Interview

Deliberative Caravan Interview

Advancing the Discussion by Listening to Reasons

World Wide Views in Japan, the citizen conference on global warming issues, was previously held at Osaka University, with CSCD members playing a central role. At the time, citizens debated questions pre-determined by the event organizers. However, some people were skeptical of this approach and expressed their desire to independently develop questions. Reflecting on this request, we held the Deliberative Caravan to enable a diverse set of people, including citizens, to derive the questions (the topics to be discussed in society, or an agenda).
The Deliberative Caravan comprised three aspects: the Opinion Eliciting Workshop, the Agenda Formulation Meeting, and Agenda Utilization. Our discussion question creation began with asking people’s reasons for considering problems and what they were concerned about. Even if people’s concerns were the same, the reasons for concern differed between individuals. Furthermore, if people understand others’ reasons, it becomes easy to find common ground when opinions conflict. After all, discussions do not advance by merely stating opinions to each other.

The theme of the Deliberative Caravan was regenerative medicine. Ethical, legal, and social discussions surrounding the use of such technology have just begun, and aspects of it have not yet been institutionalized. Ample room exists for these debates to be updated by incorporating diverse people’s opinions. Therefore, I think it is meaningful for citizens to collectively consider these issues from the very beginning.

Decision Making by Knowing

I believe that the vast majority of the citizens who participated in the Deliberative Caravan had no knowledge about science and technology. However, I wanted them to feel that they could still discuss and have opinions about policies. Even if topics related to medicine involve many difficult words, it comes down to an issue of whether a certain therapy will be used on one’s grandfather, thus becoming a decision that people make in their daily lives.
In the Opinion Eliciting Workshop, we instructed participants to submit a card on which they wrote what they considered to be “the most important thing” regarding regenerative medicine as well as their reason for thinking so. I use these cards in classes for graduate students to facilitate discussions. From the content of these cards, one can observe that many people have differing opinions. For example, opinions such as “Only rich people will benefit” and “Is happiness really being cured of disease?” rarely come from researchers, who tend to give precedence to technological progress. I want graduate students to become experts who can make decisions while respecting such ideas.
Further, the Deliberative Caravan facilitates communication not only between citizens and experts but also among citizens. For example, mothers often talk to other mothers in their neighborhood. Similarly, I spend most of my day talking to people from my workplace. In these circumstances, citizens themselves forget that they are a diverse group. I believe it is important that the Deliberative Caravan enables citizens to realize that they have their individual differences. Specifically, I want it to be a space in which people active in society, housewives, and senior citizens can learn together. As these people play a definitive role in decision making regarding the form science and technology take in society, I will be pleased if they expand their field of vision through this space and can help in decision making.

Simple Rules for a Sustainable Structure

Although the theme this time was regenerative medicine, we are planning to intermittently conduct other endeavors similar to the Deliberative Caravan that focus on various themes. Therefore, we have designed the Deliberative Caravan to be as simple as possible.
As other structures exist through which people can conduct discussions based on significant amounts of accurate information, we are trying to enable people to discuss policies in a simpler fashion. We do not provide people with more information than is in the newspaper; instead of having an expert carefully provide information, we simply have experts briefly examine the content related to an issue. Thus, we reduce the amount of time and effort spent on developing materials for the gatherings. Moreover, citizens can also participate without advance preparation. We assume that by lowering the barriers to holding these events, we can offer more people the opportunity to consider issues and bring together the opinions that arise in the process.
Thus, we can quickly capture the opinions of citizens when there is an occurrence that society should debate, and such agility characterizes these events. I would like to continually conduct these events as spaces for citizens to communicate with each other while adopting the strengths of large-scale citizen conferences such as World Wide Views. In addition, I would like to improve on their weaknesses and have such conferences act in a complementary manner with us.
● Yasunori Yamanouchi, Adjunct Assistant Professor
Osaka University
Center for the Study of Communication Design

World Wide Views on Global Warming Interview

The Same Questions, the Same Day, Throughout the World

World Wide Views was a worldwide citizen conference on global warming in which Denmark’s DBT played a central role. It helped transmit the voices of citizens worldwide to the government officials participating in the negotiations at the COP15, held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Osaka University and Sophia University hosted the World Wide Views in Japan in Kyoto, and the event was conducted with the cooperation of Hokkaido University’s CoSTEP. Discussions were held in different countries on the same day, based on the same questions, and using the same method. I believe that this was probably the first attempt to conduct a grand social experiment in which opinions of the people of each country were presented to those participating in international negotiations.

Issues Predicted from Global Standards

In conducting the event, we discovered various issues. One emerged from the restriction of having to think about the same questions based on the same information as people in 38 countries. This prevented us from making statements such as, “For example, in Japan…” and from offering participants information related to things familiar to them. Therefore, although the participating citizens had expended considerable effort to come together for these discussions, their content was unconnected to their daily lives.
We could not discuss local problems because it was a worldwide discussion. Thus, one issue for future exploration is finding a balance between each country’s geography, culture, and social situation as well as designing mechanisms to do so.
In addition, the existence of experts from diverse fields relating to global warming is indispensable for actively planning such a conference. However, few countries outside the Anglosphere can adequately gather such specialists. Furthermore, I believe that it is necessary to determine Japan’s role in this situation.

