Mélanie Heard - CRI
I am studying citizen juries initatives in the health sector. I study how people are thus enabled to think thoroughly about complex health issues.
Imagine you are asked to be part of a citizen-jury about xenotransplantation policies. Imagine you know nothing about it. You are going to get trained within 1 or 2 week-ends and then discuss for a few days with other lay members of the representative jury, in order to share sound arguments and think thoroughly about alternative policies in xenotransplantation.
In this seminar we will discuss about : how to build a training that could make you epistemically better of ? What does it mean to enable you to question the experts, share sound arguments with your co-jurors, think thoroughly and thus shape a representative and thoughtful public voice that will be really worth listening to?
Both from a descriptive and a normative point of view, the design of such deliberative trainings remains poorly studied. One of the major criteria of quality for such a training could be about providing balanced information.
The question is of particular relevance in the health sector, where there is a growing reflection about what counts as evidence and how to balance and mix various types of information and disciplines.