1 the democs project: playing games to improve democracy? dr donald bruce society, religion and...

1

The DEMOCS Project:

Playing Games to Improve Democracy?

Dr Donald Bruce

Society, Religion and Technology ProjectChurch of Scotland

working with the Democs Project of theNew Economics Foundation

2

Society Religion and Technology Project

• Set up in 1970 by the Church of Scotland : pioneering

• Full time scientific director

• Exploring ethical issues in current and future technology

• Christian ethical reflection applied to technology

• Seeking to engage those directly involved

• Links with research, industry, government/EC, regulators, NGOs

• Multi-disciplinary Expert Working Groups

• Various forms of public discussion

• Trying to stimulate balanced and informed debate

3

Engineering Genesis

Report of SRT Project multi-disciplinary working group on ethical and social issues of genetic engineering in non-human life-forms :

1st Edition 19982nd Edition in prep.2003

4

BIOTECHNOLOGY : WORLDS APART?

• SRT Submission to UK Government Nov. 1992 :

– emerging gap between science and public acceptance

– no longer an automatic approval from public

– need to take more account of public values in sci-tech policy

• Relative isolation of non-human biotechnology

from ethical discourse and from public accountability

• Disjunction over intrinsic values

• Disjunction over modes of rationality

• Different perspectives on risk

• Different judgements over what are the key criteria

5

Major issues facing 21st century democracy:

How can a plural society express its views and come to a mind

over complex and far-reaching issues

of specialist but sensitive technologies?

Can we engage general public in informed debate

and not just “the usual stakeholders”

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION IN TECHNOLOGY

6

• Few can respond :

• unless you belong to an organisation known to have an interest

• unless you are on the departmental list or regularly trawl websites

• timescales usually quite short :

• hard to make a considered response if not a professional in the field

• large number of consultations exceeds most people’s capacity

• Framing of issues by Gov’t Department may restrict the debate

• One-way process – no dialogue

• Assessment of responses is remote and anonymous

• Difficult to see how your views were taken into account

LIMITATIONS OF FORMAL CONSULTATIONS

7

• Flood of activity on participative methods

• Tool kit of different approaches – no universal best method

• Average citizen still does not normally takes part unless he/she :

• happens to be invited to a focus group

• happens to hear about a public meeting or consensus conference

• contributes remotely in an TV/Internet voting programme

• Need for approaches which bridge the gap to the ordinary

person

LIMITATIONS OF PARTICIPATIVE METHODS

8

• Devised by the New Economics Foundation + consultants

• Method : group discussion using cards – quasi-game

• Originally devised for Human Stem Cell research (2001-2)

• Since used for Genetic Testing kits and as part of GM Nation debate

• NEF and specialists design structure, write cards & briefing material

• Iterative and critical method to assess game design & content

• Aim: avoid “value-laden” inputs as far as possible

DEMOCS – Bridging the Gap DEliberative Meetings Organised by CitizenS

9

• For any small group to use :

• groups of friends, student classes, conference participants,

community/ church groups, ad hoc groups responding to advert

• can be used as part of formal Government consultation

• can be used to facilitate debate on a local issue

• Ideally without needing outside facilitation or “experts” present

• But needs a Co-ordinator to set up a game :

• who obtains the kit, reads briefing materials and instructions

• arranges when and where, invites people to the meeting

• acts as game master/dealer during the game

• co-ordinates the feed back of results and comments

DEMOCS – coming to a group near you …?

10

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME

11

12

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME - INTRODUCTION

13

• We are all equal – one person one voice/vote

• Your view matters – especially if you are the only one

• Speak your truth – but let everyone have a fair chance to speak

• Listeners are as important as speakers

• Seek to understand – rather than persuade

• Seek the wisdom of the group

• Notice when you feel surprised on confused

• Look for common ground – the best way forward

• ‘Yellow card’ when you get lost or feel someone is not playing fair

CONVERSATION GUIDELINES

14

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME – SCENARIO CARDS

15

•

VALUES

16

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME – INFORMATION CARDS

17

18

What genetic testing does

2/6

Detects carrier status in people

who may pass on a condition (such

as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell

disease) that they may not be affected by.

What genetic testing does

3/6

Detects genes which may lead to disease later in life.

Some diseases are very

predictable, others not.

What genetic testing does

4/6

Experts disagree about the likely usefulness or

predictiveness of genetic tests.

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

2/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

2/6

What genetic testing does

1/6Diagnoses

diseases (such as Huntington’s Disease or muscular

dystrophy, both inherited,

degenerative conditions).

