Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 315-331

  Einsiedel, Edna F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347015884     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/301     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. See E. F. Einsiedel and D. Eastlick. "Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: a communications perspective." Science Communication 21, no. 4 (2000); D. Guston. "Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy." Science, Technology and Human Values 24, no. 4 (1999): 451-482; S. Joss. "Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?" in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe eds., S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
2. See E. F. Einsiedel and D. Eastlick. "Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: a communications perspective." Science Communication 21, no. 4 (2000); D. Guston. "Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy." Science, Technology and Human Values 24, no. 4 (1999): 451-482; S. Joss. "Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?" in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe eds., S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
3. See E. F. Einsiedel and D. Eastlick. "Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: a communications perspective." Science Communication 21, no. 4 (2000); D. Guston. "Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy." Science, Technology and Human Values 24, no. 4 (1999): 451-482; S. Joss. "Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?" in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe eds., S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
4. Health Canada, 2000. Press release. Ottawa, August 10.
5. Health Canada, 2000.
6. Expert Working Group on Xenotransplantation, Proposed Standards for Xenotransplantation (Ottawa, 1998).
7. J. Volpe, Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: A Canadian Approach. Report of the Standing Committee on Health (Ottawa: 1999).
8. Institute of Medicine, Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996): UK Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation Animal Tissue into Humans (London: Stationary office. 1997):
9. Institute of Medicine, Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996): UK Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation Animal Tissue into Humans (London: Stationary office. 1997):
10. OECD Working Party on Biotechnology. OECD/WHO Consultation on Xenotransplantation Surveillance: Summary Report (Paris: 2001).
11. The author was a member of this Public Advisory Group.
12. Canadian Public Health Association. Animal-to-Human Transplantation: Should Canada Proceed? A Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation (Ottawa: 2001).
13. The pilot study was conducted as part of a small research grant to the author and was carried out as a master's thesis. See J. Medlock, What's the Verdict? Evaluating a Citizens' Jury on Xenotransplantation. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, 2001. Research funds for this study were provided by the University Research Grants program.
14. E. F. Einsiedel, "Citizen verdicts: public participation on Xenotransplantation." Forthcoming.
15. A. Coote and J. Lenaghan, Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice (London: Institute of Public Policy Research, 1997): N. Crosby. "Citizens' juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions," in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, eds., O. Renn. T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995).
16. A. Coote and J. Lenaghan, Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice (London: Institute of Public Policy Research, 1997): N. Crosby. "Citizens' juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions," in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, eds., O. Renn. T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995).
17. See Coote and Lenaghan, Citizens' Juries; Crosby, "Citizens' juries."
18. See Coote and Lenaghan, Citizens' Juries; Crosby, "Citizens' juries."
19. This video called "Animal spare parts" appeared in 1999 on a weekly popular science program. The Nature of Things, hosted by well-known Canadian broadcaster and scientist, Dr. David Suzuki.
20. The same facilitator was used for all six fora.
21. Canadian Public Health Association, Animal-to-Human Transplantation.
22. See, for example, G. Rowe and L. Frewer, "Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation, Science, Technology and Human Values 25, no. 1 (2000): 3-29; S. Joss and J. Durant, Public Participation in Science.
23. See, for example, G. Rowe and L. Frewer, "Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation, Science, Technology and Human Values 25, no. 1 (2000): 3-29; S. Joss and J. Durant, Public Participation in Science.
24. Rowe and Frewer, "Public participation methods,"
25. W. Sewell and S. Phillips, "Models for the evaluation of public participation programs," Natural Resources Journal, 19(1979): 337-358.
26. A. Rip. T. Misa, and J. Schot, Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London: Pinter, 1995),
27. Rip, Misa, and Schot, Managing Technology in Society.
28. J. Elster, Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 1.
29. J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, vols. 1 and 2 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984).
30. T. Webler. "Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick," in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, eds., O. Renn, T. Webler. and P. Wiedemann (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 1995).
