Michael Burgess

 
Prospective Graduate Students / Postdocs

This faculty member is currently not actively recruiting graduate students or Postdoctoral Fellows, but might consider co-supervision together with another faculty member.

Professor

Research Classification

Genetics and Ethics
Ethics and Health
Applied Ethics
Individual and Collective Ethics
Participatory research

Research Interests

Public deliberation
Health Policy
Science Policy
Deliberative Democracy

Relevant Degree Programs

 

Research Methodology

Deliberative public engagement on policy and ethical issues
qualitative analysis
Ethical and social analysis

Graduate Student Supervision

Master's Student Supervision (2010 - 2018)
Does "misinformation" matter? Exploring the roles of technical and conceptual inaccuracies in a deliberative public engagement on biobanks (2010)

Science is increasingly affecting populations across the globe, and individuals and communities are growing more and more aware of the possible benefits and harms created by new technologies and changes in related policies. Prompted by inadequacies in representation, legitimacy, and trust, there is a need to increase public involvement in decisions regarding the development and implementation of science and technology. Due to claims that the public lacks the necessary knowledge to participate in these democratic processes, this thesis explores whether or not the presence of misinformation during deliberation undermines the usefulness of engaging publics for policy advice. The BC Biobank Deliberation brought together twenty-one individuals from across the province to explore the values and interests that ought to guide the governance of biobanks (repositories of annotated human biological materials often used as resources for research), and to test and evaluate a model for involving diverse publics in policy-making. As information related to biobanks is challenging to capture and disseminate, technical inaccuracies – those resulting from factual scientific or social information related to biobanking – and conceptual inaccuracies – those resulting from information considered to be outside the scope of biobanking, such as linking activities which are not facilitated by the existence of biobanks, to biobanks (e.g. cloning) – arose during deliberations. The analysis of this misinformation in the BC Biobank Deliberation seems to indicate that technical and conceptual inaccuracies play four main roles in deliberation: 1) no effect; 2) stall; 3) distraction; and 4) development. In general, when an overview of the scientific and social information related to the topic is provided during an engagement activity, participants who had little or no knowledge of the subject prior to being informed were able to deliberate on a variety of issues related to biobank governance. Findings indicate that in certain instances misinformation may help to develop deliberation, moving participants towards decision points related to biobank governance. This helps to show that scientific knowledge is not necessarily a prerequisite to participating in decision-making processes.

View record

Publications

 
 

If this is your researcher profile you can log in to the Faculty & Staff portal to update your details and provide recruitment preferences.