The Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Hybrid Embryo Research 2007: Credible, Reliable and Objective?
Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 17 (1):84-109 (2012)
|Abstract||In 2006 the Government issued a White Paper in which it proposed a ban on human-animal embryo research pending greater clarity on its potential. The Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology initiated an Inquiry and concluded that such research was necessary and should be permitted immediately. The Government agreed and this is reflected in revised legislation. The Government has issued guidelines on the gathering and use of scientific advice and evidence, designed to ensure that these are “credible, reliable and objective.” This article tests the Committee’s approach in the light of its remit and these, and other, relevant guidelines and concludes that it failed to meet these standards. Rather, it effectively ceded to an interest group the regulation of its own activities. The article ends by suggesting alterations to the Committee’s remit and composition designed to ensure that the public interest is better protected in future|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kevin McGovern (2011). Australia's Cloning and Embryo Research Laws. Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 16 (4):1.
Françoise Baylis & Matthew Herder (2009). Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: A History (Part 1 of 2). [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):109-122.
Nancy E. Kass & Jeremy Sugarman (1996). Are Research Subjects Adequately Protected? A Review and Discussion of Studies Conducted by the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3).
Fran (2008). Animal Eggs for Stem Cell Research: A Path Not Worth Taking. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (12):18 – 32.
Françoise Baylis & Matthew Herder (2009). Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: An Analysis (Part 2 of 2). [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (3):351-365.
Tom L. Beauchamp, Hope R. Ferdowsian & John P. Gluck (2012). Where Are We in the Justification of Research Involving Chimpanzees? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (3):211-242.
Marcel J. H. Kenter (2009). Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):33-43.
David Shaw (2010). Unethical Aspects of Homeopathic Dentistry. British Dental Journal 209 (10):493-496.
Kaat Schulte Fischedick (2000). From Survey to Ecology: The Role of the British Vegetation Committee, 1904-1913. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 33 (2):291 - 314.
Patrick L. Taylor (2009). Scientific Self-Regulation—so Good, How Can It Fail? Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):395-406.
Bernice S. Elger & Anne Spaulding (2010). Research on Prisoners – a Comparison Between the Iom Committee Recommendations (2006) and European Regulations. Bioethics 24 (1):1-13.
Jeff Nisker, Françoise Baylis, Isabel Karpin, Carolyn McLeod & Roxanne Mykitiuk (eds.) (2010). The 'Healthy' Embryo: Social, Biomedical, Legal and Philosophical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Mark T. Brown (2007). The Potential of the Human Embryo. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (6):585 – 618.
Teresa Moore & Kristy Richardson (2013). The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia. Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (3):211-230.
Hans Henrik Brydensholt (2000). The Legal Basis for the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):11-24.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-09-19
Total downloads2 ( #245,680 of 722,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,437 of 722,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?