Perry Walker plays the consultation game

We want to make it easy for people to work out, share and express their views on public policy issues.  To do this, we have produced a game in kit form, called Democs – an acronym for Deliberative Meetings of Citizens.

It allows a group of around six people to find out about an issue, discuss it, seek common ground and give their views, all in a couple of hours or so.

Democs encourages learning and a search for common ground. Information is given, so no prior knowledge is needed.  The game structure makes it safe and enjoyable.  It links to live issues, and can include a form for people to submit their views to Government.

How it works

The example below relates to the inquiry of the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) into whether genetic testing kits should be sold over the counter.1 In January 2003, we held six events attended by 47 people, of whom 14 were members of the HGC Consultative Panel.

The game begins with cards of scenarios illustrating the personal and social dilemmas that the topic throws up. It continues with dealing hands of question- and fact-cards on the topic.  Everyone has the chance to read out a card they think important or to ask a question, and to use their fact cards to answer others’ questions.  Everyone contributes from the cards in their hand: everyone gets to ask basic questions without looking stupid.

The fact cards chosen as most important are then combined with issue cards that raise general issues on the topic.  People then discuss the main issues and work out what is really important for them.

The HGC games

The players’ arguments fell into six main groups.  These were the impact of a test on the recipient and her/his family; the rights of individuals; the overall effect of the test on resources; various dilemmas (for example, who should make the decisions about the result for a third party?); the quality and accuracy of the tests; and regulation.

The participants voted on the policy positions as follows (they do not sum to 47 in all cases, showing that one or two people forgot to vote):

	Not acceptable	Acceptable	Support	Abstain
1. No strict regulation	40	3	1	1
2. Voluntary regulation with no restriction on types of test	29	12	21	14
3. Voluntary regulation with restrictions on types of test	5	21	20	1
4. Strict regulation	11	14	18	1

Position 1 was almost wholly rejected. More people found position 2 acceptable. Almost three-quarters of the participants were prepared to support position 4, but position 3 was most heavily supported. Several people remarked that their ideal was somewhere between positions 3 and 4. This is pretty close to the HGC’s ultimate recommendation, published in April 2003.

The effect of playing

To the end of January 2003, nearly 350 people had taken part in around 60 games.

• Half the participants ended up with an increased understanding of views different from their own, and a quarter became more sympathetic to them
• A large majority managed to identify dilemmas in their thinking and feeling, and just over a quarter resolved them
• 70 percent felt ‘slightly clearer than before’ on the rights and wrongs of the issue and 12 percent felt much clearer.
  

Politicians are fond of calling for national debates on issues of science and otherwise. We think that a national debate should be just that. We also think that Democs provides one of the means by which that may become a reality.

What  the players say...

‘A terrific way of getting unspoken views into the open and enabling a richer discussion.’
‘[I was impressed by] the swiftness with which it enables a grasp of wide issues and the way in which it challenges you to look at other points of view.’
‘Apparently different views can be closer than at first appears after there is more understanding of the concerns that are being expressed.’

Perry Walker is Director of the Democracy Programme at the New Economics Foundation

Reference
1.  See Charlotte Augst, ‘Over the counter genetic tests’, Science & Public Affairs, June 2003, p. 20

We would like to acknowledge funding from the Wellcome Trust under the Medicine in Society programme (grant number 065282) and from COPUS.