As the use of Bayesian approaches continues to expand in the field of drug development and health technology assessment, informative priors are being used to design clinical studies, to analyze clinical study data and to inform decision making. Often these priors are derived from relevant empirical data, but in some cases, the prior may be derived based on “expert” judgments. The latter is done when there is limited data and/or our understanding may preclude direct construction of a data-driven prior or even in cases where a substantial body of empirical evidence is available, but there is a translational gap between the setting(s) to which the available data relate and the new setting under consideration. Elicitation of priors based on “expert” judgment using rigorous, well established methods for knowledge elicitation allows one to leverage the wealth of expert knowledge and experience within the pharmaceutical organization and/or biomedical community to develop robust informative priors that can bridge the gap between sparse or indirect evidence and the quantities of interest to decision makers. At this round table, we will discuss/debate the challenges of gaining acceptance of priors based on elicitation of expert opinions and the perceived validity of using an elicited prior vs. one based solely on historical data, particularly in the context of regulatory or health policy decision making.