Rob Frost tunes in to public engagement

A successful public dialogue was integral to a recent report by the Academy of Medical Sciences, which examined the issues raised by advances in our understanding of the brain. The report, Brain science, addiction and drugs (1), was shaped both by the analysis of an expert working group, and the findings from drugsfutures, a national conversation involving scientific experts and members of the public (2).

What do we want?

The purpose of drugsfutures was to enable a broad cross-section of the public to discuss their aspirations and concerns around the current and future use of three types of psychoactive drug: ‘recreational’ drugs, medicines for mental health and a third category called cognition enhancers, which can enhance brain performance in specific ways. Over 500 participants, aged 13–96, were involved in the programme, either through face-to-face events at eight venues across the UK or via an online consultation.

These activities were part of a wider evidence-gathering process, which included analysis of scientific reviews, written contributions from working group members and external responses to an open call for submissions.

From the outset, there was a clear mechanism for interaction between these different elements. Working group members shaped the scope of the drugsfutures activities and attended events, explaining to participants how the results of the process would be collected and used. Emerging findings were fed back to the working group and often changed the course of their discussions. For example, a section in the final report on psychological interventions for mental health was introduced following participants’ concerns about a future over-reliance on pharmacological treatments.

Priorities of participants

There was a strong desire from the working group for drugsfutures to involve a diverse range of audiences, particularly groups of young people, ex-drug users and older adults: people who may have especially relevant views but are often excluded from debates on these topics. Participants articulated very different experiences of drug use and mental health and expressed different attitudes to

Recreational drug users contributed to the conversation

the issues discussed. These views are integrated with the scientific evidence throughout the Academy report and do not present a ‘wish list’, but provide a clear indication of the thinking and priorities of the participants.

It was clear that participants’ thinking around cognition enhancers was different from the nature of discussions on mental health and recreational drugs. Cognition enhancers are a new type of substance and participants did not bring ready-formed views to the debate, but rather explored their own attitudes during the workshops. In line with the concerns expressed during this upstream engagement, the Academy’s report calls for an assessment of the long¬term effects of using cognition enhancers and recommends ongoing monitoring of their use.

Learning and impact

The report, particularly the outputs of the public dialogue activities, has been well received by government, stakeholders and the media. An independent evaluation of drugsfutures concluded: ‘This exercise provided significant value to the public participants involved, and to the policymakers [the Academy working group] who have used the outputs of the process in coming to policy conclusions and recommendations.’(3)

The project pioneered several successful techniques to take on to future public dialogue projects. It also raised issues for further consideration, for example when and how best should written information be provided to participants? For many members of the working group, this was their first involvement in public engagement of this nature, yet the message in the report is clear: in a liberal democracy, an intelligent and appropriate approach to drugs policy presupposes a prior deliberative and inclusive community debate. Continuing the type of public engagement activities carried out during this project can only better inform policymakers, allowing regulators to work with the grain of public opinion, and so develop policies that can achieve their desired objectives.

The impact of the report on UK research and drug policy looks encouraging but may take months or even years to take effect. The impact on working practice for policy studies such as this has been more immediate; as the Academy celebrates our 10th Anniversary we have made a commitment to undertake public engagement as a regular part of future work.

Reference

1. Copies of the Academy report and a detailed account of the drugsfutures findings.

2. drugsfutures was funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills’ Sciencewise-ERC programme. For further information visit www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk The programme of activities was designed and managed by a consortium of organisations led by the Office for Public Management (OPM)

3. Evaluation by Diane Warburton, Shared Practice

Dr Rob Frost is a Senior Policy Officer at the Academy of Medical Sciences.