Toi Te Taiao: The Bioethics Council meeting minutes - 1 December 2008

Held at Auckland Airport

 Present:

• Martin Wilkinson (Chair)
• Mark Fisher
• Marie Bismark
• Brett Stephenson
• Waiora Port
• Simon Wright
• Angela Sheehan (Minutes)

Apologies were received from

• Rosemary du Plessis
• Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop
• Cordelia Thomas
• Tahu Potiki
• Huia Tomlins-Jahnke
• John Pennington
• Moana Sinclair

The meeting commenced at 10.40 a.m.

 1. Karakia and Welcome

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, and Waiora led the karakia.

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Rosemary du Plessis, Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop, Cordelia Thomas, Tahu Potiki, Huia Tomlins-Jahnke, John Pennington, and Moana Sinclair.

3. Minutes of Previous Meeting

It was agreed that the following amendments be made to the minutes:

• In item 6, Satisfaction with Current Submission Process, reformat as follows:
  • “Council resolved that the submission process is worthwhile and should continue”. The following points were made in discussion:” (then list the remaining bullet points);
• In item 10, Pacifica Pre-Birth Project, change “PI” to “Pacific”;
• In item 11, Government Response to Pre-Birth Testing Report, correct the spelling of Fiona Gregson’s surname;
• In item 13, Proposal for a New Travel Policy, delete the words “Two separate issues were identified”, and replace with the words “The Council decided that:”;
• Where appropriate, replace acronyms with full names.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October as amended, be accepted as a true and correct record, and be placed on the website.

Martin Wilkinson / Mark Fisher CARRIED

4. Matters Arising from Previous Minutes

All action points were either completed or were under way.

5. Establishing a Relationship with the New Government

The Chair said that, since the Council’s last meeting, the country had a new Government, and the Hon. Nick Smith was the new Minister for the Environment. The Council discussed its approach to establishing a relationship with the new Government and Minister.

It was agreed that the Chair would write to the new Minister seeking a meeting with him soon, and enclose the Council’s briefing document.

Action: Chair

6. UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution – Discussion of Report on Nanotechnology

Council Members discussed this report and identified the following major ideas out of that report:

• It is very focused on the risks to health and the environment.
• It is about how to manage risk.
• It is a huge field.
• It challenges institutionalised structures and the disciplines
• Only rich countries will be able to jump through all the regulatory hurdles
• Nanotechnology will be developed by a relatively small number of players who will reap any benefits, but if it all goes wrong everyone pays.
• Doubts about the value of nanotechnology.

7. Updating the Council’s 2003 Report on Nanotechnology

The Council agreed to update its 2003 report on nanotechnology, in particular as the work involved would be a very useful precursor to the new nanotechnology project.

The Secretariat said that there was capacity within the secretariat to do this update report.

Action: Secretariat

8. Balancing Bioethics and Public Dialogue

Mark spoke to his paper “Balancing Ethics and Dialogue” and initiated a discussion about the place of formal ethics in the Council’s dialogue work. Some of the questions that were raised included:

• What would the Council’s response be if, during a particular dialogue process, the public clearly wanted something that the Council thought was wrong or that did not stand up to scrutiny.
• What if, in its dialogue, the Council came across strongly held, strongly articulated majority views that it did not accept?
• Is the Council obliged take seriously unpersuasive arguments?

It was noted that although the Council was not set up to be an expert ethics body, a number of Council members have expertise in ethics. It was also noted that the diversity of the Council’s membership along with quality control processes that include extensive peer review help it work though complex issues.

Martin offered to update a presentation on ethics that he gave to Council shortly after it was formed for at the February 2009 meeting.

Action: Martin

9. Honoraria Levels

Council members agreed to pursue an increase on honoraria levels but postponed taking action on this.

10. Indemnity Insurance

Council members agreed that the Council should write to the Ministry for the Environment requesting it to take the necessary steps to ensure that Council members are indemnified when carrying out their functions as Council members.

Action: Secretariat

11. Chair’s Report

The Chair reported as follows:

• Waiora’s name has gone forward to be reappointed to Council. She remained on the Council until new appointments are made.
• A new Chair for the Council is required. Council members were invited to suggest names of suitable people and the secretariat was asked to send out an email to members seeking nominations.

Action: Secretariat

• The chair and Waiora had visited Hamilton to talk at a Café Scientifique. The Café Scientifique community would be keen to have further involvement with the Council.

12. Variance Report

The Secretariat said that the Council budget was underspent, and Council was unlikely to spend its budget by the end of the financial year. This was part of a recurring pattern, in line with the cycle of projects. The Ministry has been approached about carrying over unspent budget to the next financial year.

The Council discussed the Variance Report, but did not feel well enough informed to comment on the financial situation. The Council felt that, if they were going to get financial reporting, it had to be better than the current reporting. The whole question of what that reporting it would like would be an item for the February agenda.

Action: Secretariat

13. Secretariat Report / Other Reports

The Secretariat Report was noted.

The paper listing John’s meetings with UK academics, government officials, and OECD officials (August/September 2008) was noted. The Council said that it was important for the Nanotechnology Working Group to bear in mind the need to avoid “capture”.

 Cordelia’s reports on the Still Birth and Neonatal Death Support (SANDS) Conference and the Australian Society of Stem Cell Research Conference were noted.

Marie’s report on the World Congress on Medical Law 2008 was noted. The Council noted the desirability of the Council being represented at the 2010 conference.

Mark spoke to his paper entitled “Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms”, resulting from his attendance at the 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms.

14. Dates for Next Meeting

The next meeting would be a two-day meeting, with one day being a strategy day. The dates were to be confirmed, but would be either 12 and 13 February 2009, alternatively 16 and 17 February 2009.

15. Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were declared.

16. Other Business

16.1     Number of People on Council

The Council decided it would like a nominal role of 12 members.

The meeting concluded at 2.55 p.m.

Action List