Nuffield Council on Bioethics / Home

5 It was noted that there were gaps in the Report and that it needed considerable editing, but that the core elements were progressing well. New drafting was still required on education and on legal responsibility. Currently, there was more drafting on the scientific issues than the ethical, legal and social issues, but this would be evened out as work progressed. The next Working Party meeting would specifically focus on discussing the ethical issues.

6 The public consultation responses had highlighted the importance of defining what the Working Party took to be behaviour within the normal range. Arguably, addiction was in fact a disorder. It would be important to consider in some detail the distinction between normality and abnormality and to state clearly the approach taken. Another area that had not yet been sufficiently covered was the implications of research concerning disorders for our understanding of normal traits.

7 Some behaviour genetics researchers had felt that the public consultation document had been too negative about the research. In particular it was observed that starting the Report with a chapter on eugenics set an unnecessarily negative and alarmist tone. This would be kept in mind when drafting the Introduction. The Report could also include more details about the positive motivations for conducting research in behaviour genetics and the hopes and aspirations of researchers. Any discussion of eugenics was bound to be difficult and controversial, but it was important to bring this out and to note that current debates were heavily influenced by historical events. The term ‘eugenics’ had covered a wide range of beliefs and practices and it was the case that at least some of these were reflected in current medicine, notably genetic counselling: the line between the past and the present was not as sharp as people would like to think. One reason public concern about behavioural genetics research was so great was that behavioural traits had also been the focus of attention during the 1930s, 40s and 50s. It was worth noting the varying patterns of explanation of human behaviour over time.

8 There was some discussion of the order and content of the scientific background material. It was agreed that this section ought to provide a clear and straightforward account of causation in the context of genetics and human behaviour. Misleading or inappropriate analogies such as DNA being a ‘blueprint’ or ‘instructions’ should be avoided. It would be important to be clear that although genes were determinants in the sense that they strictly determined which proteins were made, they were not determinants of complex human behaviours. Not only was the causal path between genotype and phenotype very complicated, there were multiple genes to be considered as well as interactions between genetic and environmental factors.

9 It would also be useful for the reader to obtain some understanding about the quality and stage of the science to allow a more critical assessment of media reports. It was worth debating whether there should be higher scientific standards demanded of research that had the potential to ‘create headlines’ and affect public policy. The topic of scientific peer review and publication ethics might be an interesting one for the Council to consider in the future.

10 It was noted that the HGC consultation paper would shortly be superseded by its full report, due in January. A draft of this Report was now available to the public and would be circulated to the Working Party. It would be important not to repeat any work, and to ensure that the drafting focused on normal behavioural traits and not diseases.

11 The response to the public consultation from the Association of British Insurers was discussed. The question of the permissibility of using genetic information compared to non-genetic information in the insurance context had been hotly debated. The Consumers’ Association had highlighted in their response that the tendency in the UK seemed to be towards establishing some types of insurance as public goods rather than commercial benefits, in parallel with changes in the welfare state. This was an interesting issue and had not yet been considered with particular reference to behaviour genetics research.

12 The next drafts of each chapter should be received by the Secretariat by 24 October in preparation for the next meeting.

TIMETABLE