Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l o g i e s that allows freedom and flexibility in science would guard against ignorance of the mechanisms of innovation and scientific creativity. 7.49 There is an assumption that for each nation state there should be one public agency concerned with the funding of each particular type of research. Sometimes of course this is not the case, such as where areas of research are fundable by many agencies. Within Europe there is, of course, an overlapping European structure but it, too, is centralised, although the strengthened European Research <strong>Council</strong> has provided a welcome competitive stimulus to Framework programmes, with benefits to the UK research effort. 546 To justify centralisation, agencies point to the need to take a strategic overview, and to eliminate unnecessary duplication. Yet the costs of monopoly need to be taken into account as well: there can easily be a lock-in of policies that work poorly, with feedback mechanisms acting slowly. Although there is competition between research councils in the UK, that competition takes the form of vying for funding from Government, and of reducing commitment to interdisciplinary areas by passing responsibilities to another council. The key issue is to get competition to work to generate better quality claims for the importance of different research programmes and, most importantly of all, better outcomes in terms of research and of impact. The ‘Haldane principle’ and policy control of research councils 7.50 For much of the 20 th Century it has been <strong>full</strong>y accepted that most Government-funded research should be carried out under the direction of particular Government departments. However, increasing proportions of Government-funded research have been funded by research councils (see paragraph 7.10) under the supervision of the ministry for business (currently the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)). Discussion of the actual policies and practices of the research councils and BIS has been coloured by an assumption that the policy should follow what is called the ‘Haldane principle’, which “states that decisions on general research should be made by researchers, free from political and administrative pressures.” 547 This definition of the essential principle has been accepted by Government, 548 although only in relation to research funded by research councils inasmuch as they accept that researchers are best placed to determine detailed priorities. (By definition the determination of technical priorities requires expert knowledge, so this limited construction of the principle would be unreasonable to dispute.) As adopted today, the Haldane principle makes a very limited point about the role of researchers in running research council research programmes and similarly has very limited, if any, bearing on research policy. 549 7.51 No UK government has ever supported a doctrine that researchers should decide public macrolevel research policy. The nearest approach to such a doctrine was in the period 1916-64 when a small fraction of Government-funded research was overseen by research councils <strong>report</strong>ing to a non-departmental minister. These research councils were made up of independent figures of high standing from the worlds of industry and science. However, Government has never 545 Stirling A (2011) Pluralising progress: from integrative transitions to transformative diversity Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1: 82-8. 546 Currently an industrial perspective dominates the EU policy framework for a European bio-economy. A broad concept is being promoted at the public-relations level, but a narrower one apparently drives the EU’s R&D priorities. Schmid O, Padel S and Levidov L (2012) The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective Bio-based and applied economics 1: 47-64. However, there was a little room created for research outside the dominant paradigm. Birch K, Levidow L and Papaioannou P (2010) Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy” Sustainability 2: 2898-918. 547 Wakeham W (2008) Review of UK physics, available at: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/physics/review.pdf, p48. See generally Chapter 8 of that document for more information on the ‘Haldane principle’. 548 See, for example, the 2010 written ministerial statement on the Haldane Principle to the House of Commons, by the Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts: House of Commons Hansard (20 December 2010) c138WS, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101220/wmstext/101220m0001.htm. 549 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) The allocation of research science funding, 2011/12 to 2014/15: investing in world-class science and research, available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/science/docs/a/10-1356- allocation-of-science-and-research-funding-2011-2015.pdf, p57. 130
