Skip to: Main Content | Site Links

Nuffield Council on Bioethics / Home

text only | home | site map | web accessibility

Minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2001

Tue, 16 August 2005

8th Meeting

NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS
WORKING PARTY ON GENETICS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

Minutes of the Meeting held at the Nuffield Foundation 28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS on Thursday 8 November 2001

PRESENT
Professor Bob Hepple (Chairman)
Dr Tom Shakespeare, Professor Martin Bobrow, Professor Martin Richards, Dr Paul Pharoah, Professor Tom Baldwin, Professor Anita Thapar, Professor Sandy McCall Smith, Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith

SECRETARIAT
Tor Lezemore, Susan Bull

APOLOGIES
Professor Andrew Wilkie, Professor Nicholas Rawlins, Professor Terrie Moffitt, Mr Pushpinder Saini

CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION

1 The Chairman welcomed the Working Party.

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2001 (RECIRCULATED)

2 The minutes were approved as correct.

MATTERS ARISING

3 It was agreed that the Working Party would seek outside assistance in discussing the likely implications of behaviour genetics research for the provision of education.

4 The draft report by the Human Genetics Commission had been circulated with the meeting papers. A further draft was expected before the end of the year and this would be circulated when available for the Working Party’s consideration.

PEER REVIEWERS

5 Potential peer reviewers for the Report were discussed. At least six experts would be selected.

EVIDENCE REVIEWS

6 It was agreed that the reviews received to date were of high quality. There was some discussion about the best way of incorporating the information they contained into the Report. The full papers would eventually be available on the Council’s website.

7 There was some discussion of ways of ensuring that the complex scientific issues were presented as simply and clearly as possible.

DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT REPORT

8 Various changes to the draft Report were suggested, including structural amendments. The concept of human dignity was discussed. It was suggested that in addition to the fundamental issue of one’s conception of oneself as a free, rational agent was vital to an account of human dignity, there were other ways in which behaviour genetics research might be relevant, such as the involvement of research subjects and the use of new interventions. The difference between determinism and fatalism needed further explication. It was observed that while it was common to refer to genetic determinism as a problem, in fact, it was genetic fatalism that was being referred to.

9 The section examining legal responsibility would be expanded for consideration at the next meeting.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10 The next meeting was scheduled for 17 December and would last from 10.30am to 4.30pm.

Last Updated Tue, 16 August 2005