THE DELPHI PANEL
A method to structure group communication and reach group consensus
A technique to explore stakeholder policy priorities in synthetic biology
A key aspect in applying the Delphi method is the selection of the participants to the “expert panel”. “Expertise” is here to be considered not merely as a reference to some sort of scientific background, but, in a broader sense, refers to the competence on a certain matter of facts. ,We “considered an ‘expert’ as a person or participant who, by a verifiable mean (particular job position, expertise/knowledge, publications), is known to have information or that has access to information, which concerns the issues under investigation” ([25], 115).
​
Our broad characterisation of expertise is based on this inclusive definition. It overcomes the separation of experts and stakeholders to reflect the diversity of valuable knowledge and shed light on the interests, purposes, and practices of knowledge itself through the inclusion of stakeholders and practitioners.
One important aspect in selecting the panel of respondents is the balance between the size of the group and the quality (accuracy, robustness) of the information to elicit. Rowe and Wright ([26], 129) suggests that groups in general should comprise between 5 to 20 members. The exact number will depend on the pool of experts available, but also on the nature and quality of feedback sought. The Delphi we conducted for Synenergene selected instead a broader panel of about 30 respondents to:
-
include a sufficient number of both Synenergene partners and external respondents;
-
balance the number of scientific experts and stakeholders;
-
retain a sufficient number of respondents in the planned Delphi rounds.
The questionnaire was distributed amongst 256 contacts, researchers and stakeholders in the synthetic biology field. Nominations from the project partners and scoping through literature and web searches were used to find and recruit scientists and researchers, NGO members, policy makers and policy advisors, business representatives, science communicators. 31 respondents participated in the first round of the Delphi (October-mid-November 2016).
​
Most of the respondents both in Round 1 and Round 2 were affiliated to research and higher education institutions. Overall, this category accounts for about 80% of the total. This predominance is consistent with the nascent stage of synthetic biology, which has still few marketed applications. As we will see, this predominance of R&D is evident also when the respondents consider governance and regulatory processes.
Figure 1 - Affiliation of respondents: Round 1 (Left) and Round 3 (Right)
Similarly, the distribution of the respondents in relation to their level of education (Fig. 2) reflects the fact that most of the panellists are engaged in research and higher education institutions. In fact, about 74% of respondents have a PhD, or has concluded the training necessary to carry out research and development activities in academia or private institutions. The respondents of second Delphi round were 28. The number of respondents per organization category (Fig. 3.), and in relation to their level of education (Fig. 4.) is reported in the graphs below, showing a distribution that is similar to the first round.
Figure 2 - Education level of respondents: Round 1 (Left) and Round 2 (Right).