E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l o g i e s suggested that decisions about specific research projects (namely those supported by research councils) should not be taken by researchers themselves and peer reviewers. 550 7.52 In the absence of a clear, enacted principle, the question of who controls research policy, and with what aim, has continuing importance. Clearly expectations adopted by Government play a key role, but Government is not just politicians; it includes scientists, for instance, too. 551 It is highly suggestive, however, in view of our conclusions about the orientation of research policy towards economic growth, 552 that in recent years the research councils have been under the statutory control of BIS. Business therefore clearly plays a very powerful role within Government and research councils that may not be <strong>full</strong>y recognised, for example through the strong representation of business and industry ‘users’ of research within the policy structure. Representatives from business or industry are by far the main representatives of ‘users’ of research within the policy structure. At the time of writing, the TSB, for example, is made up primarily of business people; the councils of the research councils are made up of approximately equal numbers of academics and industry people, with the occasional representative of some other ‘user’. The same pattern is usually repeated in many of the advisory panels, boards and groups associated with those organisations. 553 C H A P T E R 7 7.53 Among the research councils, the concerns of other technology users and potential beneficiaries (and losers), and reflection on wider issues generally are addressed by subcommittees and panels constituted for that purpose. The Science and Technology Facilities <strong>Council</strong> has a largely private sector Economic Impact Advisory Panel, and an Advisory Panel for Science in Society. The experience of controversies around agricultural biotechnology convinced the BBSRC that it needed a forum to discuss societal issues surrounding its research, and it established the Bioscience for Society Strategy Panel which works closely with BBSRC's other Strategy Advisory Panels and <strong>report</strong>s regularly to the <strong>Council</strong>’s Chief Executive. Its membership includes both academic social scientists and representatives of nongovernmental organisations (e.g. the Soil Association). The MRC has an Ethics, Regulation and Public Involvement Committee, members of which include an academic biomedical ethicist. The EPSRC was somewhat later to act, but following a workshop in 2005 involving prominent scientists and social scientists, it established a Societal Issues Panel in 2007. This was to be an important body, reflected in its eminent membership, having the same status as the User Panel and the Technical Opportunities Panel (i.e. advising <strong>Council</strong> directly). 554 7.54 There is some evidence that these panels have had a significant influence on the work of the research councils, although this influence is, by its nature, very difficult to ascertain. 555 It is possible to show that a number of more broadly focused activities that might not otherwise have taken place were initiated or commissioned by these panels: in the case of the EPSRC, one can point to a public dialogue about nanomedicine that had a direct influence on the way a funding 550 The view that they should take such decisions has now been explicitly supported in a Written Ministerial Statement. See: House of Commons Hansard (20 December 2010) c138WS, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101220/wmstext/101220m0001.htm. 551 See Chapter 6, paragraph 6.57ff. 552 See paragraph 7.10ff 553 The membership of the TSB can be found at: http://www.innovateuk.org/aboutus/governingboard.ashx. Information on the general structure of the EPSRC can be found at: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/governance/Pages/default.aspx. EPSRC ‘strategic advisory team’ membership can be found at: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/governance/sats/Pages/default.aspx. The BBSRC general structure is outlined at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/structures/structures-index.aspx, while information on its other boards and ‘strategy panels’ can be found at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/structures/boards/boards-index.aspx and http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/structures/panels/panels-index.aspx, respectively. The MRC’s structure is explained at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Structure/index.htm and its advisory bodies, boards, panels and groups at: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Structure/Advisorybodies/index.htm and http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Boardpanelsgroups/index.htm. 554 In 2011, the EPSRC reorganised its advisory structure, replacing its three advisory panels by a single ‘strategic advisory network’ but retaining some members of the Societal Issues Panel. See: EPSRC (2011) Strategic Advisory Network, available at: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/governance/san/Pages/default.aspx 555 See paragraph 5.12 for reflections on evaluation of qualitative influences more generally. 131
Page 1 and 2:
Emerging b
Page 3:
Emerging b
Page 6 and 7:
Secretariat Hugh Whittall (Director
Page 9:
Foreword 1 The use of living organi
Page 13:
Terms of reference 1. To examine co
Page 16 and 17:
Applying public ethics: towards a p
Page 19 and 20:
E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 35:
Part 1 Understanding emerging <stro
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 Biotechnology promises an
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 3 The threefold challenge o
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 5 Public perspectives
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 6 Research
Page 141: E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l
Page 181 and 182: Chapter 9 Commercialisation
Page 203 and 204: Chapter 10 Conclusions: emerging <s
Page 209 and 210: Appendices
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239:
Previous Nuffield
show all

Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?