Problems and Purpose

The UK's National DNA Database (NDNAD) is the largest per population of any country, and the powers of the police to take DNA without consent are more extensive than most countries. The Human Genetic Commission (HGC) are a public body tasked with advising the government on ethical and social aspects of genetics. The HGC commissioned a Citizen’s Inquiry that sought to engage the publics views on the forensic use of DNA and the information held by the NDNAD. [2,3]

The stated aims and objectives of the Citizens’ Inquiry were to

• Create an environment in which people from diverse backgrounds could come together as a group and develop their understanding of the main issues
• Create opportunities for genuine engagement between those voices that are rarely heard and easily drowned out, and those who advise the governments and set public policy agenda
• Increase awareness of the social and ethical challenges, opportunities and uncertainties provided by the forensic use of DNA
• Broaden the range of informed views to be fed into strategic policy decisions
• Visibly demonstrate that the public’s views and concerns have been heard and acted upon, particularly those who have experience of the use of the database.
• Provide a solid foundation on which to build a sustainable plan of dialogue and communication activities in this area of policy.
• Contribute towards a long-term increase in the involvement of the relevant actors in the use of DNA for forensic purposes in public engagement and dialogue.

Background History and Context

The National DNA Database (NDNAD) in England and Wales was established in 1995 (a separate database exists for Scotland although profiles are shared with the NDNAD). The database is populated using biological samples from three sources:

1. Samples found at a crime scene
2. Samples obtained compulsorily from people who are arrested by the police
3. Samples provided by volunteers, usually in order to exclude them from a criminal investigation

The police in England and Wales have powers to take DNA samples from anyone arrested or detained on suspicion of a wide variety of offences, from serious crimes like murder and rape to begging and poaching. These powers to take DNA without consent are much stronger than in any other country and it has been suggested they might be extended further to include offences such as speeding and dropping litter. [3]

The Human Genetic Commission (HGC) was established in 2000 to promote debate and engage the public on genetic issues. This includes advising the government on ethical issues surrounding the collection and use of DNA samples. After the law was amended in 2001, the UK NDNAD became the largest database in proportion to population of any country in the world. The creation and management of the NDNAD had not been subject to significant public or Parliamentary debate and a number of high profile legal stories in the media had brought the issue into sharp focus. 

The growing public and media interest reinforced HGC’s view that there should be a public dialogue to help it address some of the contentious issues involved. The HGC wanted to explore public attitudes so that this evidence could be incorporated into the advice it gave to the Department of Health. At an early stage in the Inquiry process, the HGC identified other Government departments, such as the Home Office, which also had questions that could be usefully addressed during the project. Therefore, representatives from a number of departments became engaged at various stages as the Inquiry progressed. 

The publication of the Inquiry marked the beginning of a phase of broader consultation and evidence gathering for the HGC, leading to a report containing the commissions advice, published in early 2009. [1]

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities 

The Citizens’ Inquiry was commissioned by the HGC in collaboration with the ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum and the Policy Ethics and Life Sciences (PEALS) Research centre. The project was co-funded by the Sciencewise programme.

A competitive tendering process to organise and facilitate the Inquiry was won in December 2007 by an independent organisation called Vis-à-Vis Research Consultancy Ltd. Vis-à-vis conducted the research on behalf of a working group coordinated by the Human Genetics Commission. [1]

Dr Max Farrar of Leeds Metropolitan University was responsible for the evaluation of this project. 

Cost of Project and Funding

• £100, 000 total
• Sciencewise-ERC funding: £50 000
• External funding: £50 000 (Wellcome Trust, ESRC Genomics Forum, HGC) [3]

Background of Involved Organisations

The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) was an advisory non-departmental public body that advised the UK Government on ethical issues and social aspects of genetics. The commission was created in 2000 after a review of the UK Government biotechnology advisory framework in 1999. The HGC commissioned and co-funded the project.

Sciencewise is a programme funded by the UK Government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It provides assistance to policy makers to carry out public dialogues to inform decision making on science and technology issues.

