Deliberation and Education – blog.Bioethics.gov https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog The blog of the 2009 - 2017 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Mon, 09 Jan 2017 23:23:29 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Looking Back at the Bioethics Commission’s Blog https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/12/05/looking-back-at-the-bioethics-commissions-blog/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/12/05/looking-back-at-the-bioethics-commissions-blog/#respond Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:00:04 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2125 Throughout its tenure, the Bioethics Commission has maintained an active digital presence to connect with a global audience. A major component of this has been through its blog. This final blog post reflects on the role the blog has played in disseminating the Bioethics Commission’s work.first-blog

Former Bioethics Commission Executive Director Valerie Bonham launched the commission’s blog on November 15, 2010, announcing that the staff would be liveblogging during Meeting Three in Atlanta. From that meeting onward, Bioethics Commission staff continued to blog live from the Bioethics Commission’s meetings, held throughout the country in cities including Washington DC, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston. Meeting posts highlighted salient points of discussion as they occurred during the public meetings. For example, during Meeting Three, a blog post outlined the members’ deliberations regarding the risks and benefits of synthetic biology. During Meeting Eighteen, which focused on ethical issues in neuroscience, a blog post highlighted some of the discussion about the ethical challenges in neuroscience research. The Bioethics Commission also used blog posts to distill complex topics that arose during meetings. During Meeting Twelve, which focused on pediatric medical countermeasure research, a blog post presented a simplified structure of some of the federal regulations concerning pediatric research.

The commission’s blog also highlighted and explained the impact of the commission’s work. For example, during the commission’s tenure, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the Common Rule—the regulations that govern the ethical conduct of federally supported human subjects research—was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015. Elements of the commission’s work were included in this notice. In September and October 2015, the Bioethics Commission released a series of blog posts that described some of the relevant inclusions in the NPRM, and explained their significance.

The Bioethics Commission also used the blog to share its outreach activities and initiatives with a broad readership. For example, when Bioethics Commission staff attended the annual meeting of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities in October 2015, a blog post highlighted the commission’s outreach efforts, and included answers to frequently asked questions that staff members fielded while at the conference. When the Bioethics Commission presented at the White House BRAIN conference, a blog post shared Executive Director Lisa M. Lee’s remarks. On June 8, 2016, Col. Nelson Michael gave an interview with the bioethics news site BioEdge, and the Bioethics Commission staff wrote a two-part blog post on some of the issues Col. Michael raised regarding democratic deliberation and ethics education. Blog posts were also written to describe publications in academic journals by Commission members and staff. A blog post shared a commentary written by Bioethics Commission Vice Ch
air Dr. James Wagner, who wrote about the importance of early ethics education.

During its tenure, the Bioethics Commission produced over 65 educational materials, and used the blog to picture1announce the availability of new educational materials, including user guides, primers, classroom discussion guides, and deliberative scenarios. Blog posts also helped outline how to use the educational materials. Blog posts also highlighted topics including innovations in ethics education, and the importance of civic engagement. The Bioethics Commission also used the blog to announce and promote its podcast series Ethically Sound, a 10-episode series that focuses on some of the ethical issues raised in the commission’s reports.
Readers can access previous blog posts, educational materials, the podcast series Ethically Sound, along with all of the Bioethics Commission’s reports and related materials at bioethics.gov. On behalf of the Bioethics Commission, we thank our readers for their continued interest in the work of the commission.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/12/05/looking-back-at-the-bioethics-commissions-blog/feed/ 0
Ethically Sound podcast: Full series now available https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/23/ethically-sound-podcast-full-series-now-available/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/23/ethically-sound-podcast-full-series-now-available/#respond Wed, 23 Nov 2016 16:00:54 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2113 bioethics_twitter-v3-08Since the Bioethics Commission was established by Executive Order by President Obama, the Bioethics Commission has released 10 reports on a variety of ethically challenging topics, and has provided recommendations on topics ranging from synthetic biology and neuroscience to whole genome sequencing and public health preparedness. Over the last 10 weeks, the Bioethics Commission has released its 10-episode podcast series Ethically Sound, based on the work produced by the Bioethics Commission. Each episode in the series focuses on a particularly salient ethical challenge that was addressed by the Bioethics Commission, and illustrates how these ethical challenges impact our society. All 10 episodes of Ethically Sound are now available on our website.

Each of the 10 podcasts opens with an introductory vignette from a speaker closely associated with the topic, who recounts a personal or professional experience related to the ethical issues addressed in the particular report. Each episode also features an interview with a member of the Bioethics Commission, who describes how the Commission addressed the topic. Ethically Sound is hosted and narrated by the Commission’s former Communications Director Hillary Wicai Viers.

The Bioethics Commission has also released a new educational resource related to the podcasts, “Ethically Sound Discussion Guide: Podcast Series Discussion Questions.” This discussion guide is designed to facilitate classroom or seminar discussion.  The discussion guide, and all of the Bioethics Commission’s educational materials, can be downloaded for free and adapted for all levels of learners.

This podcast series is the Bioethics Commission’s most recent project aimed at bringing the Commission’s work to a variety of audiences. The Ethically Sound series is now available on our website, as well as on our SoundCloud, YouTube and iTunes pages. Listeners can follow the podcast using #EthicallySound or by following us on Twitter @bioethicsgov. The Bioethics Commission’s reports can be downloaded for free at www.bioethics.gov/studies, and the Commission’s educational materials can be accessed and downloaded for free at www.bioethics.gov/education. We welcome comments and feedback at info@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/23/ethically-sound-podcast-full-series-now-available/feed/ 0
Ethically Sound Episode 10: Charting a Path Forward https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/21/ethically-sound-episode-10-charting-a-path-forward/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/21/ethically-sound-episode-10-charting-a-path-forward/#respond Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:00:01 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2052 The tenth and final episode of the Bioethics Commission’s podcast series, Ethically Sound, is now available. Today’s episode, “Charting a Path previewscreensnapz001Forward,” focuses on the Bioethics Commission’s two most recent public meetings, during which the Bioethics Commission reflected on the impact of past, present, and future of national bioethics advisory bodies.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. has had a succession of national advisory bodies to provide Congress or the President with expert advice on topics related to bioethics. Other countries also benefit from advisory bodies that provide advice about bioethi
cal issues. During its twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth public meetings, the Bioethics Commission heard
from members of past bioethics advisory bodies, representatives of international bioethics bodies, as well as officials who have been advised by such bodies.

The podcast opens with a narrative from Alex Capron, Professor of Law and Medicine at the University of Southern California. Mr. Capron chaired the Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee from 1987 to 1990, and served on President William J. Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Body from 1996 to 2001. Mr. Capron presented before the commission during Meeting 26, and reflected on his experiences with both of these advisory bodies. In the podcast, Mr. Capron recounts a challenging experience he faced while describing the disciplinary backgrounds of bioethics advisory body staff to policymakers unfamiliar with the interdisciplinary nature of bioethics.

The podcast also includes an interview with Bioethics Commission member Dr. Daniel Sulmasy, Kilbride-Clinton Chair in Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago. The interview was conducted by Hillary Wicai Viers, a former Communications Director with the Bioethics Commission staff. Dr. Sulmasy discussed the importance of looking to past commissions, the legacy of the current Bioethics Commission, and the pressing ethical issues that we could face in the future. Regarding the importance of looking to past bioethics commissions, Dr. Sulmasy said “The past is applicable because many of the most basic ethical questions are perennial. We may encounter new problems, but the most fundamental questions about human finitude, the meaning of human progress, the role of balancing relief of suffering versus other ethical principles, questions of cost, and justice are always with us.”

Episode 10, and all of the other Ethically Sound episodes, is now available on our website, as well as on our SoundCloud, YouTube and iTunes pages. Listeners can follow the podcast using #EthicallySound or by following us on Twitter @bioethicsgov. Stay tuned for our upcoming educational resource, a set of discussion questions to accompany the Ethically Sound series that can be used in a classroom or seminar setting. We welcome comments and feedback at info@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/21/ethically-sound-episode-10-charting-a-path-forward/feed/ 0
Ethically Sound Episode 9: Bioethics for Every Generation https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/07/ethically-sound-episode-9-every-generation/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/07/ethically-sound-episode-9-every-generation/#respond Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:53:07 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2048 ep-9The ninth episode of the Bioethics Commission’s podcast series, Ethically Sound, is now available. This 10-episode series brings the diverse body of the Commission’s work to a broad audience. Today’s episode, “Bioethics for Every Generation,” focuses on the Commission’s legacy report Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science, and Technology, which outlines how democratic deliberation and ethics education can be used to address challenging ethical issues in health, science, and technology.

