Public Perception of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Arguments Put forward by the Public during a Participatory Policy Project in the Netherlands

Abstract

In early 2002, the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport piloted the application of an interactive process to policy development in the field of medical biotechnology. In such an approach, relevant societal actors, including the public at large, are actively involved in an open exchange, planning, action and reflection process. This paper reports on the findings of one of the activities of the ministry within this initiative, the consultation of the public on dilemmas with respect to prenatal genetic testing by means of citizen panels. Participants were asked to reflect on questions with respect to whether and under which conditions pregnant women may have freedom of choice to use prenatal genetic testing. In a structured way, arguments in favour and against various positions were identified and prioritized. The paper closes with a discussion on the implications of the use of citizen panels and summarizes the 2 actual policy changes of the ministry that resulted from this process.

Deliberation and Policy-Making: Three Ways to Think About Minipublics’ Consequences

“…As an illustration, Watanabe (2016) argues that a minipublic’s recommendations contributed to the phase-out of nuclear power by the Japanese government. Equally, de Cock Buning et al (2008) show how the output of a minipublic led to the transformation of Dutch health policy on prenatal genetic testing. According to this perspective, a minipublic is consequential when policies reflect a minipublic’s recommendations.…”

Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries

“…Third, citizens have their own type of experiential knowledge which, when taken into account, could lead to a more contextualized and needs-oriented innovation process (substantive argument). Previous studies have demonstrated that citizens are able to contribute to discussions on science, technology and policy (Cock Buning et al, 2008;Delgado et al, 2010).…”

Toward a Socially Desirable EU Research and Innovation Agenda on Urban Waste: A Transnational EU Citizen Consultation

“…In FGs, participants respond to, and build on the views expressed by other participants, stimulating shared creative thinking, and providing the opportunity to gain in-depth insight into participants' ideas, values, wishes, and concerns [27][28][29][30]. Given that they can be used in a transparent, uniform, and structured way, FGs have proven to be an appropriate public consultation method at both the national [31] and international [32] level. FGs can be conducted at the national level with a group of diverse citizens who speak the same language and are able to take the specificities of the local context into account.…”