Deliberative minipublics often seek to recruit participants who are representative and diverse. This raises theoretical and practical challenges, because representativeness and diversity can be interpreted in multiple ways and can conflict with one another. We address this issue by proposing a purposive design approach, according to which the appropriate conceptualisations of representativeness and diversity, and thereby recruitment strategies, depend on the deliberative mini-public's aims. We argue that deliberative minipublics frequently have mixed aims, which can justify hybrid recruitment strategies that reflect distinct senses of representativeness or diversity.

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the business case for diversity (BCD), according to which diversity should be promoted because diverse groups outperform nondiverse groups. Philosophers who defend BCD usually propose that diversity’s positive effects are contingent on equitable background conditions that promote respectful and open discourse, suggesting that efforts to promote equity and to reap the benefits of diversity go hand-in-hand. Yet we explain how epistemic benefits of diversity can depend on inequities, including inequalities of intellectual authority along the lines of social identity. Consequently, we propose a more complete account of the complex relationship between equity and epistemic benefits of diversity.

Breast and colon cancer are among the most common cancers in the developed world. Several epidemiological studies suggest that the occurrence of one of these two cancers in a woman may predispose to the development of the other. The occurrence of both forms of cancer in the same woman may be because of chance or common susceptibility. In order to determine how frequently double primary cancers have a hereditary basis, we conducted a registry based study at a single Montreal hospital. Cancer rates in first degree relatives of patients with multiple primaries were compared with provincial age standardised incidence rates and relative risks (RRs) were estimated. In first degree relatives under 45 there was a total of 15 cancers observed, compared with 3.70 expected, giving an RR of4 05 (95% CI: 2-27-6.68). The RR for colon cancer was significantly increased among male relatives. For relatives less than 45 years old at diagnosis, the RR for colon cancer was 66.7 (95% CI: 13.8-195) (