‘Big Picture’ Manifesto: Democratic Policymaking in Contested Domains

  • Susan DoddsEmail author
  • Rachel A. Ankeny
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)


This essay articulates the overall approach utilized in this book for examining contentious policy questions associated with controversial and emerging issues in bioethics, which we term ‘Big Picture Bioethics.’ We explore conventional and more novel methodological tools that bioethics can use to evaluate and critique policy processes in these domains. We argue that more traditional bioethics has been limited in its capacity to provide answers to these sorts of questions, even though bioethicists are often consulted about such matters. We contend that there must be more adequate consideration of the range of structural, institutional, political, and cultural factors that shape both how a particular ethical challenge will be understood in a particular jurisdiction and the policy frameworks available for addressing the perceived need for policy. This chapter outlines a novel framework within which we can evaluate public policy making processes on the basis of their informed, democratic legitimacy, with particular attention to the considerations that must be in play when attempting to develop public participation and engagement that meet the requirements of deliberative democracy. It draws on both empirical information about opinions and values of a variety of publics, and the problematization of that empirical evidence as informed by debates in political theory. This approach is preferable because it allows us to avoid assumptions about the need for consensus, which are endemic to most of what is said about policymaking processes within liberal democracies that seek to attend to diversity. In addition, the approach advocated is non-substantive in the sense that it does not prescribe a particular moral framework, beyond a commitment to democratic legitimacy, and hence allows recognition of a range of moral views.


Empirical bioethics Deliberative democracy Big Picture Bioethics Public participation Policymaking 



This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-Making and Liberal Democracy” (DP 0556068) and the Universities of Tasmania and Adelaide.


  1. Ashcroft, R.E. 2003. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Analysis 11: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellucci, S., and S. Joss. 2002. Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. London: CSD.Google Scholar
  3. Benhabib, S. 1996. Democracy and difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braunack-Mayer, A., et al. 2010. Including the public in pandemic planning: A deliberative approach. BMC Public Health 10: 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowie, C., A. Richardson, and W. Sykes. 1995. Consulting the public about health service priorities. British Medical Journal 311: 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, C.B. 2005. Promises and perils of public deliberation: Contrasting two national bioethics commissions on embryonic stem cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 25: 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodds, S., and C. Thomson. 2006. Bioethics and democracy: Competing roles of national bioethics organisations. Bioethics 20: 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolan, P., and R. Cookson. 1999. Effects of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: Focus group study. British Medical Journal 318: 916–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Einseidel, E., and D.L. Eastlick. 2000. Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication 21: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elster, J. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishkin, J.S. 1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gottweis, H. 2008. Participation and the new governance of life. Biosocieties 3: 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2003. Deliberative democracy beyond process. In Debating deliberative democracy, ed. J.S. Fishkin and P. Laslett, 31–53. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. 1996. Three normative models of democracy. In Democracy and difference, ed. S. Benhabib, 21–30. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haimes, E. 2002. What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 16: 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasman, A. 2003. Eliciting reasons: Empirical methods in priority setting. Health Care Analysis 11: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Health Canada. 2012. The regulation of GM food. Government of Canada Accessed 23 Apr 2014.
  20. Hedgecoe, A.M. 2004. Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 18: 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmaster, B. 1992. Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics? Social Science and Medicine 35: 1421–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holm, S., et al. 1996. Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups. Journal of Medical Ethics 22: 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hope, T. 1999. Empirical medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 25: 219–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ivison, D. 2002. Postcolonial liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jasanoff, S. 1997. Civilisation and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science 6: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joss, S., and J. Durant (eds.). 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  28. Larmore, C. 1990. Political liberalism. Political Theory 18: 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laroux, T., M. Hirtle, and L.N. Fortin. 1998. An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ludlow, K., D.M. Bowman, and G.A. Hodge. 2007. Final report: Review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory frameworks. Melbourne: Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Monash University.Google Scholar
  31. Macedo, S. 1991. Liberal virtues: Citizenship, virtue and community in liberal constitutionalism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  32. Mossialos, E., and D. King. 1999. Citizens and rationing: Analysis of a European survey. Health Policy 49: 75–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mullen, P.M. 1999. Public involvement in health care priority setting: An overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expectations 2: 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008. Stem Cell Research. Accessed 30 Sept 2013.
  35. O’Doherty, J.K., and E. Einseidel. 2013. Public engagement and emerging technologies. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  36. Petersen, A., and D. Bowman. 2012. Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 12: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pickard, S. 1998. Citizenship and consumerism in health care: A critique of citizens’ juries. Social Policy & Administration 32: 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price, D. 2000. Choices without reasons: Citizens’ juries and policy evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics 26: 272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quedding, K., B. Chaar, and K. Williams. 2011. Emergency contraception in Australian community pharmacies: A simulated patient study. Contraception 83: 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rose, N. 2006. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 29: 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan, M., et al. 2001. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5: 1–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skene, L., I. Kerridge, B. Marshall, P. McCombe, and P. Schofield. 2008. The Lockhart committee: Developing policy through commitment to moral values, community and democratic processes. Journal of Law and Medicine 16: 132–138.Google Scholar
  45. Sunstein, C.R. 2003. The law of group polarization. In Debating deliberative democracy, ed. J.S. Fishkin and P. Laslett, 80–101. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, K.M.J., T.R. Raine, D. Green Foster, J.J. Speidel, P.D. Darney, C.D. Brindis, and C.C. Harper. 2013. Access to levonorgestrel emergency contraception: Science versus federal politics. Women’s Health 9: 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Torgersen, H., et al. 2002. Promises, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, ed. M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 21–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Waldron, J. 1993. Liberal rights: Collected papers 1981–1991. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of HumanitiesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.School of HumanitiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations