Blueprint for a deliberative public forum on biobanking policy: Were theoretical principles achievable in practice?

Health Expectations

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 211-224

  Molster, Caron ^a   Maxwell, Susannah ^a   Youngs, Leanne ^a   Kyne, Gaenor ^a   Hope, Fiona ^a   Dawkins, Hugh ^a,b,c   O'Leary, Peter ^a,b,c,d  

^a DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (Australia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Deliberative; Engagement; Health; Policy; Public

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONSUMER; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MALE; MANAGEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; WESTERN AUSTRALIA; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84877652713     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00701.x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Dunkerley D, Glasner P. Empowering the public? Citizens' juries and the new genetic technologies. Critical Public Health, 1998; 8: 181-192.
2. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 282-293.
3. Einsiedel E. Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantations. Public Understanding of Science, 2002; 11: 315.
4. Avard D, Bucci L, Burgess M et al. Public health genomics and public participation: points to consider. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2009; 5: 1-21.
5. Fowler G, Allison K. Technology and citizenry: a model for public consultation in science policy formation. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 2008; 18: 56-69.
6. Burgess M. Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2004; 1: 4-13.
7. Tansey J, Burgess M. Democracy, ethics and genomics: introduction to a special issue. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 2006; 6: 1-8.
8. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 2003; 57: 239-251.
9. Burgess M, O'Doherty K, Secko D. Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Future Medicine, 2008; 5: 285-296.
10. Avard D, Gregoire G, Jean MS. Involving the public in public health genomics: a review of guidelines and policy statement. GenEdit, 2008; 6: 1-9.
11. Gastil J, Levine P. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: strategies for Effective Engagement in the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
12. Niemeyer S, Dryzek J. The ends of deliberation: meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review 2007-08 Winter;2:497-526.
13. Delli Carpini M, Cook F, Jacobs L. Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 2004; 7: 315-344.
14. Crowley K. Can deliberative democracy be practised? A sub-national policy pathway. Politics and Policy, 2009; 37: 17-30.
15. Ryfe DM. Does deliberative democracy work?Annual Review of Political Science, 2005; 9: 49-71.
16. Abelson J, Guavin FP. Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2006.
17. Rowe G, Frewer L. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 2000; 25: 3-29.
18. Papadopoulos Y, Warin P. Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?European Journal of Political Research, 2007; 46: 445-472.
19. Timotijevic L, Raats MM. Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food policy development. Health Policy, 2007; 82: 302-319.
20. Edwards PB, Hindmarsh R, Mercer H, Bond M, Rowland A. A three-stage evaluation of a deliberative event on climate change and transforming energy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2008; 4: 1-22, Article 6.
21. Abelson J, Forest P, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine, 2007; 64: 2115-2128.
22. Rowe G, Frewer L. Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values, 2004; 29: 512-556.
23. Office of Population Health Genomics. Guidelines for human biobanks, genetic research databases and associated data Perth. Department of Health WA; 2010.
24. Tutton R. Banking expectations: the promises and problems of biobanks. Personalized Medicine, 2007; 4: 463-469.
25. Corrigan O. Biobanks: can they overcome controversy and deliver on their promise to unravel the origins of common diseases?Medical Education, 2006; 40: 500-502.
26. Riegman PHJ, Dinjens WNM, Oosterhuis JW. Biobanking for interdisciplinary clinical research. Pathobiology, 2007; 74: 239-244.
27. Roden D, Pulley J, Basford M et al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalised medicine. Nature Publishing Group, 2008; 84: 362-369.
28. Shakespeare T. Disability, genetics and global justice. Social Policy & Society, 2006; 4: 87-95.
29. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews - Genetics, 2005; 6: 75-79.
30. Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews - Genetics, 2001; 2: 318-321.
31. Sharp R, Foster M. Community involvement in the ethical review of genetic research: lessons from American Indian and Alaskan native populations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002; 110: 145-148.