Vis-à-vis (VaV) are research consultants providing services ranging from qualitative research to policy and strategy development, evaluation, facilitation, training and consultation. [3]

The ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum was a research centre at the University of Edinburgh, operating between August 2004 and June 2013. It was part of the Genomics Network, a major initiative by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre is an academic research centre at Newcastle University.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Vis-à-vis working group: 7

Advisory Panel: 13

Inquiry Panel: 30 (25 by the end)

Expert speakers: 12[1,3]

The project was facilitated throughout by a Vis-à-vis working group consisting of seven individuals. This team oversaw the appointment of an advisory panel (AP). The AP consisted of 13 individuals, drawn from the public, private, voluntary, and community sectors. The team and the panel selected members of the public to participate in the citizens’ inquiry panel. The inquiry panel involved two groups, one in Birmingham and another in Glasgow. The groups made up a total of 30 people, each with personal experience of the NDNAD. Finally, there were 12 expert speakers selected to give evidence on the citizens’ inquiry. These speakers were selected on the basis of the requirements of the citizen inquiry, the recommendations of the AP and working group.

The inquiry panel involved a diverse group rather than aiming for demographic representation, focusing on bringing those most affected by the issues into the process. Young people and black and ethnic minority people were over represented in the Inquiry. Students and public sector workers were also heavily overrepresented. The panel was recruited through contacting around 250 groups, with around 50 people applying to take part. 30 people were eventually selected to take part in the process, while the other applicants were invited to take part as members of the audience. £10 was given to participants on attendance as a token of appreciation of their time.

Participants described the ethnic group they belonged to as follows: African Black (1), Asian (2), Black Caribbean (1), British (2), British Asian (1), British/Jamaican/Africa (1), Mixed (1), Pakistani (2), Scottish/English (1), Sikh (1), White (1), White British (4), White European (1), White Scottish (2), No response (2).

In terms of gender, 11 were male and 12 were female, which is representative of the population as a whole. 

The age range in my survey was as follows: age 15–20: 8, age 21–30: 5, age 31–40: 2, age 41–50: 5, age: 51–60: 1, age 61–70: 2. [2]

Methods and Tools Used

Vis-à-vis (VaV) designed and delivered a bespoke participatory process, drawing on three methodological approaches: the community jury, agenda setting dialogue, and public commissions. The HGC working group had indicative questions that it wanted participants to address, however efforts were made to ensure the scope and subject of the inquiry were co-determined by the participants themselves: by their information needs, by the nature of their concerns, and by their preferred ways of engaging with the issues and with each other. 

The contractor's report describes the inquiry’s use of a community-jury-style template, allowing space for panellists to hear from experts. It also describes the use of video conferencing between Scottish and English panels as an innovative and inclusive approach to participatory practices.

The process is described in four stages:

1. Planning, Selection and Recruitment
2. Individual Panel Sessions
3. Regional Visits
4. Residentials and Final report

Stage 2: Individual Panel Sessions

Each group met weekly over a period of six weeks to hear evidence from experts and discuss the issues involved. On some occasions, the groups in the two locations were joined together by a ‘live’ video link. VaV maintained a consistent facilitation team in each of the Glasgow and Birmingham locations as a means of developing a strong rapport with the panellists and a deeper understanding of their needs, concerns and views.

Stage 3: Regional visits

The purpose of these visits to regional community groups was to explore the broader dimensions of the National DNA Database in a different context.

Stage 4: Residentials and reports

Members of the inquiry panel were involved in residential visits to Birmingham and Glasgow; during this period, the findings of the inquiry were clarified and prepared for the report. The AP also oversaw the process and made recommendations to improve the impact of the report. [2]

The following techniques and tools were utilised in supporting the public dialogue:

• Systems thinking, introduced by facilitators through practical activities
• Pictorial representations, produced by participants to represent their understanding of DNA
• Mind maps and thematic grouping, mapping individual concerns about the topic, accounting for the reasons behind the recommendations in the final report, and a final map of individual participant’s journey’s through the process
• In-depth one-to-one interviews with all panellists were conducted to compose an accurate account of panel experiences and their views on the process and methodology
• Red card system during sessions with experts to allow participants and facilitators to ask questions and clarify terms
• Voting Sheets, allowing participants to ‘agree or disagree’
• A mock “question time” session involving experts in the final residential stage

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

In commissioning this Inquiry, the HGC set out an unrestricted list of issues and questions it wished to be covered: 

• How and from whom, if anyone, should DNA be taken for the National DNA Database?  
• How long should samples be kept and information held on the database (including views on the different approaches in Scotland compared to England and Wales)?  
• Who should have access to information contained on the database and for what reasons?  
• How should issues of consent be dealt with?  
• Views about the involvement of the private sector
• Views about how the database should be controlled and governed 
• Views about how the governing bodies should relate to the media and the wider public
• How should we assess value for money regarding the National DNA Database and the possibility of alternatives?  
• What are the perceived risks and benefits of the database?