Transcending Borders, New Understandings

World Wide Views in Japan was an unprecedented citizen conference. After the one-day discussion, participants had further ideas and many noted that there are few opportunities for discussions with people of diverse perspectives. It appears that prior to the conference, many people thought that such a discussion would not succeed.
I believe that family members or friends rarely have serious discussions about environmental issues, even if such issues are discussed on television. Normally, no opportunities exist to discuss political issues or problems relating to science and technology that require specialist knowledge, let alone to debate these issues with people whom you have not met. However, after World Wide Views in Japan, many participants came to the important realization that they can engage in debates.
The role that World Wide Views played as well as the issues that arose differed in each country. In India, for example, this event was epoch-making in that discussions transcended the caste system. In countries without democratic systems, people were moved by the fact that the voices of the general public could be transmitted to the site of international negotiations. Through this experience, I realized that some international problems cannot be understood without having discussions that transcend national borders.
Further, the presence of citizens who wanted to address the discussion questions left a very strong impression on me. While it was meaningful to consider the same questions throughout the world, I strongly felt that it is also necessary to reconsider the questions to make the discussion more directly related to the lives of citizens.
● Ekou Yagi, Associate Professor
Osaka University
Center for the Study of Communication Design

Open Dialogue on Nuclear Issues Interview

Creating Places to Discuss Nuclear Issues

For the past ten years, I worked as a facilitator who created spaces in which both nuclear power experts with differing opinions and non-experts could engage in dialogue. At the time, there were few forums in which anti- and pro-nuclear energy opinions could be fairly heard. As this was prior to the Great East Japan Earthquake, the situation is currently different.
To decide whether to continue using nuclear power and how to select Japan’s energy sources, both experts and individual citizens must closely examine their personal opinions and make a choice. In doing so, there is no “right answer.” Therefore, it is important for citizens to experience situations in which experts with differing opinions engage in dialogue, as it would enable them to make informed decisions. It is also important for these events to be fairly facilitated.
Therefore, I consulted with the anti-nuclear power expert Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University. He said, “If it is operated fairly, it will be meaningful. I will participate regardless of where it happens.” I thus began working to hold the Open Forum on Nuclear Power.

Not the Best, but Better

There is no correct, neutral way to have a discussion about nuclear power. With regard to the agenda, the experts invited, the facilitator, and his or her approach, there are various opinions as to what is “neutral.”
Therefore, to maintain neutrality, we set the goal as “not the best, but better.” We tried to maintain fairness by establishing all the rules with the approval of both the nuclear power opponent, Mr. Koide, and proponent, Mr. Tochiyama Osamu.
Instead of having the hosts determine the dialogue approach, we developed the rules with both parties’ confirmation and agreement, causing the preparations to take a considerable amount of time. However, as a result of our efforts, our questionnaire indicated that the majority of both sides in the 60% pro- and 40% anti-nuclear power audience considered the forum to be fair.

Great East Japan Earthquake: What Has Changed

Since the Great East Japan Earthquake, the situation in society surrounding nuclear power has been considerably changing. Although a framework similar to the existing model is necessary, it must not be the same. At the open dialogue forum, we did not attempt to quickly settle the ultra-long-term problems surrounding high-level radioactive waste. As a starting point, we offered information to allow each individual to make a decision, and we shared the discussion points with as many people as possible. The purpose was to postpone decisions until after a thorough discussion.
Currently, though, decisions must be made on different levels—those relating to immediate, pressing issues such as those surrounding the decontamination of Fukushima and the restarting of nuclear facilities as well as those concerning how sources of energy should be chosen in the long term.
For the former, speedy policy decisions are more desirable than a robust debate. In such circumstances, I believe that it is first necessary to rethink which issues relating to nuclear power can be adequately and carefully discussed by the nation.
● Ekou Yagi, Associate Professor
Osaka University
Center for the Study of Communication Design

Consensus Conference to Consider Genetically Modified Crops / Interview

Emergence of the Consensus Conference

I first learned of consensus conference in 1994 while living in London. At the time, preparations were underway for the first consensus conference in England in 1994. Initially, I was skeptical regarding the value of citizens gathering for discussions; however, after speaking with people researching consensus conference in Europe and deepening my understanding, I strongly felt that they should also be conducted in Japan.
After returning home, I investigated consensus conference, and Yukio Wakamatsu of Tokyo Denki University, who specializes in the sociology of science and technology, proposed that we conduct one in Japan. We thus began working toward this goal. If I had not gone to England, I am unsure about whether I would have engaged in a hands-on event similar to this one. We Japanese researchers were merely investigating and introducing the advanced case studies of the West and were not developing the research outcomes of academia in the real world. This is because Japan’s university system has traditionally emphasized translating Western academia.
However, I believe we should also conduct social experiments in Japan. It is best to first try things based on our own ideas, thus developing originality, and then conduct surveys overseas. The tendency to conduct surveys not founded on original ideas, and thus be influenced by other people’s ways of thinking, is undesirable. Rather than following the West, I believe it is necessary to frame our own questions and solve them by trial and error.

