Overall I think that our entire deliberation process went very well as we were able to keep our deliberators informed on the topic while at the same time giving deliberators the opportunity to share their opinion on the topic. I believe that our issue guide was also very efficient in informing people not familiar with the topic because it was not too heavy for scientific terms. It was perfectly balanced with laymen’s terms and technicals terms so that the average person could get a good grasp of the topic.

In our deliberation, we succeeded in creating a solid informative base as the deliberators and the facilitators shared facts and stories that were personal to them. At the beginning of the deliberation, we went over the personal stakes of many of the deliberators which made it clear on their reason to attend our deliberation. Although we did a good job of introducing the information to the deliberators I believe that the facilitating questions did not do much to push the conversation in a certain direction.

One of the best parts of our deliberations was the variety of solutions and approaches we had by the deliberators. For each one of the approaches, we had people on both sides of the argument which made the deliberation more interesting. If everyone was in agreement with what everyone said for each topic then we would not have gotten a broad variety of solutions. For example, when the facilitators asked if Genetic modification should be covered by insurance the deliberators had a broad range of answers. Some people thought that the procedure should not be covered by insurance at all while others believed that it should be covered depending on what the purpose of the genetic alteration was intended for.

Going back to the issue guide, I believe that our deliberation has a very comprehensive issue guide while not overpowering the audience with too much information at the same time. Each one of the approaches in the issue guide had a table filled with pros and cons which made it very easy for the reader to understand the controversy in genetic modification. I think that these tables are very essential to the deliberation because when someone comes to a deliberation they don’t want to spend their entire time reading all of the information on the issue guide. On the other hand, I attended the deliberation “Going Viral: A Closer Look at Modern Epidemics.” Their issue guide was not as easy to follow as our issue guide. There was just too much text on the pages without the main points clearly highlighted.

When it came to adequately distribute the speaking opportunities I think that the facilitators did a good job of trying to get everyone’s opinions. They looked for people raising their hands a tried to fairly give everyone a chance to talk. Not only did the facilitators do a good job of giving all the deliberators a chance to share, but they also did not take up too much time summarizing their approaches. At the deliberation “Going Viral”, I think it started to get uninteresting as the facilitators took too much time sharing information from the issue guide which the deliberators had already read.

I think in both of the deliberations that I attended the deliberators and the facilitators were all very respectful of each other. No one tried to target one group or idea and dismiss their idea. Everyone was fair in listening to their opinions and gave everyone a chance to speak. I remember multiple times during our deliberation that people would say that they wouldn’t force their opinion onto anyone else. Overall I think that our deliberation went very well and am excited for the next opportunity to attend one.