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 Appendix 1: Method of working Background The <strong>Nuffield</strong> <strong>Council</strong> on Bioethics established the Working Party on ‘<strong>Emerging</strong> <strong>biotechnologies</strong>’ in January 2011. The Working Party met eleven times over a period of 18 months. In order to inform its deliberations, it held an open consultation and a series of 'fact-finding’ meetings with external stakeholders and invited experts. It also commissioned two <strong>report</strong>s on topics relevant to the work of the project and received comments on a draft of the Report from 12 external reviewers. Further details of each of these aspects of the Working Party’s work are given below and in Appendix 2. The Working Party would like to express its gratitude to all those involved for the invaluable contribution they made to the development of the final Report. Consultation document The Working Party launched a consultation in April 2011, which ran until July 2011. 84 responses were received, of which 48 were submitted by individuals and 36 on behalf of organisations. Those responding to the consultation included students, academics, faith groups and professional organisations. A <strong>full</strong> list of those responding is set out in Appendix 2. A summary of the responses is available on the <strong>Council</strong>’s website. Copies of individual responses will also be made available on the website in those instances where the <strong>Council</strong> has permission from respondents to do so. Fact-finding As part of its work, the Working Party held a series of 'fact-finding’ meetings, the details of which can be found below. (Details reflect affiliations at the time of the meetings.) Research and development: 6 May 2011 ■ Dr Jim Ajioka, Department of Pathology, Parasitology Group, University of Cambridge ■ Professor Robert Brown, Head of Tissue Repair and Engineering Centre, University College London ■ Professor Keith Campbell, Professor of Animal Science, Nottingham University ■ Professor Olivier Danos, Cancer Institute, Gene Therapy Group, University College London ■ Mr Alexander L Green, Spalding Senior Lecturer and Consultant Neurosurgeon, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford ■ Professor Richard Kitney OBE, Professor of Biomedical Systems Engineering, Imperial College London ■ Professor Dek Woolfson, School of Biochemistry, University of Bristol The role of public engagement: 6 May 2011 ■ Professor Martin Bauer, Head of the Methodology Institute and Professor of Social Psychology and Research Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science ■ Mr Simon Burall, Director, Involve ■ Dr Jason Chilvers, Lecturer in Environmental Management, University of East Anglia ■ Dr Clare Matterson, Director, Medical Humanities and Engagement, Wellcome Trust ■ Dr Patrick Middleton, Head of Public Engagement, BBSRC ■ Dr Alison Park, Head of Society and Social Change, National Centre for Social Research ■ Dr Tom Wells, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Intellectual property, innovation and markets: 24 June 2011 ■ Dr Graham Bell, TSB ■ Dr Nicki Curtis, Senior Policy Advisor, IPO ■ Dr Tim Harper, Director, Cientifica ■ Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive, BBSRC 180
E m e r g i n g b i o t e c h n o l o g i e s ■ Dr Denis Koltsov, Information Manager, the Nanotechnology Industries Association ■ Dr Steve Musgrave, Founding Partner, Unicorn Biologics ■ Ms Vicki Salmon, Partner, IP Asset ■ Dr Nigel Sansom, Senior Manager for Technology Introduction, NHS Innovation ■ Dr Richard Seabrook, Business Development Manager, Wellcome Trust Policy, regulation and governance: 8 July 2011 ■ Dr Mark Bale, Interim Director, Health Science & Bioethics Division, Department of Health ■ Dr Tim Brooks, National Specialist, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Rare and Imorted Pathogens Laboratory, HPA ■ Professor Jim Dunwell, Member of ACRE ■ Dr Neil Ebenezer, Head of New and <strong>Emerging</strong> Technologies, Devices Division, MHRA ■ Dr Katherine MacGregor, Policy Advisor, Royal Academy of Engineering ■ Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, Academy of Medical Sciences ■ Dr Catherine Rhodes, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, University of Manchester ■ Dr Jack Stilgoe, Senior Research Fellow, University of Exeter ■ Ms Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER ■ Professsor David Wield, Director, ESRC Innogen Evidence reviews In order to inform its deliberations, the Working Party commissioned two additional <strong>report</strong>s. These covered: the sources and allocation of funding for research and development of <strong>biotechnologies</strong>; and, the analytical significance of the concept and property of ‘emergence’ in the patent system. The terms of each review are set out below. Review 1: <strong>Emerging</strong> <strong>biotechnologies</strong>: can we find out who funds R&D and what they support? A P P E N D I X 1 : M E T H O D O F W O R K I N G Purpose: to assist the Working Party in understanding: 1. existing patterns of national and international research funding (or resource allocation) in the field of biotechnology; and 2. the extent to which these data can be reasonably acquired and the limitations of the relevant methodologies. The review was carried out by Dr Michael Hopkins of SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex. The review did not seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of existing sources providing data on biomedical funding but, rather, presented illustrations of the forms in which data are available. Review 2: The analytical significance of emergence in the patent system Purpose: 1. to assist the Working Party in understanding the intellectual property system as it applies to emerging <strong>biotechnologies</strong> and, in particular: challenges for the IP system posed by emerging <strong>biotechnologies</strong> and how the IP system has responded/might respond to these; and challenges posed by the IP system for emerging <strong>biotechnologies</strong> and how the practitioners have responded/might respond to these 181
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:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 6 Research
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161: 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: Appendices
Page 239: Previous Nuffield
show all

Emerging biotechnologies: full report - Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?