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

1/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

1/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

3/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

3/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

4/6

FACT CARD

What genetic testing does

4/6

19

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME – ISSUE CARDS

20

21

• Introduction – ground rules for engaging

• Scenario Cards

• Information Cards

• Issues Cards

• Cluster Cards – grouping the various cards into concept(s)

• Output : Policy positions or Questionnaire

THE GAME – CLUSTERING THE DATA

22

23

24

• Method 1 : Voting on Policy Positions (Genetic Testing Kits) #

• Method 2 : Filling in Questionnaire (GM Nation Debate) *

# sent in by game Co-ordinator, collated by NEF & sent to HGC

* sent to Government privately by each participant

• Cluster card information gathered and analysed by NEF

if agreed, the analysed data is also sent to the official

body

• Feedback forms on game and content to improve/modify game

• website as ongoing resource for additional information

• Follow up with participants :

• have you followed up the issue?

• would you try another issue sometime?

THE GAME : OUTPUTS

25

VOTING ON POLICY POSITIONS

Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4

Support XX XXXX XXX

Acceptable XXX XX XX X

Not acceptable X X XXX XXXXX

Abstain XX X XX

26

• 138 kits sent; feedback from 35 games at 18 events, 220 people

• Mostly single game; sometime enough people for 2 or 3 games

• 1 event (Edinburgh, Tier 2 debate) 11 games played by 80 people

• 6 events facilitated, 12 self-facilitated

• 40% felt more able to take part in the GM Nation consultation

• 43% felt more confident to discuss GM

• 43% able to identify dilemmas but only 15% able resolvse them

GM CROPS DEMOCS : UPTAKE / FEEDBACK

27

The 5 cards most frequently used (abbreviated wording) :

• Information Cards

• US going to WTO to try to force EU to accept US GM food

• unintended effects of the genetic modification process

• Issue Cards

• multi-nationals exploit vulnerable poor countries and farmers

• some GM products could help poor farmers, if used sensitively

• GM is a tool in market competition of seed companies

GM CROPS DEMOCS : SOME RESULTS (1)

28

• We don’t know enough• It’s too uncertain (15 clusters - homogeneous)

• need more time and information (11 clusters)

• maybe we have to take some risks (5 clusters)

• Who benefits?• For benefit of big business (11 clusters - homogeneous)

• Sceptical that the Third World will gain (7 clusters)

• There may be benefits (5 clusters)

• Trade offs (3 clusters)

• We’re mucking about with nature • Biodiversity will suffer

• GM is unnatural (4 clusters)

• Miscellaneous (3 clusters each)What weight for science; Regulation; Don’t trust gov’t; Give people more say

GM CROPS DEMOCS : MAIN ISSUE CLUSTERS

29

• Reaches groups of the general public

• Effective for groups - informal or formal

• Flexible time and place – anywhere, any time

• Locally organised to suit the group

• Should not need experts or facilitators

• Outputs can be fed into central consultation

• Potential to build up a network of groups

for future consultation – participative democracy

• Work still in progress!

DEMOCS ADVANTAGES

30

• Embryo Stem Cells, Genetic Information

•Wellcome Trust project (also on Xenotransplantation)

• Genetic Testing Kits

• for a UK Human Genetics Commission consultation

• Genetically Modified Crops

• for the UK GM Nation Consultation

• Future applications?

• Radioactive Waste

• Wind Energy installations

• Planning Inquiries … etc … etc …

DEMOCS APPLICATIONS

31

Acknowledgements

Democs is a game devised by and copyright of

the New Economics Foundation

by Perry Walker, Sarah Higginson, Richard Murray

with the help of ConsultantsDonald Bruce, Tony Hodgson, Bob Sang and Tom Shakespeare

supported by funding from :

The Wellcome Trust

The Human Genetics Commission

COPUS

www. neweconomics.org

Perry.walker@neweconomics.org

32

UK GM Crops Democs Game

was written by

Donald and Ann Bruce of the Church of Scotland SRT Project

and Perry Walker of New Economics Foundation

supported by funding from COPUS

Used in 1 Tier 2 and 18 Tier 3 GM Nation Debate events, June–July 2003

with the agreement of the Steering Committee of the UK GM Debate

Results were analysed by Perry Walker and Sarah Higginson (NEF)

and reported to GM Debate Steering Committee August 2003

www. neweconomics.org

Perry.walker@neweconomics.org

www.srtp.org.uk

srtp@srtp.org.uk

33