The Bioethics Commission has addressed the importance of democratic deliberation and ethics education in previous reports. In its first report, New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, democratic deliberation—a method of collaborative decision making that calls for mutual respect and reason-giving—is one of the five ethical tenets used to assess emerging technologies. In multiple reports, the Bioethics Commission has recommended incorporating ethics education into all stages of training for scientists and health care providers. The report Bioethics for Every Generation describes democratic deliberation and ethics education as mutually reinforcing processes that can help foster a more civic-minded society.

The podcast opens with a narrative from Dr. Lisa M. Lee, Executive Director of the Bioethics Commission. Dr. Lee recounts a challenging experience early in her public health career where she was asked to justify a particular policy. Regarding the importance of ethics in health and science, Dr. Lee said “Science and technology provide us with great tools for improving our experience as human beings, and it is up to us to consider how we ought to use these tools. It is these two parts—the can that science offers and the should that ethics offers—that are critical elements of the decisions we make in health and science.”

The podcast then includes an interview with Dr. Amy Gutmann, President of the University of Pennsylvania and Chair of the Bioethics Commission. The interview is conducted by Hillary Wicai Viers, a former Communications Director with the Bioethics Commission staff. Dr. Gutmann discussed how the Bioethics Commission’s commitment to democratic deliberation allowed it to address ethically challenging topics, and emphasized the importance of ethics education. Regarding the importance of ethics education, Dr. Gutmann said “Ethics education does not teach students what to think, which many parents and educators might worry about. Rather, ethics education helps students learn how to think, and helps students approach ethically challenging topics in a thoughtful and reflective way.”

Episode 9 is now available on our website, as well as on our SoundCloud, YouTube and iTunes pages. In addition to this episode, listeners can access the first eight episodes of Ethically Sound. Listeners can follow the podcast using #EthicallySound or by following us on Twitter @bioethicsgov. Stay tuned for the tenth and final episode in our series, “Charting a Path Forward,” which will be available on November 21, 2016. We welcome comments and feedback at info@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/07/ethically-sound-episode-9-every-generation/feed/ 0
Introducing New Deliberative Scenario and Facilitator Guide from the Bioethics Commission: “MMR Vaccination in a Local Immigrant Community” https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/02/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-mmr-vaccination-in-a-local-immigrant-community/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/02/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-mmr-vaccination-in-a-local-immigrant-community/#respond Wed, 02 Nov 2016 05:00:00 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2002 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released two new educational materials, Deliberative Scenario: MMR Vaccination in a Local Immigrant Community and Facilitator Guide for Deliberative Scenario: MMR Vaccination in a Local Immigrant Community. This new deliberative scenario and facilitator guide build on the work of two of the Bioethics Commission’s reports, Ethics and Ebola: Public Health Planning and Response (Ethics and Ebola) and Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science, and Technology.

This deliberative scenario and facilitator guide draw from contemporary ethical questions and are designed to provide public health professionals with the means to integrate bioethics into public health practice. As outlined in Bioethics for Every Generation, democratic deliberation is a method of decision making that can help groups to identify reasonable options for action when faced with questions or complex topics without a clear consensus about the way forward.

Deliberative Scenario: MMR Vaccination in a Local Immigrant Community highlights contemporary ethical questions about the administration of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccinations in immigrant communities, including challenges that might arise when MMR vaccination requirements are linked to access to community resources. This deliberative scenario presents an outline of ethically challenging situations that can be incorporated into deliberation process, providing public health professionals with the opportunity to practice the decision-making method.

The Facilitator Guide for Deliberative Scenario: MMR Vaccination in a Local Immigrant Community includes specific instructions for facilitating deliberations for the situations outlined in this deliberative scenario. This facilitator guide provides public health professionals with specific instructions for facilitating deliberations about the potential social, economic, and cultural effects of vaccination policies on an immigrant community. This guide also includes additional reading based on the roles played in the deliberation.

This new deliberative scenario and facilitator guide introduce public health professionals and public health ethics committees to the process of democratic deliberation. It highlights the benefits of democratic deliberation in developing and implementing public health policies and programs.

These new educational resources are part of a collection of over 60 educational materials that the Bioethics Commission has developed throughout its tenure to support the integration of bioethics education in many disciplines in traditional and nontraditional educational and professional settings. This collection includes a series of teaching tools for students and professionals at various educational levels, including topic-based modules, case studies, deliberative scenarios, videos, webinars, and empirical research resources, that address a variety of ethical issues related to public health emergencies, whole genome sequencing, human subjects research, and more.

All of these resources are available for free download and can be integrated into or adapted for existing science, ethics, or clinical curricula. All Bioethics Commission educational materials are free and available at www.bioethics.gov/education. The Bioethics Commission encourages feedback on its materials at education@bioethics.gov.