Stage 1: Planning, selection, recruitment

Advisory panel

The first stage of the process brought together a diverse group of stakeholders who would act as an Advisory Panel (AP). The aims of the panel were to:

• Ensure the selection and recruitment process of the inquiry panel was fair and transparent
• Guide and advise facilitators on the best experts representing as many dimensions for the debate as possible
• Advise and, where possible, take forward the recommendations of the Inquiry panel

AP members were drawn from the public and private. Recognising the diversity of the AP, VaV provided a literature review and overview of the NDNAD. The AP met 3 times in London, Birmingham and Glasgow. The first meeting addressed the selection of the Inquiry Panel. The second meeting, scheduled midway through the inquiry, enabled comprehensive feedback and allowed the panel to advise VaV on future strategies and media engagement. All such advice was relayed to the Inquiry Panel. The third meeting allowed the AP to comment on the first draft of the Citizens’ Report. Although the AP’s remit did not extend to substantive content, they advised on structural changes and improving the report's impact. 

The location of Inquiry panels was decided in accordance with a number of factors: accessibility, facilities available, socio-economic and ethnicity based demographics and geography. Videoconferencing was used between locations to allow for engagement between panels, and facilitating this process constituted the greatest challenge to organisers identifying suitable venues. Following consideration of the needs and requirements of the Inquiry, Birmingham and Glasgow were selected. 

Inquiry Panel

VaV sought to ensure the panel was inclusive, with specific targets for 50% female, 50% black and ethnic minority (BME), 25% with a declared impairment, 25% under 20, 25% over 50. The 50% BME composition was deliberately disproportionate reflecting an effort to support marginalised groups. The precise breakdown of panellists is detailed in the contractors’ report.

The facilitation team contacted 250 groups across the two locations, meeting with 16 groups in Glasgow and 18 in Birmingham. Of 50 individuals interested in being panel members, 26 were initially selected, this figure was made up to 30 on the advice of the AP to ensure greater balance. 25 panellists participated through to completion, those not selected were given the opportunity to participate as audience members or nominate others to do so. 

Stage 2

Inquiry Panel Sessions

A facilitated induction day was held on consecutive days in Birmingham and Glasgow. The purpose of activities and discussions at these events were to:

• Allow panel members to get to know each other sufficiently to feel comfortable contradicting each other and admitting lack of knowledge
• Allow the panel members to engage in agenda setting dialogue
• Provide space for unmediated dialogue around panellists’ concerns
• Introduce methods such as system thinking to promote and encourage the challenging of existing systems and demonstrate how various issues are connected
• Allow panellists to explore and generate themes of interest around the NDNAD and come up with recommendations of the types of experts they would like to hear from

Participants were asked to put together pictorial representations of their understandings of DNA. The purpose of these activities was to encourage participants who felt they had no knowledge of the subject, to realise the depth and scope of their knowledge, and to re-affirm the perception that they were experts in their own right by virtue of their lived experience of the debates, issues and impact of DNA, conscious or otherwise. 

Participants were also asked to map their concerns around themes, the themes that emerged were:

• Access 
• Accuracy 
• How accurate is DNA and can it be corrupted? 
• Collection 
• Database and the law 
• Database facts 
• DNA and children 
• DNA database 
• Destroying the DNA database 
• Future laws 
• Government and the law 
• Medical uses of a database 
• Miscellaneous 
• Monitoring 
• Our process 
• Prosecutions 
• Rights of the people 
• Science 
• Security of access 
• Society’s rights and society 
• Storage 
• What is DNA? 

The initial day was also utilised to elaborate upon systems thinking. It was felt the impact of the Inquiry would benefit from its recommendations and conclusions taking into account the bigger picture surrounding NDNAD. This was demonstrated through a practical activity, and through activities requiring participants to map different experts, stakeholders and themes. For example, panellists were asked to silently pick two other panellists with whom they were going to forge imaginary connections, and to stand between them. Once panellists had positioned themselves, two or three were moved, and panellists were then asked to reposition themselves with their original connections. Each move generated ripples within the “system”. This exercise was then applied on paper to the different experts and themes related to the debates that panellists had already generated [2].

Weekly Inquiry Sessions

5 weekly sessions were held every Monday. Panellists heard and engaged with competing perspectives on and around the NDNAD and forensic use of DNA. £10 was given to participants on attendance as a token of appreciation of their time. 

