Final Report (all chapters)

notice-and-comment. As such, it would be difficult for well-established interest groups and for
elected representatives to dismiss the recommendations emerging from deliberative panels as
unreliable or not representative.
6.5.2 Consultative College
The second option we examine in our report is what we call the consultative college. The
consultative college is reminiscent of but not identical to James Fishkin’s deliberative polling. A
consultative college consists of a randomly selected, representative sample of the general
population. Key to this institution of public consultation is the Internet. The members of the
consultative college are not required to physically meet in one location for a limited period of
time. Instead, the consultative process takes place over an extended period of time. For example,
college members could meet online on a regular basis, say once or twice a week, for two months.
To facilitate the discussion, participants would be assigned to smaller groups of approximately a
dozen individuals. This is the approach that the Genetics and Public Policy Center took in the
summer of 2004 to study public attitudes toward new reproductive technologies.
The consultative process follows a familiar plot: College members would first familiarize
themselves with the scientific underpinnings of the issues at stake. This could be accomplished
in the same way as discussed for deliberative panels. Participants will be given an opportunity to
engage a panel of experts. Questions (and answers) posed by one group would be made available
online to all members of the consultative college. The convening agency would then put several
questions to the online groups, including questions designed to elicit ethical reasons for and
against a new medical or reproductive procedure, and questions aimed at evaluating policy
options. In the final step, the agency would summarize and evaluate the range of expressed
concerns and attitudes toward various policy options.
Polling organizations for years have assembled permanent or semi-permanent representative
panels. These panels are being polled on a regular basis on any number of current topics, mainly
by telephone. In recent years, organizations such as Knowledge Networks have begun using the
Internet to enable online discussions among the panel members. And, as mentioned above, over
the summer of 2004, the Genetics and Public Policy Center conducted an Internet-based
deliberative poll similar to what we are proposing here. The logistics of online deliberation are
not trivial, nor are its costs. At the same time, the Genetics and Public Policy Center’s experience
with online deliberation clearly demonstrates that it is both possible and perfectly sensible to
envision mechanisms of public consultation above and beyond either traditional surveys or focus
groups.
Compared to other forms of public consultation, the consultative college has several
benefits. It is more cost-effective, although perhaps not as much so as one might think. The entry
barriers for average citizens are lower, since joining a consultative college does not encroach on
the participants’ daily routines. In addition, online discussion may have desirable attributes not
shared by traditional, face-to-face communication. For example, in an anonymous setting, the
21