The past 17 months have seen an unprecedented series of data-driven responses to the pandemic in the UK. People have been asked to trust and comply with intrusive measures including contact-tracing apps, risk-scoring algorithms for shielding and vaccination, and soon perhaps also "vaccine passports". What do members of the public think about these measures, and what conditions and safeguards do they see as necessary to justify their use? These questions were considered in two "citizen jury" deliberations over the past two weeks as part of our project on The Role of Good Governance and the Rule of Law in Building Public Trust in Data-Driven Responses to Public Health Emergencies, funded by the Arts and Humanities Council on behalf of UK Research and Innovation.
Each jury was made up of a representative group of 25 UK residents, who participated in 10 hours of online deliberation. The juries were convened and facilitated by the Ada Lovelace Institute, one of our project partners. Jurors spent most of their time deliberating, but also heard short presentations by speakers from organisations including NHS Digital, NHSX, the Tony Blair Institute, Foxglove, MedConfidential. The Bingham Centre's Dr Jan van Zyl Smit gave an overview of Rule of Law principles in this context. Each jury presented their final recommendations in a session attended by experts in the field. A report of the juries' recommendations will be published in due course.
Read our full Weekly Update here