1. How to design and organize a public deliberation project Gy Larsen Ida-Elisabeth Andersen The Danish Board of Technology

2. How to design and organize a public deliberation project Outline presentation 1.What is a good topic? 2.What purpose does the project have? 3. How to select an issue? 4. Who are going to be involved? 5. What kind of methodology is possible and/or necessary?

3. 1. What is a good topic? examples New applications to gene technology – new gene plants Toxicology and Nanotechnology Sustainable urban living Surveillance and privacy Energy system – future development Brain Science – new development and uses

4. 2. The purpose of the project Proactive – Reactive TA upcoming technology regulation of technology dissemination and wider use of technology

5. Three dimensions of policy analysis Decision-makers; Networks; Citizens / Transparent procedures Create legitimate and accepted solutions Pragmatic Citizens; Stakeholders / Networking; Social learning; bridge building Uncover and share norms and values Normative Experts; Users / Operative aims Establish knowledge-base; suggest knowledge based solutions Cognitive Actors / functionsMethod demandDimension

6. Cognitive = Knowledge role examples Provide an overview of existing knowledge and new developments of the topic: threats and possibilities Put light on the topic from different professional and value perspectives Take on board the insight, experience and credibility of citizens and provide a platform to voices, seldom heard in the public room

7. Normative = Bridgebuilding role examples Create new fora for dialogue across professional and social groups Uncover and discuss norms and values Help actors reflect and communicate – help dialogue and bridgebuilding Introduce new agenda, new visions

8. Pragmatic = Policy making role examples Create legitimate and accepted solutions Produce recommendations for policy makers Propose new regulation – legislation Propose new procedures - new orientations for managing etc.

9. 3. How to select an issue Technological content Problem, conflict and need of decisions Essential for many people or for a segment Topical – timing Target group The organisation must have a role to play

10. ProblemToday the transport sector in the western part of the world represents nearly 2/3 of our total use of oil, and consumption is rising. It is necessary to search for alternatives. 2 TechnologyBioethanol, biodiesel, methanol, methan, hydrogen – espescially new advanced technologies for production of biofuels are alternatives. 2 ImportanceThe EU biofuel directive aims at growing use of biofuels to transport and sets objectives for the member countries. Denmark has decided to have a goal below the EU recommendation. 1 TimingToday 70% of all energy in EU is imported. This percentage is expected to rise to 98% in 2020. There is a need for action now. New fuels demand adaptation. 1 Aimed atResearch and fiscal area, politicians in the fields of traffic, energy and environment 1 Relevance for the Organisation Existing and new knowledge about the topic must be found and communicated to decisionmakers 1 Total rating 8

11. 4. Who should be involved? Is new knowledge and solutions needed? Do we know too little about public opinion? Is it time for new agenda setting? Is a conflict in society dealing with the issue? Do politicians need an advice? Or?

12. Considerations An expert group process Stakeholder involvement Citizen consultation Involving politicians Or?

13. Politicians Experts Stake- holders Citizens

14. Laypeople ”Lack of knowledge” – a vessel to be filled with expert information → No, laypeople do have knowledge and engagement in society Laypeople have their own, valuable perspective on science and technology

15. Goals when involving citizens Proactive discussions on upstream technologies Consultation on how to use technology Debate resistance in society against technology To involve the involved

16. Recruit and select participants PrincipleBenefitsCosts Repre- sentativity Sample represents population (demogr. – attitudes) Is accepted Can be compared with other studies or elections Very big group very expensive Difficult to ”handle” Mixed Example – Consensus Conference Define criteria – compose a group Variety, broad group all kinds of people Any size you want Possible to cheat Balanced Example – Scenario Workshop Equal representation of involved interests Pol. relevant debate Room for views which use to be marginalized or out Positions have to be defined/accepted risks of hidden agreements – social partnering

17. 5. What kind of methodology? Participation Type Role of participant Role projectlead Method example Survey/ interviews Source of information ResearcherChoice questionnaire Deliberative survey Evaluator ”voice” Organizer/a nalyst Focus groups, deliberative poll Constructive dialogue Stake holderOrganizer, mediator Future search/Scenario Workshop Public consultation Advisor, consultant OrganizerConsensus Conference

18. Roles of participation in TA Raising Knowledge Forming Attitudes Initialising Action Tech/ Science Aspects Scientific Assessment (options,con- sequences) Agenda setting (influence and stimulate public debate, Introduce visions etc.) Reframing of debate (propose new initiatives – find new orientation) Social Aspects Social Mapping (stake holders, conflicts) Mediation (help actors reflect and communicate – bridge building) Propose new decision making processes (new ways of governance – new debate) Policy aspects Policy analysis (explore objectives, assess policies) Restructure policy debate Decisions about: Pol innovations New legislation

19. Be aware of pitfalls Do not underestimate citizens or other participants Hidden conflicts Too narrow and unreflected use of methods Method not suitable for local problems Don’t forget to involve some important actors/stakeholders It is a mistake to avoid critical voices