 

 

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/11/02/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-mmr-vaccination-in-a-local-immigrant-community/feed/ 0
Introducing New Deliberative Scenario and Facilitator Guide from the Bioethics Commission: “Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Policy for a Local Public Health Department” https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/26/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-seasonal-influenza-vaccination-policy-for-a-local-public-health-department/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/26/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-seasonal-influenza-vaccination-policy-for-a-local-public-health-department/#respond Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:00:08 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2004 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released two new educational materials, Deliberative Scenario: Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Policy for a Local Public Health Department and Facilitator Guide for Deliberative Scenario: Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Policy for a Local Public Health Department. This new deliberative scenario and facilitator guide build on the work of two of the Bioethics Commission’s reports, Ethics and Ebola: Public Health Planning and Response (Ethics and Ebola) and Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science, and Technology.

This deliberative scenario and facilitator guide draw from contemporary ethical questions, and are designed to provide public health professionals with the tools to integrate bioethics into public health practice. It highlights contemporary ethical questions about policies related to the administration of seasonal influenza vaccinations for employees in local public health departments, and whether or not employees should be required to receive vaccines annually.

This deliberative scenario presents an outline of ethically challenging situations that can be incorporated into deliberation process, and provides an opportunity to practice the method of deliberation decision-making. The Facilitator Guide for Deliberative Scenario: Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Policy for a Local Public Health Department includes specific instructions for facilitating deliberations for the situations outlined in this deliberative scenario.

As outlined in Bioethics for Every Generation, democratic deliberation is a method of decision making that can help groups to identify reasonable options for action when faced with questions or complex topics without a clear consensus about the way forward. This facilitator guide provides public health professionals with specific instructions for facilitating deliberations about a challenging decision and the potential impacts of policy changes on various stakeholders. The guide also includes additional reading based on the roles played in the deliberation.

This new deliberative scenario and facilitator guide introduce public health professionals and public health ethics committees to the process of democratic deliberation, as well as to highlight the benefits that democratic deliberation can have in policymaking or the implementation of public health programs.

These new educational resources are a part of a collection of over 60 educational materials that the Bioethics Commission has developed throughout its tenure to support the integration of bioethics education in many disciplines in traditional and nontraditional educational and professional settings. This collection includes a series of teaching tools for students and professionals at various educational levels, including topic-based modules, case studies, deliberative scenarios, videos, webinars, and empirical research resources, that address a variety of ethical issues related to public health emergencies, whole genome sequencing, human subjects research, and more.

All of these resources are available for free download, and can be integrated into or adapted for existing or new curricula. All Bioethics Commission educational materials are free and available at www.bioethics.gov/education. The Bioethics Commission encourages feedback on its materials at education@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/26/introducing-new-deliberative-scenario-and-facilitator-guide-from-the-bioethics-commission-seasonal-influenza-vaccination-policy-for-a-local-public-health-department/feed/ 0
“Introducing New Guide to Democratic Deliberation for Public Health Ethics Professionals” https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/18/introducing-new-guide-to-democratic-deliberation-for-public-health-ethics-professionals/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/18/introducing-new-guide-to-democratic-deliberation-for-public-health-ethics-professionals/#respond Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:00:01 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=2006 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released a set of new educational materials focused on democratic deliberation in public health ethics. This set of training materials builds on the content of the Bioethics Commission’s report, Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science, and Technology.

As outlined in Bioethics for Every Generation, democratic deliberation is a method of decision making that can help groups to identify reasonable options for action when faced with questions or complex topics without a clear consensus about the way forward. The new educational materials are designed for public health professionals, including professionals on public health ethics committees, who often face such issues in their daily work. The Guide to Deliberation for Public Health Professionals provides a condensed overview of the purposes and process of democratic deliberation, adapted from Appendix 1 of Bioethics for Every Generation.

The Bioethics Commission has also released two sets of deliberative scenarios and facilitator guides focusing on examples of how democratic deliberation might be used in relation to scenarios public health professionals are likely to encounter. One set of materials presents a scenario related to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination policies in an immigrant community. The other describes a scenario focused on seasonal influenza vaccination policies for employees of a local health department.

The deliberative scenarios also provide suggestions for additional reading. The facilitator guides provide specific instructions for facilitating the deliberation, including questions to guide and shape the discussion and develop and present policy recommendations. In addition, the facilitator guide provides additional reading based on the role played in the deliberation, for example, whether one is adopting the perspective of a public health nurse or a member of the affected community.

