CRISPR, APGAR and Cancer Screening: Public Engagement, Controversy and Misaligned Values

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Science Communication
• Public Policy

Background:

• Calls for public engagement often focus on controversial, novel technologies (e.g., CRISPR).
• Less controversial, mundane technologies (e.g., APGAR scoring) receive limited public deliberation.
• This imbalance may stem from the perceived complexity of novel technologies versus simpler, established ones.

Purpose of the Study:

• To challenge the conventional focus on public engagement with novel technologies.
• To advocate for increased public deliberation on mundane or less controversial interventions.
• To propose a framework where deliberation on mundane technologies informs decisions on complex ones.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of public engagement debates, using cancer screening as a case study.
• Examination of the interplay between factual and value-based considerations in technological debates.
• Comparative assessment of deliberation quality for novel versus mundane technologies.

Main Results:

• High-quality public deliberation is difficult for novel technologies due to complex fact-value entanglements.
• Mundane technologies are more amenable to high-quality public deliberation.
• Deliberation outcomes for mundane technologies can provide valuable input for high-profile cases.

Conclusions:

• The current approach to public engagement in technology is inverted.
• Prioritizing public deliberation on mundane technologies offers a more feasible and productive path.
• This strategy can enhance informed decision-making across a spectrum of technological interventions.