Each expert was given 10-15 minutes to put forward their perspective. The panel was split into small groups of two or three to discuss what they had heard and generate questions. A red card system was introduced to allow facilitators and panellists to interrupt an expert whenever they said something that was not understood. The facilitator red card was used as a way of ensuring everyone understood even if panellists were too shy or uncomfortable to use it themselves.

Group discussions and question-and-answer sessions steered the discussion into many different directions, including individual interests in the subject matter, allowing the panel to identify and appreciate the multiple strands of the debate. 

Stage 3: Regional Visits

Upon completion of the weekly Inquiry sessions, each of the panels took part in a regional visit to explore the broader dimensions of the National DNA Database in a different context. The Birmingham panel visited some local community groups in the London Borough of Hackney and the Glasgow panel visited the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. The dates for the regional visits were timed to precede the first residential weekend in Birmingham (15–16 March) and the working group meeting in London (12 March). 

The Birmingham panel was given the option to select from three potential cities/ boroughs to visit: Hackney, Bradford, Salford. The panel voted for Hackney by an overwhelming majority. 

Over 100 voluntary, community and faith-based groups and individuals were contacted by email or telephone and invited (along with their service users and members) to participate in the Inquiry at the Trinity Centre, Beechwood Road, Hackney. There was a great deal of interest in the panel and the Inquiry process, particularly from within the local borough council; one particular councillor, Patrick Vernon, provided significant support and guidance. 

Due to a violent, gang related incident, there was a failed attempt to reschedule the meeting. On the morning of the visit, confirmation from around eight youth workers or community groups had been received and there was the expectation that around 30 people would attend a series of round-table discussions addressing seven questions: 

1. What are your feelings/views on the National DNA Database? 
2. Is the National DNA Database fair? 
3. What rights should an individual have over their own DNA?
4. Should everyone be on the National DNA Database? 
5. How accurate do you think DNA is? 
6. What rules should apply to keeping DNA? 
7. Who should be able to access the National DNA Database? 

Upon arrival, Councillor Patrick Vernon provided the panel with an overview of the communities in which he lived and worked. Of the expected attendance, only seven people attended the session; it was later discovered that, owing to the threat of violence, youth workers had been advised not to attend. Whether this advice had come from the police, the local authority or their superiors within youth services is unclear and unconfirmed. 

Scottish Parliament 

The aim of the Scottish Parliament visit was to ensure that the differences between English and Scottish legislation were adequately considered by the panellists. Sponsorship was secured through Labour MSP Bashir Ahmad. The visit, scheduled for Tuesday 11 March, took place during the lunch hour to work around MSP committee obligations. 

In order to ensure a fruitful discussion that could include any late arrivals, the structure of the meeting was kept simple and fluid. The MSPs arrived at different allocated times, and put forward their party’s perspective on the National DNA Database and the Scottish DNA database and answered panellists’ questions. 

The success of the trip was measured in accordance with panellist satisfaction levels and the degree to which they felt the differences between the databases in England and Scotland had been clarified. The level of dialogue and questions that the panellists put to the MSPs demonstrated the deeper understanding they had acquired through the Inquiry, and reaffirmed to the panellists their own learning. 

Stage 4: Residentials and report writing 

The aim of the two-day residential in Birmingham was to allow participants of both panels to come together, share their experiences and findings, and summarise the Inquiry into deliberations and practical recommendations. The Glasgow and Birmingham panellists were already acquainted with one another through the weekly Inquiry sessions and interaction via videoconferencing, but the residential was the first time they had met in person. A series of interactive activities was devised to gel the panels and allow them to begin sharing their experiences of the Inquiry thus far. Visually mind-mapping their DNA journeys set a comfortable tone of engagement and mutual learning among panellists. 

As the panellists had accumulated a significant amount of information over the preceding weeks, the weekend consisted of a range of activities to draw out their views and recommendations. 

On the second day of the residential, panellists were given the chance to invite back four experts from the Inquiry and take part in a mock Question Time session. Panellists nominated four experts from previous sessions whom they wished to question further, and the following experts attended: Satish Sekar (journalist), Derek Forrest (West Midlands Police), and Dr. Helen Wallace (GeneWatch). 

The aim of the Question Time session was to create an opportunity for panellists to ask for any clarification on outstanding concerns or questions. By asking experts to speak alongside one another rather than on an individual basis, panellists were able to gain a better perspective on supporting and competing views, and to gain multiple views on the same issue. 

