 1.Welsh Institute for Health and Social CareUniversity of GlamorganPontypridd

Personalised recommendations