Minutes of the meeting held on 16th March 2007
Wed, 6 June 2007
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS WORKING GROUP ON FORENSIC USE OF BIOINFORMATION: ETHICAL ISSUES
Minutes of the 3rd meeting held on 16th March 2007
PRESENT: Professor Bob Hepple (Chair), Graham Cooke, Professor Søren Holm, Professor Graeme Laurie, Dr Bronwyn Parry, Professor Andrew Read and Robin Williams
SECRETARIAT: Dr Carole McCartney (Project Manager), Hugh Whittall, Dr Catherine Moody and Caroline Rogers
Minutes of second meeting
1 The minutes of the second meeting that took place on January 22nd were agreed as an accurate record.
Matters arising from the fact-finding meeting held in the morning
2 Professor Hepple highlighted issues that had arisen during the fact-finding meeting. These included: the possibility of various databases being linked together; research using profiles on the NDNAD and related samples; regulation of the NDNAD; and ethnic inferencing.
Public consultation
3 The number of responses to the consultation had reached 140 upon closing. The Secretariat had prepared a preliminary summary of the public responses to the consultation. Some suggestions for improvements to this summary were made. It was reiterated that there was no attempt at quantitative analysis (given the nature of the consultation).
4 Members were reminded that they should read responses relevant to their areas and also identify quotations for possible use in the discussion paper to reflect the views of the public.
Fact-finding meetings
5 It was reported that further information was being sought from the Custodian of the NDNAD.
Discussion paper
6 A revised draft of the discussion paper was provided for Working Group members. Professor Hepple explained that conclusions and recommendations should be considered and developed today, as this would inform any further re-drafting of the paper.
7 Proposals contained in the Home Office consultation document ‘Modernising Police Powers’ (March 2007) were considered and it was noted that the document should be referred to in the discussion paper.
8 Proposed conclusions and recommendations were debated by the Working Group. It was agreed that the Project Manager would then synthesise the outcome of this discussion and disseminate the paper for further revisions.
Peer review
9 Professor Hepple was pleased to report that all the peer reviewers approached had agreed to act in that capacity.
Production timetable
10 The Chair reminded the members of the production timetable for the discussion paper. Following editing by the Working Group and the Project Manager, the draft paper would be sent out for peer review at the start of April. The subsequent version and peer review comments would be discussed at the May meeting.
The last scheduled meeting of the Working Group would take place on 22nd May.
Last Updated Wed, 6 June 2007