• Log In
The Democracy Docket
  • HOME
  • 2019
  • 2020
  • 2021
  • 2023
  • 2024
  • Global Democracy Challenges
  • Privacy
Select Page

SCOM Students Facilitate Deliberative Dialogue on Translational Medicine with Bioethics Students

Nov 26, 2018 | 2018, Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement | 0 comments

This is just another example of how James Madison University is institutionalizing civic engagement. In October, students in Dr. Lori Britt’s class on Facilitating Dialogue and Deliberation tested their skills with students enrolled in Dr. James Herrick’s Infectious Diseases biology class (Bio 447/547). Using a deliberative approach, students engaged in a bioethics conversation to weigh the options of translational medicine, including whether it should be fully available, of limited availability, or restricted to the public. The facilitation team was led by Communications majors Jessica Martin, Illana Doroteo, and Marissa Quander, who prepared and aimed to enable a discussion that would demonstrate how to go about presenting new-found research and information regarding translational medicine to the public.

The facilitation team conducted a pre-survey on the bioethics students positions on translational medicine. Facilitators then gave bioethics students the following chart in the slide show below summarizing the three translational medicine options.

Should Translational Medicine be Accessible to the Public?


After reading about the options, the facilitation team posed questions to bioethics students around each of the options to probe differing views and beliefs, reasons to support or oppose each option, and the implications of different decisions. While the bioethics students who participated in the dialogue upheld their position on a limited availability approach before and after the discussion, post-survey data showed that the dialogue helped inform them of alternative ideas, the role of public opinion, new perspectives on each of the choices, and the implications and consequences of alternative approaches.

In addition, through dialogue, bioethics students gained a better understanding of why one option may be valuable to some people, even if they didn’t fully agree with it. The discussion also helped bioethics students practice explaining concepts and make proposals to important members of society who are NOT scientists. One participant said that the facilitation was helpful in that it brought up topics the class wouldn’t have thought about, and allowed the group discussion to move away from groupthink since they are like-minded and always agree during their normal discussions.

Because of the facilitation, there will likely be more collaborations between science and SCOM students. Stay tuned!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Executive Order: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
  • Voting Barriers Series: Felony Disenfranchisement
  • The First 100 Days and the Use of Executive Orders
  • Carbon Market Mechanisms: Government-led incentives to reduce emissions
  • Calls for Narcan Amidst the Opioid Crisis

Recent Comments

  • Sarah lee on What do Rihanna, Jesus and Albert Einstein have in common?
  • sarahjeanmay on Profiles in Civic Leadership: Sarah Taylor Mayhak
  • Discussion on Parole & Parole Reform – Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Nonviolence Web Journal on Revisiting Virginia’s Parole Policies

Archives

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • October 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • May 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018

Categories

  • 2018
  • 2019
  • 2020
  • 2020 Census
  • 2021
  • 2023
  • 2024
  • Arts and Civic Engagement
  • Buycotting
  • Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement
  • Climate Change
  • Community Engagement
  • Constitution
  • criminal justice
  • Democracy In Peril
  • Economy
  • election laws
  • elections
  • Environment
  • Equity
  • Events
  • First Amendment
  • Global Civic Engagement
  • Global Democracy Challenges
  • Health
  • Housing
  • Immigration
  • Issues
  • Justice
  • Local Politics
  • Madison Vision Series
  • Media and Politics
  • Partisan Rancor
  • Policy History
  • Poverty
  • Presidency
  • Privacy
  • Public Participation
  • Public Service
  • Publications
  • Refugees
  • State Politics
  • Sustainable Development Goals
  • Uncategorized
  • Voting
  • Voting Rights

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • JMU WordPress Sites
  • X
  • Instagram
  • RSS

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress

Copyright JMU Madison Center for Civic Engagement