Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls.

Do leaders persuade? Social scientists have long studied the relationship between elite behavior and mass opinion. However, there is surprisingly little evidence regarding direct persuasion by leaders. Here we show that political leaders can persuade their constituents directly on three dimensions: substantive attitudes regarding policy issues, attributions regarding the leaders' qualities, and subsequent voting behavior. We ran two randomized controlled field experiments testing the causal effects of directly interacting with a sitting politician. Our experiments consist of 20 online town hall meetings with members of Congress conducted in 2006 and 2008. Study 1 examined 19 small meetings with members of the House of Representatives (average 20 participants per town hall). Study 2 examined a large (175 participants) town hall with a senator. In both experiments we find that participating has significant and substantively important causal effects on all three dimensions of persuasion but no such effects on issues that were not discussed extensively in the sessions. Further, persuasion was not driven solely by changes in copartisans' attitudes; the effects were consistent across groups.

Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative.

In the view of many, heritable human genome editing (HHGE) harbors the remedial potential of ridding the world of deadly genetic diseases. A Hippocratic obligation, if there ever was one, HHGE is widely viewed as a life-sustaining proposition. The national go/no-go decision regarding the implementation of HHGE, however, must not, in the collective view of the authors, proceed absent thorough public engagement. A comparable call for an "extensive societal dialogue" was recently issued by the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. In this communication, the authors lay out the foundational principles undergirding the formation, modification, and evaluation of public opinion. It is against this backdrop that the societal decision to warrant or enjoin the clinical conduct of HHGE will doubtlessly transpire.

Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records.

The federal Privacy Rule, implemented in the United States in 2003, as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), created new restrictions on the release of medical information for research. Many believe that its restrictions have fallen disproportionately on researchers prompting some to call for changes to the Rule. Here we ask what patients think about researchers' access to medical records, and what influences these opinions. A sample of 217 patients from 4 Veteran Affairs (VA) facilities deliberated in small groups at each location with the opportunity to question experts and inform themselves about privacy issues related to medical records research. After extensive deliberation, these patients were united in their inclination to share their medical records for research. Yet they were also united in their recommendations to institute procedures that would give them more control over whether and how their medical records are used for research. We integrated qualitative and quantitative results to derive a better understanding of this apparent paradox. Our findings can best be presented as answers to questions related to five dimensions of trust: Patients' trust in VA researchers was the most powerful determinant of the kind of control they want over their medical records. More specifically, those who had lower trust in VA researchers were more likely to recommend a more stringent process for obtaining individual consent. Insights on the critical role of trust suggest actions that researchers and others can take to more fully engage patients in research.