Conducting Discussions in Osaka

At consensus conferences in England, a citizen panel is created in advance and its members are individually interviewed. I was told that this process ensured that panel members are not irrational. In addition, English experts were concerned that a productive discussion would be prevented if citizens were randomly chosen.
We shared this concern. In addition, members of the previous generation had repeatedly told our generation that consensus conference cannot be conducted in Japan because only Westerners could debate ideas, and even now, at universities, Japanese students are silent and sure do not ask questions. Therefore, I was naturally apprehensive. We chose Osaka as the site of the first consensus conference because, of all cities in Japan, it contains the greatest number of talkative people. Thus, we conducted a consensus conference on gene therapy in Osaka, even though I lived in Nagoya and Mr. Wakamatsu lived in Tokyo.
After the conference, the people in Osaka told me, “Nothing is as interesting as this. Do more of it!” This reassured me, and the following year, we conducted a consensus conference on another theme in Tokyo. While conducting these conferences, I realized that many people in our society want to engage in serious discussions, but society had not created the channels for such interaction.

Consensus Conference to Consider Genetically Modified Crops

As we had no budget, we could not adequately publicize the previous consensus conferences; therefore, we drew participants through our acquaintances. As a result, the pool of participants was inevitably biased. The Consensus Conference to Consider Genetically Modified Crops presented the first opportunity for us to publicly solicit participants for the citizen panel. The conference was also discussed in newspaper editorials, and we eventually received 479 applications from across the country. We used stratified random sampling and chose 18 people from this pool, representing a balance of age, sex, and hometowns. We also chose one person engaged in farming as we thought that perspective was necessary, considering the theme.
At the first meeting, everyone was nervous—the participants, an official from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (which hosted the event), and myself. The official worried that I would lead the conference such that it would result in attacks on his ministry, whereas the citizens suspected that I was a puppet of the ministry and would try to persuade them to agree with its viewpoint. I was apprehensive about the ministry having a hidden agenda. However, as the conference progressed, our feelings of distrust evaporated. I felt more at ease because the citizen panel participants incorporated humor into their introductions. On reflection, their nature may have been predictable because they were uninhibited in debating ideas with people they had never met and had prepared for the conference.

Answer: Meta-Consensus

Unlike consensus conferences in Denmark, ours did not aim for consensus formation. In fact, there was one person who was strongly and steadfastly opposed to genetic engineering technology. As a result, everyone disagreed. However, through extensive discussion, everyone wanted to know the reason for his opposition. It was learned that he has a child with atopic dermatitis, who was instructed by a doctor to avoid foods with additives; therefore, he wanted to stop the distribution of genetically modified food products, which are not absolutely necessary.
Upon hearing this reason, most people understood the opposition, but they could completely agree with the opinion, and thus they did not reach a consensus. One member of the citizen panel said, “We cannot completely sympathize with your opinion, but it would be intolerable to pretend that it doesn’t exist.” The panel member thus proposed to “write it in the report as a minority opinion,” to which the opposing person assented, stating, “I am grateful for your fair treatment.” Then, they reached consensus regarding the treatment of opinions but not regarding the content of their opinion.
That is meta-consensus, is it not? Society lacks a mechanism with which to impartially deal with minority opinions using such a method. Although resolving political issues requires a majority vote, I believe that this panel’s method should be tried before reaching political resolution.

Awareness that Changes with Society

Everyone can remember being told at some point that discussion is important. However, even if there is an opportunity for discussion, it usually involves a fixed set of members, such as people from the same school or company. Therefore, we rarely conduct discussions with people completely unrelated to us; neither the academic community nor society has created such a mechanism.
However, after the 1995 Great Hanshin–Awaji Earthquake, without orders to do so, people having neither regional nor blood ties gathered in disaster-stricken areas. Thus, a positive outcome of the disaster was that people discovered that even Japanese people could engage in such behavior. I believe that after this, people’s sense of social interaction began to change; people started to realize that citizen participation is important, and many developed a mindset of voluntary participation. This social change also influenced me as a researcher, motivating me to conduct consensus conferences.
Although society is divided into elite and amateur classes, I feel that this class structure changes depending on the issue at hand. For example, experts in genetically engineered crops are amateurs when it comes to finance. To gather a group of people with the most appropriate specialized knowledge to address a certain issue, we must reach out to not only universities but also industries and other entities. I believe that we should explore how to overcome fixed frameworks and make a society function by skillfully using the appropriate human resources.
●Tadashi Kobayashi, Professor
Osaka University
Center for the Study of Communication Design