Minutes of the Council meeting held on 14 January 2004
Wed, 17 March 2004
Council (04) 1st Meeting
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS
Minutes of the Meeting held at 28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
on 14 January 2004 at 10.30 am
PRESENT: Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC FBA (Chairman)
Professor Catherine Peckham (Deputy Chair)
Professor Tom Baldwin
The Rt Reverend Richard Harries
Professor Peter Lipton
Baroness Perry of Southwark
Professor Martin Raff
Mr Nick Ross
Professor Herbert Sewell
Professor Peter Smith
Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern
Professor Albert Weale
Dr Alan Williamson
APOLOGIES: Professor Sir Kenneth Calman
SECRETARIAT: Dr Sandy Thomas, Dr Catherine Moody, Harald Schmidt, Nicola Perrin, Caroline Rogers, Julia Fox and Elaine Talaat-Abdalla
The Chairman welcomed Professor Peter Lipton and Dr Catherine Moody (the Deputy Director-designate).
MINUTES OF (03) 4th MEETING
1 It was agreed that the Minutes were an accurate record of the previous meeting.
MATTERS ARISING
2 There were no matters arising other than items which would be dealt with as part of the main agenda.
CHAIRMAN’S ITEMS
MEMBERSHIP
Council (04) 01
3 It had been agreed at the Council’s (03) 4th meeting that the Sub-group on Membership would put forward names for consideration by the Council. The Chairman invited members to review a list of four names from the Sub-group. After discussion it was agreed that one individual should be invited to join the Council.
FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION ON THE USE OF HUMAN TISSUE
Council (04) 02
4 The Chairman wished to propose that the Council produce, as a matter of urgency, a short paper highlighting the Council’s view on the Human Tissue Bill. The Council had considered this topic in its Report Human Tissue: ethical and legal issues and there was a need to ensure that members of Parliament were aware of its conclusions and recommendations. There was particular concern about the wording of the new Bill and it was crucial that the Council made its views known. Individual researchers and several advisory bodies were concerned that the Bill would inhibit medical research by requiring that consent from patients be extended very widely. Patients might be reluctant to give consent to the use of their tissue after the recent events at Bristol and Alder Hey and research on public health might suffer. As currently drafted, the Bill was difficult to interpret. It was important that the Council consider the recommendations made in 1995 and review them in the light of the proposed legislation which had been prepared in response to recent scandals.
5 It was agreed that a short paper should be prepared and that a small group of members with experience in the area would work with the Secretariat. The Paper might be sent in the form of a letter to MPs. It would be circulated to Council members for information.
MAIN BUSINESS
SEMINAR ON THE WAY WE REASON:
DELIBERATION, CONSULTATION AND POLICY IN BIOETHICS
Council (04) 03
6 It had been agreed at the Council’s (03) 4th meeting that the Council would hold a seminar The way we reason: rationality in public debate about bioethics. A draft programme had been circulated and comments from members had been incorporated in a revised version. The Chairman invited members to consider the revised programme and to suggest possible speakers. Professor Peter Lipton suggested the programme should open with a presentation which considered how moral reasoning was possible. Professor Albert Weale thought that it would be helpful, given the complexity of the topic, to give a particular focus to the features of the process which had changed during the last 20 years. Although the programme now featured a full cast of participants, two issues needed to be added: uncertainty, and ethical balancing.
7 There was then further discussion about whether the proposed presentation on moral reasoning should also include consideration of the ‘reason and emotion dimension’. There was a need to allow sufficient time in the afternoon to consider issues for policy. Professor Marilyn Strathern proposed that time be made for a presentation from a social scientist. It was agreed that the use of case studies would be important to focus attention on the question of how public debate should take place. After a lengthy discussion, the Chairman asked the Secretariat to take account of the points raised in the discussion and to re-draft the programme, which would then be finalised by the Chairman in consultation with Professors Strathern, Baldwin, Weale and Lipton.
8 Members were invited to propose names for speakers and other participants. It was desirable to have a mix with expertise from different areas. Suggestions of names for speakers and participants, other than those in the Council Paper, should be sent to the Secretariat.
WORKING PARTY ON THE ETHICS OF PROLONGING LIFE IN FOETUSES AND NEONATES
Council (04) 04
9 The membership of the Working Party needed to be finalised at the March meeting. With regard to the subject areas which needed to be covered by the membership of the Working Party, the following were agreed: philosophy; social science; social anthropology; economics, law (possibly two members including a medical lawyer); social work; nursing; parent groups and obstetrics. Suggestions for a Chair should be sent to the Chairman or the Director. (The Chair of a Working Party is normally an external appointee who is co-opted onto Council for the period of the Working Party.) The membership would be considered at the March meeting with a view to the Working Party holding two meetings in 2004.
