When trying to formulate government policy on infant vaccination, Roger Bernier was shocked to see how anti-vaccination activists were quick to dismiss concrete scientific evidence showing no connection between vaccines and the development of autism in infants. He realized that ‘hard’, empirical evidence was not enough to convince a public already entrenched in their views. There was a basic trust issue with many citizens simply not willing to listen to the scientific and medical experts.

Bernier decided that increased public engagement was needed to bridge this gap of mistrust. Instead of trying to engage the public in the debate around vaccinations and autism, he decided to try his experiment on the issue of pandemic influenza. He believed that while the public already had entrenched opinions that would be hard to change about the autism claims, the issue of pandemic influenza was relatively unknown and the participants could therefore begin the experiment with a ‘clean slate’. (This issue reminded me of  He decided to use the problems Dryzek discusses when writing problem of deliberative democracy in divided society. A different tactic Bernier might have attempted was to distance the deliberation from the government/formal decision – this might have allowed the participants pandemic influenza vaccination prioritization to be more flexible)try a new public engagement model. ==Purpose==