Section 5: Public dialogue

The Bioethics Council was commissioned by the Government to "promote and participate in public dialogue". This initiative provided an opportunity to explore new ways of holding conversations about cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnologies, and to move beyond the adversarial approach that came to dominate much of the public debate around genetic modification.

As the Council's first chair, Sir Paul Reeves, has commented: "We sense that dialogue is a relationship we enter into and not simply a method we understand. Knowledge is not a fixed thing. It is not out there waiting to be discovered; it is part of a process and arises out of interaction." [Speech to FRST Symposium on Impacts of Biotechnology, September 2003.]

The Bioethics Council has made a number of observations about the process of dialogue. These observations will inform our ongoing work. They may also be useful to others working in areas where there are strongly held views and conflicting values involved.

What we experienced

Framing the issues

For the Bioethics Council, the process of dialogue began as we listened to the essay writers and the participants in the focus groups. These contributions opened up the conversation in ways we had not fully anticipated. Our thinking was provoked and stretched, and we were challenged to consider wider questions than the immediate possibilities of a particular technology. It became clear that the particular technology of the use of human genes in other organisms raised philosophical and cultural issues that are at the core of human self-understanding at a time when technology gives us powerful choices.

The collection of essays served to emphasise that much of the unease with some biotechnologies goes well beyond pragmatic considerations of technical risk, to profound questions about the place of humans in the biosphere, the appropriate relationships of humans to the non-human world, and our use of technological power.

It became clear that discussions about the science - and even agreement about the nature of the technical risks involved - would be insufficient to resolve the public discussions. What is central to the conversations (while also often invisible) is a cultural, ethical and spiritual quest to understand what it might mean to be human at this point in human history. This is not a conversation separate from science, but in part a conversation generated by science as it gives humans different understandings of the biophysical world, and what we can achieve in it.

The Council's thinking was affected by what we heard, and the discussion document and pamphlet on Whakapapa and the Human Gene reflect the thinking that input stimulated.

This experience confirmed to us the value of initiating a conversation in a spirit of enquiry, seeking to open up a dialogue rather than seeking agreement to a position. We were struck by the willingness and generosity of those who contributed to that work.

The Council then sought to engage with various communities (as described in Section 2), and to promote and participate in a wider dialogue that both included and extended beyond those groups and individuals who have an established interest in the field.

Public participation: what worked

The face-to-face dialogues

We observed a high level of interest in public participation in dialogue on biotechnologies, and an appreciation of the opportunities this provided. There was a great willingness to participate and a desire for and appreciation of situations where issues could be unpacked and explored in a respectful way. People demonstrated an ability to enter into respectful dialogue with one another even when their views were extremely diverse. Participants wanted to be listened to, but were also able to listen to others. Many reported that the process had changed how they thought about the issues.

Processes of engagement/facilitation were, however, critical in establishing a respectful context for dialogue. Few had experience of constructive sustained conversation on such difficult issues, but skilled facilitation made a positive experience possible for most. The presence of Bioethics Council members at dialogue events was appreciated by many.

We observed the importance of people having access to the appropriate tools and contexts for them to be able to participate. These tools include information, language and understanding, help in articulating concepts, techniques for ensuring conversations that honour different approaches, and creating culturally appropriate situations to explore the significance of biotechnology for a person's own cultural identity and traditions.

Participants recognised and engaged with complexity, and were interested in testing views. One-liner responses were recognised as inadequate. People recognised that the complexity of the issues calls for additional democratic processes, with different processes for public engagement with political decision-making: they expected opportunities for input as well as access to information.

People expected their participation to make a difference - to the decisions taken, and to the understanding of others. Some were willing for respected others to participate on their behalf, but these needed to be trusted individuals, people with mana in their communities. However, people are also discriminating about their participation - there was a reluctance to engage in dialogue where there were any expectations of confrontation or advocacy-based discussions. More pressing political agendas took the attention of some (particularly Maori) who had indicated interest in participation.

We observed the value of established networks to draw people into dialogue. Sometimes participants may have trusted the individuals who approached them (e.g., members of their faith community) rather than the relatively unknown Council. People were more interested in attending events when there had been prior opportunity, often on a personal basis, to clarify that the purpose of the event was dialogue not advocacy.

A number of communities expressed surprise, and pleasure, at being invited to participate. Clearly, not all communities have the same expectation of contributing to New Zealand-wide processes.

Overall, the history of conflict and advocacy around genetic modification has made many wary of talking with others about the cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of biotechnology, and there is some cynicism about any possibility of making a difference to decision-making at governmental or business levels. A considerable investment in relationship building with various sectors was necessary, and the process was successful because of the willingness of participants to trust the Bioethics Council to facilitate processes that did not replicate the earlier experience of many in consultative processes.

The on-line discussion

The on-line discussion was a valuable initiative, and enabled dialogue in a way that the more traditional submissions do not. There was an exchange and development of ideas through the six weeks, and significant numbers of people 'listened in' to the conversation. People presented their views strongly, but with respect for others.

The public meetings

The on-line discussion was well supported, in contrast to the publicly advertised meeting, which was not well attended. This may reflect the history of the debates around genetic modification - there are fewer opportunities to explain that an event is dialogue rather than advocacy when one is relying on public advertising rather than direct invitation.

