I feel our deliberation went very well! The one I attended, too, “Sentenced to Rehabilitation: Reforming the Prison System,” was also a productive and informative deliberation. To start for my own, going off one of the “social process” categories, the deliberation was always respectful and nobody spoke over one another, which was fantastic. The conversation, too, kept going smoothly, even when it got a little intense; it was never heated, and nobody’s personal beliefs were attacked in the deliberation. Everyone made sure to specify the exact intent and meaning behind their words so that nobody would be hurt, which was good. The other group’s deliberation was also extremely respectful! They had a much larger turnout than our deliberation, so it was even better that nobody spoke over one another.
In terms of creating a solid information base, I feel we did a good job, although we could always do better. Genetic engineering is a difficult concept to grasp, especially for non bio majors. However, for the purposes of our discussion, the quick background on screening genetics versus actually going in and changing the gene itself brought everyone onto the same page and allowed us to have a fruitful debate. The group I attended, too, did a good job bringing everyone up to speed on problems within the prison system. It was not a topic that I am very familiar with, and so I was thankful that everyone began on the same footing; their issue guides and pre-approach breakdowns were helpful.
Each of our approaches, as well as their pros and cons, were scrutinized in a very thorough way. As the bioethics professor mentioned, we went deeper than just the pros and cons that were listed in the approach. We spoke about the moral and ethical implications, as well as implications for the future. Each pro and con was expanded, and I myself was introduced to many new ideas that I wouldn’t have originally considered. I feel like each approach we treated fairly in terms of the “good and bad” of each option and that we had a balanced representative of voices in the audience, which was phenomenal. The other group, too, did an alright job of balancing these pros and cons, but sometimes it felt like one side of an approach was a little more forced than the other. But, in their defense, it is difficult to try and argue why prisoners shouldn’t have education, for example.
We did not identify key values at stake before the deliberation. They were tucked into our approaches for sure, but we never explicitly said them aloud. The other group spent a little bit of their time going over these key values and asking people what their values were and why they were interested in coming to the deliberation. If we were to do this deliberation over again, I think it would be beneficial to state those values explicitly, just so everyone is on the same page from the get-go.
For ensuring mutual comprehension, there were a few blips were people’s words were misconstrued, but that issue was quickly fixed. People were very clear in what they were saying, and make sure to use precise language as to avoid confusion. We did that part of the deliberation extremely well. There could be productive disagreement, because for each new problem that arose, we found stasis relatively quickly.
Finally, I feel like people were actively engaged and internalized new ideas that they may have not previously considered. I know for myself, although I still disagree with the concept of actually going in and editing a baby’s genetic code, I understand where others were coming from and I know that their opinions come from a place of love and care for their children. Everyone in our deliberation was able to pull apart the argument from the person, which was great. I really feel like people were able to understand different sides of the deliberation, which is the goal.