Team 2:

Create a Solid Information Base: Our group had done a lot of research and organized as much as we could into the issue guide to make sure the participants were well informed.  Additionally, many participants and some of our own group members were able to share personal stakes they have with genetic engineering, which opened up new perspectives for the group.  This was done by having participants state personal stakes in the zoom chat so we could hear from more people in the short time span.

Identify a Broad Range of Solutions: Our three approaches addressed the two polar opposite stances on genetic engineering, which were opening it to anyone who wants to use it and keeping it closed to anyone.  Our third approach gave a middle ground and took the stance that only those with medical conditions should have access to genetic engineering.  This approach also allowed for a variety of solutions as it could further be discussed what counts as a medical condition or if, for example, only those with terminal medical conditions should be allowed access.

Weigh the Pros, Cons, and Trade-offs Among Solutions: This was accomplished by giving pros and cons for each approach in the issue guide.  Additionally, during the deliberation participants were able to share the possible cons of their favorite approach or what they thought was good about others.  This occurred especially with the third approach, where participants discussed what the limits of the approach should be concerning what medical conditions should qualify for genetic modifications.

Adequately Distribute Speaking Opportunities: There were no instances where participants interrupted each other or dominated the conversation.  Some participants did contribute more than others, but many were able to share their views openly.

Ensure Mutual Comprehension: Most statements made were clearly understood, but occasionally the moderator would summarize or clarify a statement or the past few statements in order to make sure the whole group could clearly understand what was being discussed.

Respect Other Participants: Again, no one purposefully interrupted another participant or tried to force their personal view.  Some participants shared personal stories or reasons for their stances, and in response other participants would acknowledge their story and potentially add on to it.  Additionally, the moderators often acknowledged statements by saying “that’s a good point” or asking if anyone else wanted to add on to it.