31. Rowe and Frewer, "Public participation methods"; D. Fiorino, "Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms." Science, Technology and Human Values 15, no. 2 (1990): 226-243; Webler, "Right discourse": Medlock. What's the Verdict?
32. Rowe and Frewer, "Public participation methods"; D. Fiorino, "Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms." Science, Technology and Human Values 15, no. 2 (1990): 226-243; Webler, "Right discourse": Medlock. What's the Verdict?
33. Rowe and Frewer, "Public participation methods"; D. Fiorino, "Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms." Science, Technology and Human Values 15, no. 2 (1990): 226-243; Webler, "Right discourse": Medlock. What's the Verdict?
34. Rowe and Frewer, "Public participation methods"; D. Fiorino, "Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms." Science, Technology and Human Values 15, no. 2 (1990): 226-243; Webler, "Right discourse": Medlock. What's the Verdict?
35. Medlock, What's the Verdict?
36. N. Kishchuk. An Evluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation. Evaluation Report to the Canadian Public Health Association (Ottawa: 2002).
37. The Jefferson Center has provided a budget range of $25.000 to $90.000, depending on such factors as geographic scope, number of participants, topic complexity, etc. We have picked the upper range because of the exploratory nature of this exercise, its inclusion of a national telephone survey, and a stakeholder mail survey. www.jeflersoncenter.org.
38. Kishchuk, An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation.
39. Kishchuk. An Evaluation of the Public Consulation on Xenotransplantation, p. 38,
40. CPHA, Animal-to-Human Transplantation.
41. These observations were made by some panelists interviewed for the evaluation. Kishchuk. An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 18.
42. Kishchuk, An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplanation.
43. Kishchuk, An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 19.
44. Kishchuk. An Evaluation of the Public Consulation on Xenotransplantation, p. 23.
45. Kishchuk. An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 23.
46. J. Wright, "Alternative interpretations of the same data: flaws in the process of consulting the Canadian public about xenotransplantation issues." Canadian Medical Association Journal, 167 (2002): 40-42.
47. Internet stories were those covered by on-line news dissemination organizations such as www.canoe.ea
48. A. Glasmeier, "Consensus conferences, the media, and public information in the Netherlands," in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, eds. S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
49. S. Joss. "Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?" in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, eds. S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
50. CPHA, Animal-to-Human Transplantation, p. v.
51. Habcrmas, Theory of Communicative Action.
52. E. F. Einsiedel, "Citizen voices: public participation on biotechnology." Politeia 17(2001): 63, 59-69: B. Wynne, "Public consultation". Presentation to Science and society: towards a democratic science. British Council, 10 October, 2000. www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/democraticscience.
53. E. F. Einsiedel, "Citizen voices: public participation on biotechnology." Politeia 17(2001): 63, 59-69: B. Wynne, "Public consultation". Presentation to Science and society: towards a democratic science. British Council, 10 October, 2000. www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/democraticscience.
54. F. Bach. "Animal spare parts: xenotransplantation science, ethics, publics and policy," American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium. Boston, Feb. 17, 2002.
55. L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962); also L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1978).
56. L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962); also L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1978).
57. G. Pask, Conversation, Cognition and learning (New York: Elsevier, 1975).
58. H. Kitschelt. "Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies." British Journal of Political Science 16.no. 1 (1986): 57-85; S. Tarrow. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998).
59. H. Kitschelt. "Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies." British Journal of Political Science 16.no. 1 (1986): 57-85; S. Tarrow. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998).
60. Rip, Misa. Schot, "Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society," in Managing Technology in Society: J. Schot. and A. Rip, "The past and future of constructive technology assessment." Technological forecasting and Social Change 54, nos. 2 & 3 (1997): 251-268.
61. Rip, Misa. Schot, "Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society," in Managing Technology in Society: J. Schot. and A. Rip, "The past and future of constructive technology assessment." Technological forecasting and Social Change 54, nos. 2 & 3 (1997): 251-268.