The deliberative scenarios and facilitator guides draw from contemporary ethical questions and are designed to provide public health professionals with tools to integrate bioethics in public health practice.

The new materials are designed to introduce public health professionals and public health ethics committees to the process of democratic deliberation and highlight the benefits that democratic deliberation in developing public health policy and practice.

All of these resources are available for free download, and can be integrated into or adapted for existing or new curricula. All Bioethics Commission educational materials are free and available at www.bioethics.gov/education. The Bioethics Commission encourages feedback on its materials at education@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/10/18/introducing-new-guide-to-democratic-deliberation-for-public-health-ethics-professionals/feed/ 0
Exploring Democratic Deliberation https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/28/exploring-democratic-deliberation/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/28/exploring-democratic-deliberation/#respond Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:09:38 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1959 Bioethics Commission member Col. Nelson Michael was interviewed in June by BioEdge, a bioethics news site, about the Commission’s capstone report Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science and Technology. In a previous post, we discussed Col. Michael’s discussion of lifelong bioethics education. This post will focus on Col. Michael’s discussion of democratic deliberation, which the Commission recommends in its report.

Democratic deliberation is a method of decision-making that brings diverse voices to the table, and promotes mutual respect and reason-giving in order to identify areas of agreement to facilitate solutions to challenging problems. The goal of reaching consensus on a way forward distinguishes deliberation from debate, which involves participants trying to persuade others that their arguments are correct and more compelling than their fellow participants’ arguments. While participants are encouraged to use facts and reasons to support their various positions during the deliberative process, democratic deliberation is intended to be a mutually respectful process, with all participants entering the deliberation with an open mind and a willingness to consider other perspectives.

Xavier Symons, the BioEdge interviewer, asked Col. Michael about the criticism that democratic deliberation “smother[ed] substantial debate in focus groups and reports,” citing the debates and public deliberation that occurred when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the United Kingdom considered the ethical implications of transferring a healthy nucleus from a mother’s egg to a donor egg in order to avoid certain mitochondrial diseases. Col. Michael responded by noting that “the discussions were facilitated using democratic deliberation…this distinguished those conversations from the kind of debates we are more accustomed to. Democratic deliberation is not foolproof—limitations and challenges exist with every method of decision making. However…deliberation has many advantages. It provides a morally and practically defensible way for addressing hyperpartisan gridlock. It also promotes mutual respect rather than fueling the sharp polarization and heightened differences that make consensus and legitimate outcomes nearly impossible in our current context.”

The Bioethics Commission outlined steps that decision-making bodies can take to engage in democratic deliberation. Deliberation begins with an open question, for which there might be numerous possible paths forward. The Commission emphasized that it is preferable to conduct deliberations with enough time to affect policy decisions. For example, when the Commission considered whether testing an anthrax vaccine on children was ethically permissible, it did so at a time when the country was not facing an anthrax attack, which gave the Commission time to consult with experts, reflect on the empirical and moral dimensions, and make reasoned recommendations. However, the luxury of time is not always possible in emergency circumstances. The Commission encouraged public officials to anticipate as much as possible potential ethical challenges that could arise during emergency situations and address these challenges in advance, since deliberation might not be possible in the midst of a crisis. In order to fully consider the implications of the question at hand, deliberation calls for consulting experts and members of the public alike. Stakeholders from all walks of life, whether they are scholars in the field or community members and leaders, have an important perspective to contribute, and it is necessary to consider these varied perspectives to come to a solution. Participants in the deliberation are encouraged to openly discuss their various perspectives. While vigorous discussion can be a part of the deliberative process, participants must use accessible and explicit reasons to support their arguments, and must maintain a mutually respectful environment throughout the process. At the end of deliberation, participants develop a detailed plan of action that emerges from the deliberation, which includes addressing ethical duties towards those who are affected by the plan.

We have produced a series of educational materials related to democratic deliberation. The “Guide to Classroom Deliberation for Students and Teachers” introduces the deliberative process in a manner suitable for classroom environments. The Commission has also produced several deliberative scenarios that can be used as the basis for deliberation around an ethically challenging topic. The Commission has also produced “Five Steps for Effective Deliberation” in conjunction with the report Bioethics for Every Generation.

