ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2006
What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Adaptations for Online Remote Public Deliberation Across Three Continents: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Trading off accuracy and explainability in AI decision-making: findings from 2 citizens' juries.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Should free-text data in electronic medical records be shared for research? A citizens' jury study in the UK.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Commercial use of health data-A public "trial" by citizens' jury.Learning health systems · 2019Article
- Public attitudes towards novel reproductive technologies: a citizens' jury on mitochondrial donation.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- Investigating the Extent to Which Patients Should Control Access to Patient Records for Research: A Deliberative Process Using Citizens' Juries.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.International journal of health policy and management · 2014Article
- Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries.BMJ open · 2014Review
- Yes, the government should tax soft drinks: findings from a citizens' jury in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014Article
- The cost-effectiveness and consumer acceptability of taxation strategies to reduce rates of overweight and obesity among children in Australia: study protocol.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Evaluating the use of citizens' juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation.BMC public health · 2013Article
- The GAMY Project: young people's attitudes to genetics in the South Wales valleys.The HUGO journal · 2010Article
- Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2008Article
- What should be given a priority - costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundYoung people will increasingly have the option of using new technologies for reproductive decision making but their voices are rarely heard in debates about acceptable public policy in this area. Capturing the views of young people about potentially esoteric topics, such as genetics, is difficult and methodologically challenging.
designA Citizens' Jury is a deliberative process that presents a question to a group of ordinary people, allows them to examine evidence given by expert witnesses and personal testimonies and arrive at a verdict. This Citizens' Jury explored designer babies in relation to inherited conditions, saviour siblings and sex selection with young people.
participantsFourteen young people aged 16-19 in Wales.
resultsAcceptance of designer baby technology was purpose-specific; it was perceived by participants to be acceptable for preventing inherited conditions and to create a child to save a sibling, but was not recommended for sex selection. Jurors stated that permission should not depend on parents' age, although some measure of suitability should be assessed. Preventing potential parents from going abroad was considered impractical. These young people felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should have members under 20 and that the term 'designer baby' was not useful.
conclusionsPerspectives on the acceptability of this technology were nuanced, and based on implicit value judgements about the extent of individual benefit derived. Young people have valuable and interesting contributions to make to the debate about genetics and reproductive decision making and a variety of innovative methods must be used to secure their involvement in decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.