4. Summary and conclusions

Technologies of interest or concern: Other than for consumer products, participants’ interest in technologies was usually prompted by concern about the implications of its application for the public or particular groups. However, they also had an interest in technologies that had a personal resonance. Technologies that captured most attention related to genetic engineering, information and communication, and nuclear power. Concerns related to safety (particularly with the nuclear technologies), ethics (especially around genetic engineering), cultural integrity (also around genetic engineering), security, socialisation (particularly relating to ICT) and health.

Prior knowledge of stem cell research: In most cases participants in the focus groups had little prior knowledge of stem cell research other than news articles like the woman going to China for treatment. Exceptions included those who worked in the health area, some young parents who had researched the value of storing umbilical cord blood, one young man studying in the area and one or two people in most groups who enjoyed keeping up with technology developments generally. After being invited to a focus group discussion, some participants carried out research of their own, usually on the internet, and most reported tuning into news items, magazine articles, documentaries and the like in the time leading up to the discussions (and since). Normally, these information items would have ‘washed over’ them. They appreciated the information sent to them and the short session devoted to knowledge-sharing at the start of the discussions. 

Information and engagement in public discussion: There was universal agreement amongst focus group participants that public dialogue about technologies is very important. However, they assumed that, given their own predilections, not all people would be interested in participating in dialogue around all technologies. They thought that people are likely to be interested in participating if the technologies have a personal resonance or there are aspects of their application that concern them for ethical, environmental, health, security or other reasons. To engage in public dialogue processes participants would want access to general information about the technology in question with directions about where they could access more detailed, reliable and balanced information. The initial general information, which would ideally be made available through the full range of visual media, would need to be developed and/or distributed by people and organisations that the public had confidence in.

Having a say in the development of technologies: Participants generally agreed that the best time for public input into some categories of technologies is ‘the sooner the better’.  They were particularly determined that public dialogue was appropriately early in the development process if the application of the technology had ethical, cultural, health or safety implications. Conversely, they agreed that public dialogue was unnecessary in the development of technologies underpinning many consumer goods. However, more public dialogue during the developmental stages of some information and communication technologies that underpin every day consumer goods that have health or social implications would be valuable. Research into the implications of various technologies (or potential technologies) is needed to underpin judgments about when the public should become involved.

Raising the profile technologies/information distribution: Participants believed that the public needs to be informed about new technologies and their implications if they are going to participate meaningfully in any public dialogue process. The Bioethics Council or a similarly independent body is needed to underpin any information strategies that are implemented to increase the profile of particular technologies. They considered this independence essential to counterbalance any messages from self-interested parties with particular agendas. The Council or other independent bodies need to underpin their information dissemination strategies with research that informs them about the likely implications of the technologies under consideration and the potential winners and losers if they are applied. This will help in the design of the content and format of the messages, including any audience-targeting that may be necessary. As the participants continued to emphasise, the Council and others need to take advantage of advertising and broadcasting technologies and expertise to reach the intended audiences.

Bioethics Council roles and activities: The Bioethics Council needs to carry out a work programme that identifies the technologies that might have ethical or other implications that could interest or concern the public; compile and disseminate unbiased, accessible information about them; and instigate or facilitate public dialogue processes. In tandem with these roles, the Council needs to develop a communication strategy to increase its profile and explain what bioethics is.

[ Previous page | Next Page ]