The Bioethics Commission’s educational materials and reports can be viewed and downloaded for free at www.bioethics.gov. The Bioethics Commission welcomes comments and feedback on its materials at info@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/28/exploring-democratic-deliberation/feed/ 0
Introducing New Deliberative Scenario and Teacher Companion from the Bioethics Commission: “Return of Genetic Research Results” https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/21/deliberative-scenario-return-of-genetic-research-results/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/21/deliberative-scenario-return-of-genetic-research-results/#respond Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:19:57 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1976 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released two new educational materials, “Deliberative Scenario: Return of Genetic Research Results” and “Teacher Companion for Deliberative Scenario: Return of Genetic Research Results.” This new deliberative scenario and teacher companion build on the work of two of the Bioethics Commission’s reports, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts (Anticipate and Communicate) and Bioethics for Every Generation: Deliberation and Education in Health, Science, and Technology.

Deliberative Scenario: Return of Genetic Research Results” highlights contemporary ethical questions about incidental and secondary findings that can result from genetic testing.

This scenario, like others the Bioethics Commission has released, presents an outline of ethically challenging situations that can provide students an opportunity to practice deliberation.

The “Teacher Companion for Deliberative Scenario: Return of Genetic Research Results” provides teachers with specific instructions for facilitating deliberations for the scenarios in “Deliberative Scenario: Return of Genetic Research Results.” These new educational materials are designed to facilitate deliberation on bioethical issues that have been addressed by the Bioethics Commission, and provide students and teachers with the means to enhance and enrich interdisciplinary ethics education.

These new educational resources are part of a collection of over 60 educational materials that the Bioethics Commission has developed throughout its tenure to support the integration of bioethics education in many disciplines in traditional and nontraditional educational and professional settings. This collection includes a series of teaching tools for students at various educational levels, including topic-based modules, case studies, deliberative scenarios, videos, webinars, and empirical research resources, that address a variety of ethical issues related to public health emergencies, whole genome sequencing, human subjects research, and more.

All of these resources are available for free download and can be integrated into or adapted for existing science or ethics curricula. All Bioethics Commission educational materials are free and available at www.bioethics.gov/education. The Bioethics Commission encourages feedback on its materials at education@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/09/21/deliberative-scenario-return-of-genetic-research-results/feed/ 0
Introducing New Primer Series: Spotting and Responding to Hype https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/03/introducing-new-primer-series-spotting-and-responding-to-hype/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/03/introducing-new-primer-series-spotting-and-responding-to-hype/#respond Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:00:28 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1890 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released a new series of primers on spotting and responding to science hype in the media. The three primers cover hype related to topics in new technology, public health and neuroscience. The primers introduce hype about scientific topics in the media, and provide users with ways to spot hype and evaluate scientific claims in media outlets. The primers draw on topics covered in three of the Commission’s reports: New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, Ethics and Ebola: Public Health Planning and Response, and Gray Matters: Topics at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society.

The primers are designed to help members of the public spot and respond to hyped claims in the media, which can often distort, exaggerate or misrepresent scientific information. The primers note that hype is generated from numerous sources, including scientists, communication and public relations professionals, and journalists. Each primer provides users with steps to spot hype as well as respond to hype when they counter such claims in news stories and blog posts. The primers also include examples of hyped claims that were found in news outlets.

The Commission has discussed hype in a number of its reports. In New Directions, the Commission recommended that individuals and deliberative forums should use clear language when communicating scientific information and avoid “sensationalist buzzwords” when describing topics in synthetic biology. The Commission also called for a private organization to fact-check claims that discuss advances in synthetic biology. In Ethics and Ebola, the Commission recommended that governments and public health organizations use the best available scientific evidence to inform decisions about using liberty-restricting measures (e.g., quarantines) and avoid bending to public pressure to inappropriately implement such measures. In Gray Matters, the Commission recommended that neuroscientists, attorneys, judges and members of the media avoid using or engaging with hype in relation to using neuroscience in the courtroom, noting that justice is threatened when unfounded neuroscience is used to make decisions in a courtroom.

This set of primers is the most recent addition to our “Conversation Series” collections of primers. Interested individuals can access our other “Conversation Series,” which discusses discussing incidental findings for consumers, research participants and patients. Users can also find informational primers about incidental findings and consent capacity.

Please stay tuned for information about forthcoming educational materials, including a classroom discussion guide and a deliberative scenario about incidental findings based on the Commission’s report Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts.

All Bioethics Commission educational materials are free and available for download at www.bioethics.gov/education. The Bioethics Commission encourages feedback on its materials at education@bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/03/introducing-new-primer-series-spotting-and-responding-to-hype/feed/ 0