A second session of Question Time was devised with representatives from the working group. Throughout the Inquiry, panellists had raised a number of questions with regard to the initiation, management and future of the Citizens’ Inquiry, and it was felt that direct access to the working group representatives would create a useful bridge of communication. 

Report Writing

Following the weekend residential, VaV spent two weeks putting together a draft version of the Citizens’ Report, to incorporate all the recommendations generated by the panellists. Although tasked with authoring the report, VaV aimed to construct it through the words of the panellists themselves. Mind maps, feedback and written documentation provided panellist accounts of the reasons behind recommendations. Limited time meant that it was not possible to utilise audio-visual accounts to inform this draft. In-depth one-to-one interviews with all panellists were conducted to compose an accurate account of panel experiences and their views on the process and methodology. 

Panellists were sent a draft copy of the report for feedback and comments one week prior to the second residential in Glasgow, where they would have the final opportunity to make any changes to their report and recommendations. 

The draft report was also sent to the Advisory Panel (AP) prior to the final meeting in Glasgow on 4 April. AP feedback centred on the need to add further context to the recommendations. 

Residential 2 - Glasgow

On the weekend of 5–6 April, panellists were brought together in Glasgow to conclude the DNA Inquiry and make final comments or changes to the report. Taking on board the suggestions from the AP, panellists were asked to revise and contextualise their recommendations. 

In small groups, panellists went through each recommendation, identifying any that overlapped or lacked clarity and either modifying or removing them. The wording of each recommendation was refined to ensure that it conveyed the meaning of the panel as accurately as possible. In these small groups, and working with the same recommendations, panellists focused on adding reasoning and context to each of the recommendations – drawing on personal experiences, examples, and expert opinions to support their viewpoints. 

The opportunity for panellists to critically assess their own recommendations at this stage of the process was extremely useful and insightful, allowing the group to appreciate, reflect and dissect their own work and to increase their level of ownership and understanding of the report as a whole. 

Once the revised recommendations had been finalised, all of them were separately placed around the room under their respective categories. Each recommendation had an ‘agree or disagree’ voting sheet attached. Voting was a crucial part of ensuring that the recommendations were seen to reflect the level of support they had in the Inquiry, as well as giving minority voices equal space for expression. 

The panel made a commitment to ensuring that each individual’s voice, viewpoint and recommendation would be treated with equal respect, and at the same time recognised the need to acknowledge the strength and support that some recommendations attracted over others. In so doing, the report is a true reflection of the sentiments of the panellists both individually and as a whole. In order to achieve this fully, the panel chose not to identify how many panellists each ‘majority’ or ‘minority’ vote reflected. 

Action Plan

Having contributed such a vast amount of time and energy, the panellists were reluctant to end the Inquiry with just a report. As a means of ensuring that they saw the potential for future action, one of the final stages of the residential focused on action planning. In small groups of three or four, panellists generated lists of future actions they would like to see. These lists were thematically grouped together to form the basis of an action plan and inserted into the Citizens’ Report.

Finally, the facilitation team organised a “DNA Oscars” which celebrated the journey and commitment of each individual, which is described in the contractors report as an amusing but emotional farewell. [2]

Findings/Recommendations

Unanimous recommendations 

There is a need for a nationwide public awareness campaign about the NDNAD that will reach all sections of the population. The campaign should communicate facts about DNA, the powers of the police to take DNA samples, and the consequences of having DNA samples taken.  

Information about the police powers to take a DNA sample should be given to people from whom DNA samples are taken. As a minimum, this should involve the provision of an information leaflet. 

There should be an independent body with broad membership, constituted by statute specifically to oversee the NDNAD. It should be a function of this body to keep the public informed about the NDNAD and it should produce an annual report. 

Independent guidance should be provided to juries in trials that involve DNA evidence before they hear from expert witnesses. This should include information about the role of DNA evidence in determining a conviction, and the limitations of DNA evidence.

Education at school level should include learning about DNA and its potential uses. In particular, there is a need for scientists to become involved in general education. 

Where DNA is taken from children, a full explanation should be given in age-appropriate terms. Police should ensure that parents or guardians are involved in the process.

Divided opinions 

Whilst a majority of participants concluded that there should not be a universal DNA database (on grounds of cost, utility, difficulty, and data security among other considerations), a minority ended up favouring a universal database, pointing to a number of potential benefits. A minority of participants concluded that, to populate a universal DNA database, DNA should be taken from everyone at birth. 