32. Otlowski M. Donor perspectives on issues associated with donation of genetic samples and information: an Australian viewpoint. Bioethical Inquiry, 2007; 4: 135-150.
33. Godard B, Schmidtke J, Cassiman J, Ayme S. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. European Journal of Human Genetics, 2003; 11 (Suppl. 2): S88-S122.
34. Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O'Leary P. Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics, 2009; 12: 84-91.
35. Schibeci R, Harwood J, Dietrich H. Community involvement in biotechnology policy? The Australian experience. Science Communication, 2006; 27: 429-443.
36. Burgess M, O'Doherty K, Secko D. Biobanking in BC: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Personalized Medicine, 2008; 5: 285-296.
37. Goodin RE, Dryzek JS. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society, 2006; 34: 219-244.
38. Longstaff H, Burgess M. Evaluating recruitment strategies for biobank deliberation. Health Law Review, 2008; 16: 12-15.
39. Longstaff H, Burgess MM. Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 2010; 19: 212-224.
40. O'Doherty K, Burgess M. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics, 2009; 12: 203-215.
41. Dodds S, Ankeny RA. Regulation of hESC research in Australia: promises and pitfalls for deliberative democratic approaches. Bioethical Inquiry, 2006; 3: 95-107.
42. O'Doherty KC, Hawkins A. Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue banking. Public Health Genomics, 2010; 13: 197-206.
43. Fleming J. Issues with tissues: perspectives of tissue bank donors and the public towards biobanks and related genetic research. in: Stranger M, ed. Human Biotechnology & Public Trust: Trends, Perceptions and Regulations. Hobart: Centre for Law and Genetics, p. 184-201, http://www.lawgenecentre.org/Publication%20PDF/Symposium%202006.pdf 2007.
44. Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C. Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE Project. Community Genetics, 2007; 10: 147-158.
45. Korts K. Becoming Masters of Our Genes: Public Acceptance of the Estonian Genome Project. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press, 2004.
46. Haddow G, Cunningham-Burley S, Bruce A, Parry S. Generation Scotland: consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database's development. Critical Public Health, 2008; 18: 139-149.
47. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG. Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think?. The European Journal of Public Health, 2006; 16: 433-440. Advanced Access published October 5 2005.
48. Human Genetics Commission. Inside information: balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. 2002.
49. Lemke A, Wolf W, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith M. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics, 2010; 16: 368-377.
50. People Science and Policy Ltd. Biobank UK: A question of trust: A consultation exploring and addressing questions of public trust: Prepared for The Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust 2002 March.
51. Petersen A. Securing our genetic health: engendering trust in UK biobank. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2005; 27: 271-292.
52. Petersen A. Biobanks' engagements: engendering trust or engineering consent?Genomics, Society and Policy, 2007; 3: 31-43.
53. McNamara B, Petersen A. Framing consent in the politics of engagement in the Australian biobanking project. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in Comparative Perspective. London/New York: Routledge, 2008: 194-209.
54. MacLean S, Burgess MM. In the public interest: assessing expert and stakeholder influence. Public Understanding of Science, 2010; 19: 486-496. Online publication.
55. Wilcox E. A lego model to help inform participants at the british columbia biobank deliberation. Health Law Review, 2008; 16: 9-11.
56. Walmsley HL. Mad scientists bend the frame of biobank governance in British Columbia. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2009; 5: 1-26, Article 6.
57. Ankeny RA, Dodds S. Hearing community voices: public engagement in Australian human embryo research policy 2005-2007. New Genetics and Society, 2008; 27: 217-232.
58. Abelson J, Guavin FP. Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications. Research Report. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2006.
59. Flick U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2006.
60. Dryzek J. The Empirical Turn in Deliberative Democracy. Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy; Australian National University, Canberra, 2008.
61. Kelly K. Participation and Depth of Deliberation as Components in Measuring Quality of Deliberation. Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy; Australian National University, Canberra, 2008.
62. Fung A. Deliberations darker side: six questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge. National Civic Review 2004 Winter: 93, 47-54.
63. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy of Public Affairs, 1997; 26: 303-350.