Minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2001
Tue, 16 August 2005
4th 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 21 March 2001
PRESENT
Professor Bob Hepple (Chairman)
Dr Tom Shakespeare
Professor Tom Baldwin
Professor Sandy McCall Smith
Dr Paul Pharoah
Professor Martin Bobrow
Mr Pushpinder Saini
Professor Andrew Wilkie
Professor Anita Thapar
Professor Martin Richards
Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith
SECRETARIAT
Dr Sandy Thomas
Tor Lezemore
APOLOGIES
Professor Terrie Moffitt
Professor Nicholas Rawlins
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION
1 The Chairman welcomed the group.
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY (RECIRCULATED)
2 The minutes were approved as correct.
MATTERS ARISING
3 The Chairman drew the group’s attention to two papers that had been prepared by the Secretariat and circulated to the Working Party. These concerned the Council’s previous comments on eugenics, and the current legal and regulatory frameworks of various countries in relation to the use of genetic information.
FACT FINDING MEETINGS
4 The members were invited to suggest individuals or organisations with whom they wanted to meet. A meeting with the Royal Society biology group to focus on the scientific aspects of behavioural genetics was unanimously supported. Various individuals in the UK and the US were suggested. Members were invited to submit other suggestions to the Secretariat for discussion at the next meeting.
TIMETABLE
5 Responsibility for co-ordinating initial drafts of each chapter for consideration at the meeting on 2 May was confirmed. The role of the co-ordinator was to ensure that all relevant points were covered in each chapter. It was agreed that members would aim to submit initial chapter drafts to the Secretariat by 24 April.
DISCUSSION OF MEMBERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
Animal models of behaviour
6 The Working Party considered some of the advantages and disadvantages of using animal models of human behaviour. The advantages of mouse models included the ability to breed new generations quickly and to use genetic manipulation. Disadvantages included problems of translating the richness of human behaviour and emotional responses into the behaviour of animals, and the sensitivity of developmental systems which meant that research could often be influenced by external factors.
Causation
7 The topics of causation and scientific proof were considered. Various approaches to the topics, including induction, refutationism, consensus theory, and Bayesian theory, were discussed. The problems of over-determination and causal chains were noted.
8 The multifactorial nature of causation was particularly important, particularly in the attribution of responsibility. The attribution of causal responsibility had both political and moral elements; often the reason for asking about causation was because of a presupposition about what one thought had happened. Thus, the perspective of the questioner and the intended use of the answer were crucial when considering causation.
9 There was a well-documented assumption that genetic factors were unchanging and could not easily be altered, which manifested itself in a tendency towards genetic determinism. A clearer understanding of causation and the interaction of genes and environment was therefore important. The Working Party considered the value of referring to causes as risk factors, or factors that increased the chance of an outcome occurring.
Ethical and legal issues
10 The Working Party considered the concepts of human dignity and moral responsibility. Some ethical concerns about behavioural genetics research could be measured against a central human value, namely human dignity. This concept occured in most statements about the ethical responsibilities of science, including the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome, the European Convention on Human Rights in Biomedicine, and the Declaration of Helsinki. Objections to research on behavioural genetics were often framed in terms of infringement of human dignity. Human dignity was an overarching term that could be best understood through its components, which included autonomy, choice, privacy, freedom, and bodily integrity. An alternative way of expressing the concept would be to refer to respect for persons. Ways in which research into behavioural genetics might infringe human dignity were discussed. For example, there had been arguments against Darwin’s theory of evolution on the grounds that it devalued our sense of the special nature of human beings. Similar arguments had also been made of research into behavioural genetics.
11 The notion of responsibility might be affected by research into behavioural genetics which identified genetic influences on behaviour. If the discovery of genetic influences on behavioural traits led to medical or other interventions that reliably changed behaviour, this ‘medicalisation’ of behaviour might have implications for the way we view responsibility.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
12 There was none.
Last Updated Tue, 16 August 2005