A group of 16–19-year-olds backed 'saviour siblings' but were not so keen on sex selection and the term 'designer baby'. As participants in a public engagement experiment, they also showed that young people's citizens' juries are both feasible and useful.

Citizens' juries are one way in which 'ordinary people' can gather information and reflect on contentious socioscientific issues. Young people will be affected by advances in genetics, but they rarely have input into discussions or policy-making. Can the citizens' jury format work with younger generations?

With Engaging Science Society Award funding, Rachel Iredale and colleagues at the University of Glamorgan's Genomics Policy Unit ran a citizens' jury for 16–19-year-olds to find out their views on genetic technologies in reproduction and reproductive decision-making.

The 14-strong jury cross-examined experts, and heard from non-experts with personal experience of the issues. They concluded that it is acceptable to use genetic technologies, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, to prevent genetic disorders from being passed on or to save a sibling. But they opposed sex selection for non-medical reasons.

They also declared that 'designer babies' is not a useful term – and that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should include members aged under 20.

The organisers concluded that the method does help young people to engage with current issues in science, and that they have useful and valuable things to say about genetic technologies.

Image: Members of the young people's citizens' jury. Courtesy of the University of Glamorgan/Wales Gene Park/Techniquest.

External links

• Iredale R et al. What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales. Health Expect 2006;9(3):207–17.