Debating ethics and public policy: the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Tor Lezemore Trends in Genetics 2002, 18:653-655 Concerns about bioethical issues raised by scientific developments in genetics are a common feature of both public and policy debates in the UK. This article sets out how one such body, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, contributes to public and policy debates, and provides information about similar bodies in the UK and around the world.   The pace of scientific developments in genetics and biotechnology is causing major concerns about the ethics surrounding both the research and its potential applications and consequences. There are numerous bodies that contribute to both public and policy debates concerning these issues, and new committees and organizations are established with considerable frequency. In the UK, advice about and regulation of ethical issues posed by advances in genetics is provided by a wide range of bodies such as the Human Genetics Commission, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, and the House of Lords and House of Commons Science and Technology committees; patient and consumer organizations such as the Genetic Interest Group, Human Genetics Alert, GeneWatch and the Consumers' Association; and by bodies such as the Royal Society and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics ( Box 1). Further afield, many countries have national bioethics commissions, generally established by the government, which play an advisory role ( Box 2). The roles, remits and objectives of these various bodies differ. This article sets out how one such organization in the UK, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, contributes to public and policy debates. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics was established by the Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation in 1991 to identify, examine and report on ethical issues raised by recent advances in biological and medical research. At that time, there was no national bioethics commission and the government did not have plans to establish such a body. Since 1994, the Council has been funded jointly by the Nuffield Foundation, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. The Council's independence of government has become increasingly important, particularly as a result of growing public unease about aspects of biomedicine and biotechnology, and the Council perceives that its independence is crucial to help maintain the trust of the public in its work. It has published a number of reports that focus on ethical and legal issues in genetics, including genetic screening, genetics and mental disorders, genetically modified crops, patenting DNA and research into genetics and human behaviour, and has just initiated a Working Party on ethical issues associated with pharmacogenetics ( Box 3). The Chairman of the Council is appointed by the Nuffield Foundation, after consultation with the two other funding bodies. The Council appoints its own members independently. The members, who currently number 16, are drawn from relevant fields of expertise, including science, medicine, philosophy and law. They serve on the Council for three years, with the possibility of an additional three-year term. During its meetings, the Council reviews recent biomedical and biological advances that raise ethical questions, and selects topics for further exploration. It also consults a wide range of external sources, including government, institutes and societies, industry, non-governmental bodies and researchers engaged in biological and biomedical research. For a topic to be selected, it must be novel (i.e. linked to substantial new developments in medicine or biology), it must raise ethical questions and concerns of some complexity, it must be timely; and it must be amenable to policy recommendations. In 2001, the Council conducted a survey of leading thinkers and commentators that asked them to predict what would be the most ethically controversial developments in biotechnology and medicine over the next ten years. The responses, which centred on common themes including therapeutic and reproductive cloning, global justice in healthcare, and the ageing population, will help inform the future work programme of the Council. Once the Council has selected a topic, it convenes a one-day closed Workshop with up to 15 invited experts who are charged with discussing the ethical issues and recommending whether the topic should be taken forward by the Council. If the recommendation is positive, the Council has establishes a Working Party of up to 15 members to produce a Report or Discussion Paper.   Go to the Full Article > >  As a BioMedNet member you have free full-text access to this article within BioMedNet Reviews for 14 days  You will have full-text access to all articles if your institute subscribes. Recommend a subscription to your librarian  There are 15,000 more Review articles in BioMedNet Reviews  Please send us your feedback on this magazine		BioMedNet Magazine 15th - 28th January 2003 Magazine Home Email to a Friend Full Article PDF printer ready version   Further Reading* The ethics of vaccine usage in society: lessons from the past [Review] Hervé Bazin Current Opinion in Immunology 2001, 13:4:505-510   Ethics and the clinical utility of animal organs [Review] Katrina A. Bramstedt Trends in Genetics 1999, 17:11:428-429   Biopharmaceutical production in transgenic livestock [Review] Natalie S. Rudolph Trends in Biotechnology 1999, 17:9:367-374     * Full text access to the journal articles above is available to BioMedNet Reviews institutional subscribers     Ceasefire needed for sustainable development [Conference Reporter] IntECOL August 13, 2002   Related Links in BioMedNet Reviews Journal Table of Contents Table of Contents by email Related Full Text Articles Search BioMedNet Reviews