APPENDIX 83
Memorandum from the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics
PROVISION OF BIOETHICS ADVICE
I am writing to offer some views of the Nuffield
Council on this matter, in the light of the experience it has
acquired over the past decade or so.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics examines ethical
issues raised by advances in biology and medicine. It is jointly
funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the
Medical Research Council, but operates independently of them.
The Council was established in 1991. The Government of the day
had decided against establishing its own source of advice on bioethics.
The Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation felt that there was a
compelling need for an authoritative and independent body that
could give such advice and, after a period of consultation, established
the Council, initially under the Chairmanship of Sir Patrick Nairne,
formerly Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social
Security.
The Council has since published a total of 12
reports and discussion papers. These cover a wide range of topics,
mainly but not exclusively in biomedicine. Recent examples are
our reports on pharmacogenetics, patenting of DNA, and genetics
and human behaviour (see Annex A for a full list). The Council's
publications aim to raise the quality and clarity of public debate,
and to make policy recommendations. Its work has been well received
and widely disseminated and the Council has achieved an international
reputation. Many issues in bioethics are international in scope
and the Council plays an important role in international debates.
For example, it co-convened the 4th Global Summit of National
Bioethics Commissions held in Brazil in 2002; it participates
in bioethical meetings of the European Commission and the Council
of Europe; and it contributes to debates by means of invited presentations
at high-level meetings involving policy makers, industry and academia.
The Council's fundamental task is to identify
and analyse ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological
and medical research in order to respond to, and to anticipate,
public concern. Having identified issues it considers important,
the Council establishes dedicated working parties of distinguished
experts. These will typically include scientists, clinicians,
lawyers and philosophers under an independent Chairman. The Working
Parties meet over a period of two years or so. Most Working Parties
will carry out some form of wider consultation. The Council attaches
the highest importance to the quality of its reports and a range
of procedures such as peer review and consultation with external
experts have been put in place to ensure that its work is robust
and withstands close scrutiny.
The Council takes its public responsibilities
seriously and devotes considerable effort to publicising and promoting
discussion of its reports. In consequence its publications are
widely disseminated amongst a diverse readership. We regularly
respond to consultations and, from time to time, to requests from
government or other organisations for advice. For example, we
have recently submitted evidence to the Treasury's consultation
on Science and innovation: working towards a ten-year investment
framework; to the discussions in the House of Commons on the draft
Human Tissue Bill; and to the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit which
assessed the use of GM crops.
We do not see public education in the broad
sense as a major part of our role. Equally, we are cautious about
the value of developing policy which is unduly influenced by short-term
consultation exercises, or seeks to base normative or policy conclusions
on empirical research in the social sciences that focuses mainly
on public attitudes and behaviour.
The Council has considerable experience of the
work of bioethics commissions from other countries, and it may
be helpful to note some of the differences between these commissions
and the Nuffield Council. First, national commissions are clearly
useful to governments when there is a need for advice on short-term
issues of narrow scope. This is not part of the brief of the Nuffield
Council, nor is it a role we would wish to play. National Commissions
appear less useful when longer term or in depth work is required
to consider complex topics which are still on the horizon. Much
of their work in this sphere has been variable in quality.
Secondly, the work of national bioethics commissions
tends to be heavily politicised. In contrast, the independence
of the Nuffield Council is one of its defining characteristics.
Experience shows us that there is a trade off to be made between
the combination of public engagement with the reactive and relatively
narrow focus exemplified by the majority of commissions, and providing
high quality policy analysis for the longer term. Very few, if
any, national commissions have combined the two successfully.
December 2004
| 
