Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 February 2002
Tue, 16 August 2005
10th 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 Friday 15 February 2002
PRESENT
Professor Bob Hepple (Chairman)
Professor Martin Bobrow
Professor Tom Baldwin
Professor Anita Thapar
Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith
SECRETARIAT
Sandy Thomas
Tor Lezemore
Yvonne Melia
Nicola Perrin
APOLOGIES
Professor Sandy McCall Smith
Professor Terrie Moffitt
Dr Tom Shakespeare
Mr Pushpinder Saini
Professor Nicholas Rawlins
Dr Paul Pharoah
Professor Martin Richards
Professor Andrew Wilkie
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION
1 The Chairman welcomed the group. The Chairman of the Council, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy also greeted the group and thanked them for their hard work.
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 17 DECEMBER 2001 (RECIRCULATED)
2 The minutes were approved as correct.
MATTERS ARISING
3 There were none.
PEER REVIEW
4 It was noted that the following had agreed to peer review the report: Professor Sir Michael Rutter, Professor Sir Robert Hinde, Professor Thomas Bouchard, Professor Erik Parens, Tim Radford and Professor Nikolas Rose.
TIMETABLE
5 It was noted that the expected date of publication was late September.
DISCUSSION OF CONTRIBUTIONS
6 The question of priorities for funding research was examined. It was noted that, if the influences on human behaviour were to be studied at all, it would only be possible to do this by examining both genetic and environmental factors. The question of the relative merits of quantitative and molecular genetic approaches was also relevant.
7 It was noted that a clear distinction needed to be drawn early on in the chapter between different types of intervention. It was important to note that it was wrong to think that the discovery of a genetic influence would necessarily indicate that a genetic or indeed drug intervention was required. The Report needed to say why the development of genetic or drug interventions as a result of research in behaviour genetics was possible, or worth worrying about.
8 The issues of ADHD and medication in children, and the distinction between therapy and enhancement were discussed. The Working Party would need to think about the private provision of genetic or drug interventions, and about germline and somatic gene therapy. It was noted that recent advances in the field had raised expectations with regard to the likelihood of developing successful techniques for somatic gene therapy.
9 The Working Party considered the arguments about justice and access to interventions. It was important to consider what the negative consequences of unequal access might be. It was also important in these discussions to distinguish between desirable traits and undesirable traits, particularly in the context of state provision and in the chapter on legal responsibility, and to consider the issues relating to adults and children separately.
10 There was some discussion about prenatal sex selection, and other arguments in the context of selecting embryos.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
11 The Chairman reminded the group that its final meeting would take place on 9 May and that it would be vital for all members to attend. The report was due to be sent for peer review in early March and the deadline for revisions to be received by the Secretariat was 1 March.
Last Updated Tue, 16 August 2005