Minutes of the meeting held on 2 May 2001
Tue, 16 August 2005
5th 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 Wednesday 2 May 2001
PRESENT
Professor Bob Hepple (Chairman), Dr Tom Shakespeare, Professor Tom Baldwin, Professor Nicholas Rawlins, Dr Paul Pharoah, Professor Martin Bobrow, Professor Terrie Moffitt, Professor Andrew Wilkie, Professor Anita Thapar, Professor Martin Richards, Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith
SECRETARIAT
Sandy Thomas, Tor Lezemore, Susan Bull, Yvonne Melia
APOLOGIES
Professor Sandy McCall Smith, Mr Pushpinder Saini
CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION
1 The Chairman welcomed Professor Rawlins to his first meeting, and introduced Yvonne Melia, the Research Assistant at the Council.
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 21 MARCH (RECIRCULATED)
2 The minutes were approved as correct.
MATTERS ARISING
3 There were none.
FACT FINDING MEETINGS
4 It was agreed that a fact-finding meeting regarding the scientific aspects of behavioural genetics research would be arranged for the morning of 12 June 2001 at the Council offices. The experts to be invited would be sent copies of the public consultation document and details of the topics to be covered at the meeting. They would be able to submit short written pieces of evidence in addition if they so wished.
5 The key areas to be covered at the June fact-finding meeting would be the scientists' motivations for carrying out their research, their views about the goals of the research, their methodologies, and potential applications of the research. Other fact-finding meetings would be held in the Autumn, and would include meetings with philosophers, social scientists, and other experts.
6 The Working Party noted two relevant forthcoming meetings, the 10th International Congress on Twin Studies at Imperial College and the 31st Behavior Genetics Association Meeting in Cambridge. The possibility of a meeting with members of the Hastings Center/American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) group considering public tools for discussion of behavioural genetics in the US in November was discussed.
EVIDENCE REVIEWS
7 The style and content of the evidence reviews to be commissioned was discussed. Reviews of research in the fields of addiction, intelligence and personality would be commissioned to inform the deliberations of the Working Party. These would be hopefully be received in September.
DISCUSSION OF CONTRIBUTIONS
8 The structure of the Report was discussed. A possible framework for the chapter on ethical issues was put forward. Firstly, this would address the question of whether research into behavioural genetics ought to be conducted. This would be linked to the issue of priorities in research funding, to be discussed in the regulation and policy chapter. A specific question about research funding priorities arose in the context of the MRC/Wellcome DNA databank being developed.
9 The second key area of the chapter would focus on the issue of human dignity, and the possibility that it was in some way endangered by research into behavioural genetics. Some responses to the public consultation had already been received that expressed this fear. This would lead on to a discussion of the concepts of fatalism and determinism and the implications for them of findings in behavioural genetics research. This section would be linked to questions about moral and legal responsibility which would be addressed in detail elsewhere.
10 Following examination of these ethical issues, the Report would consider and evaluate discrete practical problems including prenatal and other forms of testing, preventive interventions, and the use of genetic information. In addition, issues such as stigma, discrimination, labelling and responsibility would be examined. These analyses would be informed by conclusions from the ethics chapter regarding human dignity and determinism. They would also encompass discussions of questions such as the existence, nature and use of a distinction between therapy and enhancement, and whether there was a morally significant difference between genetic and non-genetic interventions aimed at changing behaviour.
11 The papers on potential applications and research methods were presented. The feasibility of developing predictive tests for behavioural traits based on genetic information was discussed. The group discussed the recent statement by the Human Genetics Commission recommending a moratorium on the use of genetic information by insurers. The group would address this issue in the context of behavioural genetics in the report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
12 The responses to the public consultation that had been received were noted. Members were encouraged to address the issues they raised in their drafting.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
13 There was none.
Last Updated Tue, 16 August 2005