WORKSHOP ON THE ETHICS OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Council (04) 05
10 The Chairman advised members that this item and the item relating to the CCNE would be considered together. The discussion at the meeting with the CCNE had been very productive and some elements of that programme could be replicated in the Workshop on Public Health. It was agreed that a colleague from the CCNE should be invited to participate. It is suggested that the topic of obesity which was rapidly becoming an important issue in public health should be included. One possibility was that it could be included as a case study. It would be important to allow sufficient time for discussion in the afternoon for this to take place.
11 It was proposed to hold the Workshop in July and therefore there was a need to approach participants shortly. A number of possible names were mentioned. It was noted that case studies needed to have a scientific background and other forms of vaccination might be worth considering. The ethical issues would need to be addressed in the afternoon. Suggestions should be sent to the Secretariat.
WORKING GROUP ON THE USE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Council (04) 06
12 The Assistant Director, Harald Schmidt reported that the Paper had been launched on 29 December. The timing had been dictated by the final revisions of the Paper and the Government’s own timetable. Work in the Secretariat had now moved to the follow-up stage. The Chairman congratulated the Secretariat on meeting the deadline and for producing such an on attractively presented paper which would probably be influential. The coverage in the Observer had been welcome. So far, there had been 5,000 downloads from the web.
WORKING PARTY ON THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING ANIMALS
Council (04) 07
13 Baroness Perry reported on the 6th meeting which had taken place last week. The group had set aside debate about the ethics of research on animals until this meeting which had turned out to be a helpful approach. The fact finding session with the regulators had proved to be very useful although it might have been helpful to have met at an earlier date. The quality of the responses to the consultation process ‘on-line’ had been high and people had even thanked the Council for the opportunity to put their views forward.
HRRDC II SOUTH AFRICA
Council (04) 08
14 The latest draft of the programme and list of participants were noted. There had been a great deal of interest in the event and sponsorship was now confirmed from DFID (who would also attend). The background paper was being prepared and would be circulated to participants before the meeting and form the basis for some of the discussions. It would also be circulated to members of the Council for information. There would be a Report on the Workshop at the next Council meeting.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
BI-LATERAL MEETING WITH CCNE
Council (04) 09
15 This had been a useful and interesting meeting. An invitation been extended by the Chairman to the CCNE to visit the Council in London in 2004. The topic for discussion and the timing would be arranged.
16 The Chairman was well acquainted with the Chair of the German Bioethics Commission (Der Nationale Ethikrat). He felt it would be a good idea to arrange a similar meeting with the Commission and an invitation would be extended. The proceedings would be in English. European influence was important and three or four countries working together could be very fruitful. There were useful comparisons to be made with regard to the implications of differences in patterns of vaccinations and other areas of medicine as well as differences in legislation, including data protection.
GENETIC SCREENING
Council (04) 10
17 In view of the previous discussion on the Human Tissue Bill, it was agreed to put this item back on the agenda in March.
EC FORUM OF NATIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEES
18 The Director had attended this meeting in Rome. It had proved to be a very useful opportunity to meet other colleagues from European Bioethics Commissions. The next meeting would be held in Dublin in June.
TO REPORT
7TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEES
Council (04) 11
19 The Chairman would write and thank Professor Sir Kenneth Calman for attending this Conference and making a presentation on behalf of the Council.
BIOETHICS BRIEFING:
ACTIVITIES OF OTHER ORGANISATIONS
Council (04) 12
20 The Briefing was received and noted.
FINANCIAL REPORT: MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS TO 30 NOVEMBER 2003
Council (04) 13
21 The Management Accounts for the period up to the 30 November 2003 were received.
COUNCIL’S REVISED DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR 2004
Council (04) 14
22 The Council’s revised Draft Work Plan was received and would be amended in the light of discussion at this meeting.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
23 There was no additional business.
QUARTERLY BULLETIN
Information (04) 01
24 For information.
WEB REPORT
Information (04) 02
25 The web report figures were noted.
REMAINING MEETING DATES FOR 2004
COUNCIL
Thursday 25 March 10.30 am
Wednesday 23 June 10.30 am
Thursday 14 October 10.30 am
FORWARD LOOK SEMINAR: The Way we reason:
deliberation, consultation and policy in bioethics
Thursday 13 May full day meeting
all meetings will be held at 28 Bedford Square.
Last Updated Mon, 7 June 2004