The submissions

The submissions process, although lacking any sense of conversation, was valuable for the Council to hear the views expressed, and the extent to which similar issues were highlighted by submitters and participants in more interactive processes. However, we recognise that, unlike an interactive process, the submissions process gives no opportunity for submitters to develop their thinking as they hear from others with different approaches to the issues.

The information sources

People were keen to have opportunities to develop their understanding of the issues. The material the Council produced was distributed widely. The initial essays from various interested parties were well read by some who participated in the dialogue events. The pamphlet on Whakapapa and the Human Gene was well received, the discussion document widely circulated, and there was stimulating discussion on the on-line discussion. We noted that people choose their sources of information with care, and select where they put their trust. There will continue to be a need for more information, including information presented in trustworthy and culturally appropriate ways.

Setting the stage

The Council has had a number of indications that the influence of the project has extended outside the immediate circle of participants. The essays have been promoted (e.g., to science teachers), and participants talked of taking the issues back to their communities and of drawing others into the dialogue process. Various media stories (e.g., in the Listener) have profiled the issues to others.

The Council has established itself with a range of communities in New Zealand, and built an initial network of contacts. This is a good starting point, and it looks forward to extending the dialogue into other sectors, including the business world.

Finally, it should be noted that the process of public dialogue is resource intensive. Considerable time is required to build the relationships and credibility required, to develop a project plan and discussion materials, and to contract facilitation and communication teams. This all takes considerable investment of skills as well as secretariat and financial resources. (See below for further discussion and recommendations on resource requirements.)

Benefits of dialogue

The Bioethics Council's approach to dialogue enabled the identification and exploration of the complex issues associated with the cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of the use of human genes in other organisms (as discussed in Sections 3 and 4).

In addition, the Bioethics Council recognises two other key benefits of the public dialogue - benefits that will be of on-going value. A different quality of conversation about biotechnology became possible, and the project has developed relationships and understandings that will contribute to future conversations about biotechnologies with cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions.

The quality of conversation

Conversations about the cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of biotechnology have often been fraught and confrontational. There have been strong advocates for particular positions, and the issues have often been the focus of adversarial political and regulatory processes. Such contexts are a key part of New Zealand political life, but rarely function to build understanding across cultural and political divides.

What a dialogue process was able to achieve, and add to the social mix, was the creation of social situations that enabled a different quality of conversation. In part this was because there was no need to defend a position, and no immediate case-by-case decision that rested on the outcome of the conversation. People were able to put their concerns on the table, to propose some responses or questions, and to enquire about the positions of others without any climate of attack. It was possible to explore new ideas and approaches, to try ideas on for size.

In such a context it was possible for people to acknowledge the values of other's views and perspectives, to hear the challenges to their own positions, and to think about the issues differently.

The Council observed a very positive response from most participants to such a context. People embraced the opportunity to explore complex ideas in a respectful and open manner.

There is enormous value in such situations for a participatory approach to democracy. In the context of biotechnology, citizens are more than consumers of the products, or voters at elections. We observed a strong desire to participate in identifying and exploring the values, perspectives and relationships that underlie government policy on particular issues. We also observed an expectation that this is an appropriate role for a citizen in a democracy.

The development of relationships and future capacity

Emerging biotechnologies are likely to continue to raise cultural, ethical and spiritual issues. There will continue to be challenging conversations and difficult decisions to be made by government and regulatory authorities.

The Bioethics Council believes that the experiences of dialogue will make a significant contribution to those future conversations.

• Relationships have been established across some divisions. People with quite opposing views now know each other as people rather than as symbols of those with whom they disagree. Having experienced respectful dialogue, they know it is possible to have constructive conversations together.
• Most participants were able to experience a respectful dialogue where hard issues were raised, and ideas were able to be explored. Respect did not have to be sacrificed to rigour. This experience and knowledge will be taken to other discussions and situations. People will know there are alternatives to confrontation and aggression, which had previously sidelined many from participation.

These learnings about the importance of relationship-building and experience of respectful dialogue need not be confined to issues associated with biotechnology. The Council would suggest they are also significant in other areas where there are widely divergent views and/or a history of conflict.

Resource requirements

Public dialogue does require a significant investment of time, energy and financial resources.

As a new organisation, the Council needed to develop its own profile and build relationships and credibility with a wide range of communities and interested groups. This took time, and will require a continuing investment of effort. We plan, in future projects, to build on the networks and relationships we have established.

The practicalities of a public dialogue process cannot be implemented overnight. It requires a considerable investment of time and expertise in preparing the resources, and it takes time to create and promote opportunities for public dialogue. The processes of dialogue require skilled facilitators, especially where there is a history of conflict. A large amount of time was required of Council members, particularly the members of the working group, and the secretariat needed to employ additional capacity.

We believe the investment in such work is a prudent one. Many of the conversations around cultural, ethical and spiritual issues are difficult - they raise challenging intellectual questions as well as passionate opinions - and they will continue to question approaches to policy that reduce issues to technical decisions. Many people expect their involvement in these conversations to be as citizens, not just as consumers. They expect the diversity of values and perspectives of the community to influence policy.

Some emerging technologies have the potential to be as controversial as any aspect of genetic modification. It will be helpful to government decision-making to have not only a well-informed community, but one where there are established and respectful relationships between those who disagree or approach the issues in different ways - and where people know that respectful dialogue is possible.

[ Previous Page | Next Page ]