Informed by the knowledge-gathering activities, the European Group on Ethics then develops its advice. This work is done in two phases: drafting and feedback.
The drafting phase
In this phase, the Group writes its advice. This can take one or more different formats, depending on what the Group judges to be most useful:
- an in-depth analysis and set of policy recommendations known as an Opinion
- a shorter, more targeted contribution known as a Statement
- a different format tailored to specific needs
In every case, the draft responds to the questions set out in the scoping paper. This usually includes:
- a summary of shared understanding of ethical dilemmas related to the issues in question
- a critical analysis of issues and arguments, including a description of relevant ethical framings
- an account of which knowledge and evidence has been used, and what remains contested or unclear
- for Opinions, a set of standalone policy recommendations
Drafting process
Drafts are produced and discussed iteratively within the Group until members reach a consensus on both content and quality.
All members of the Group participate in this process, but normally the Group nominates a smaller ‘drafting team’ to lead the work on a particular topic. The chair and vice-chairs of the Group do not join these drafting teams, but instead supervise and guide the overall activity.
The EGE secretariat supports and advises the Group throughout the process, including by arranging editorial support if needed.
The feedback phase
During this phase, the Group can test its advice with a ‘sounding board’ of people who have not previously been consulted during the knowledge-gathering or drafting phases. This group can include:
- independent experts, for instance to provide feedback on academic quality
- policymakers, for instance to identify any factual oversights and discuss practicality
- civil society stakeholders, for instance to elicit feedback and discuss real-world implications
While this step requires upfront time allocation, it mitigates downstream risks of misinterpretation or impracticality, ultimately enhancing the impact and credibility of outputs.