晚近公民參與受到歐洲、美國與新興民主國家的高度關注，學界嘗試建立各種評估參與模式的標準，以檢視其品質與成效。英國在2002-2003年間舉行「基因改造國家？公共辯論」（The GM Nation? Debate），採行多元的公民參與形式，包括：基礎討論工作坊、公開討論會、互動網站與深度焦點團體，針對基因改造科技爭議進行全國性討論，以作為政府在基改科技可能的應用與管制之參考。本文旨在針對公共辯論的參與過程與結果面進行評估，檢視公民參與過程、公共辯論對參與者與政策影響以及不同公民參與模式的成效，呈現此公共辯論的特殊性與侷限性，以作為台灣未來推動公民參與和審議民主的參考。本研究採取文件分析法並輔以深度訪談資料。研究發現基礎討論工作坊、深度焦點團體在過程評估上具較高成效；公開討論會、互動網站在過程評估之成效不理想；公共辯論對參與者具有提升其知識與能力的功效；政治菁英對於公民參與科技決策議題的論述轉變；對實際政策影響有限，卻開啟政府在後續科技決策上，更重視公共審議和參與管道。本文最後主張推動多元公民參與形式、建立「回溯上游參與」（upstream engagement）及強化行政課責機制以促進公共審議之推動。

As public participation has received considerable attention in Europe,North America and newly democratic countries, various criteria for evaluatingparticipatory methods have been developed to examine the quality andefficiency of participatory mechanisms. To guide the government’sconsideration for potentially adopting the applications of GM technology andregulations, the UK Government initiated a nationwide public debate - the “GMNation? Debate” - on the controversies of GM technology during 2002-2003.The UK government adopted various participatory mechanisms, whichincluded public meetings, narrow-but-deep groups, interactive website andworkshops. This paper aims to examine the UK public debate on GM issuesand to evaluate the process and outcome of the debate. It explores theparticularities and limitations of the GM public debate in the UK, and providessuggestions for future public deliberations on science and technology inTaiwan. The research methods adopted are archival analysis and interviews. Itshows that the foundation discussion workshop and narrow-but-deep groups achieve more efficiency in process evaluation, while the public meeting andinteractive website generate less result. Public discussions raise the specificknowledge and capacity of the participants. They have a limited direct effect onpolicy decision-making, but have led to the government’s greater emphasis onpublic consultation and participation. Finally, this paper argues for the need tofacilitate various forms of public participation, establish upstream engagementand create an accountability mechanism to promote public deliberation.