A majority of participants were opposed to the institution of an international forensic DNA database or automatic data sharing between the UK and other countries, although a minority supported such an initiative. 

However, a majority of participants felt that it should be a condition of international data sharing that it should be subject to high level agreements between participating countries in relation to data security and other safeguards, and the sharing of database profiles should be overseen by an international body and considered on a case-by-case basis.

A majority of participants concluded that the retention period for profiles on the database should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime for which the person to whom they relate was convicted. However, a minority concluded that once obtained, DNA profiles should be retained indefinitely or until the person’s death (or a suitable period thereafter).

A majority of participants concluded that the ethnic group of a person from whom a DNA sample was taken should not be recorded as this could contribute to discrimination, whereas a minority concluded that recording ethnic background assisted with policing and was necessary to support the monitoring of arrest and sampling practices. [2]  

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Policy Influence

• The Citizens Inquiry influenced the HGC’s conclusions and recommendations to the Government in its final report“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?”, published on 24 November 2009 and its subsequent advice to the Department of Health in December 2009.The Inquiry strengthened the potential impact of the HGC’s conclusions. The HGC view was that the inquiry gave ‘much more credibility and legitimacy’ to HGC conclusions by broadening the range of views taken into account and, therefore, ‘in terms of the quality and robustness’ of the recommendations 
• The results were acknowledged and taken into account in reports produced by the National DNA Strategy Board, the National Policing Improvement Agency, the NDNAD Ethics Group and the Home Office 
• The Government’s Green Paper “Keeping the right people on the DNA Database”, published in May 2009, re-elected some of the concerns identified in the Inquiry. 

The case study report records the following impacts on those involved in the process.

Impacts on policy makers and policy organisations 

• The Inquiry was used as an example of good practice by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which reflected some of the inquiry’s findings in the ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State’ report  
• The Inquiry raised the profile of the HGC and its work on the DNA database through media coverage of the Citizens’ Inquiry’s findings while also creating awareness among all stakeholder groups and interested publics on the use of DNA for forensic purposes  
• It provided a good foundation for future dialogues and communications in this field  
• The Inquiry strengthened the HGC’s reputation ‘as an organisation that engages with the public’ while also improving their internal skills and knowledge as it relates to commissioning and managing a national public dialogue. [3] 

Impacts on public participants 

• There was personal development for the citizen participants, who learned a lot about the subject as well as new skills – writing their own reports, presenting to the HGC (including in front of Japanese TV) and questioning experts  
• Participants highly valued the process and were more willing to participate in future as a result of taking part. They were very positive about the whole process and new relationships were built. [4]

Impacts on scientists/experts and other stakeholders 

• Increased expert and partner knowledge of dialogue processes

Wider impacts 

• The launch of the Inquiry results attracted considerable media interest, and helped to raise the overall level of public knowledge and understanding about the information held on the NDNAD and how it could be used  
• As a result of the Inquiry, a number of Government departments/ bodies worked together, including the HGC, Department of Health, the NDNAD Strategy Board and the Home Office. [3] 

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Lessons for future practice include: 

• Potential conflicts between project and funding partners over dialogue approaches need to be resolved at an early stage 
• The specification for contractors delivering the process should be tightly set out including exact deliverables, such as the level of analysis and reporting required 
• The scope and nature of the outputs should be determined before the dialogue begins 
• Preparation is vital in reaching diverse communities and in securing considered input from advisory group members 
• Live video-conferencing proved an effective way of ‘gelling’ the two groups together without the need to travel 
• The roles and responsibilities of the various commissioning and funding bodies should be made clear when results are presented to the media and public. [2]

See Also

Sciencewise

UK Public Engagement on Genomics, Genetics and Redesign of the Human Genetics Commission

References

[1] Farrar, M (2008) A Citizen’s Inquiry into the Forensic Use of DNA and the National DAN Database, Evaluation report (July 2008) 

[2] Murtuja, B, Adris, K, Ahmed, J (2008) A Citizens’ Inquiry into the Foresnic Use of DNA and the Naitonal DNA Database, Contractor’s Report (July 2008)

[3] Sciencewise (2010), Case Study: Forensic use of DNA, A Citizens’ Inquiry into the forensic use of genetic information and the National DNA Database

[4] Sciencewise (2017), Forensic use of DNA Citizens Enquiry- Background [ONLINE] Available at [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20170110142625/http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/forensic-use-of-dna-citizens-enquiry-background/]

External Links

Notes