Skip to main content
Log in

Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Xenotransplantation, or the use of animal cells, tissues and organs for humans, has been promoted as an important solution to the worldwide shortage of organs. While scientific studies continue to be done to address problems of rejection and the possibility of animal-to-human virus transfer, socio-ethical and legal questions have also been raised around informed consent, life-long monitoring, animal welfare and animal rights, and appropriate regulatory practices. Many calls have also been made to consult publics before policy decisions are made. This paper describes the Canadian public consultation process on xenotransplantation carried out by the Canadian Public Health Association in an arm’s length process from Health Canada, the ministry overseeing government health policy and regulation. Focusing on six citizen fora conducted around the country patterned after the citizen jury deliberative approach, the paper describes the citizen panelists’ recommendations to hold off on proceeding with clinical trials and the rationales behind this recommendation. The consultation process is discussed in the context of constructive technology assessment, a framework which argues for broader input into earlier stages of technology innovation, particularly at the technology design stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2002) Organ transplants in Canada. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb

  2. Schliebs, D. (2001) A shortage of organs: can xenotransplantation fill the need? Helix, March, 7–10.

  3. Cooper, D.K. and R.P. Lanza (2000) Xeno: the promise of transplanting animal organs into humans, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg (1998) Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: individual benefit versus collective risk, Nature medicine 4: 141–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Onions, D.E. and C.J. Witt (2000) Xenotransplantation: an overview of microbial risks and potentials for risk management, Rev. Sci Tech Off. Int. Epiz. 19, 1: 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Patience, C., Y. Takeuchi, and R. Weiss (1997) Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nature medicine 3: 3, 282–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daar, A. (1999) Animal-to-human organ transplants — a solution or a new problem?, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 77, 1: 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Florencio, P.S. and T. Caulfield (1999) Xenotransplantation and public health: identifying the legal issues, Can. Journ. Pub. Health 90, 4: 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Singer, P. (1975) Animal liberation, Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  10. UK Advisory Group on the ethics of xenotransplantation (1997) Animal tissue into humans. Norwich: Her Majesty’s Stationery office.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon, P. (1993) The genetic revolution, Kingsway America, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anonymous (1998) Alternative ways of meeting demand, Nature 391, January 22.

  13. Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg. (1998) Letter to the editor. Nature Medicine, Feb. 1.

  14. Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation 1399: Xenotransplantation. Strasbourg, France

    Google Scholar 

  15. Council of Europe (2000) Working Party on Xenotransplantation: Working Report. CDBI/CDSP-Xeno (2000) 12. July 12; OECD (1999). Xenotransplantation: international policy issues. Paris: OECD, 17.

  16. Pinch, T. and W. Bijker (1987) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.) The social construction of technological systems, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  17. MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (1985) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schot, J. (1999) Constructive technology assessment comes of age: the birth of a new politics of technology, in: A. Jamison (ed.) Technology policy meets the public. PESTO papers II, Aalborg University, 207–232.

  19. Joss, S. and J. Durant (1995) The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, Public Understanding of Science 4: 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Crosby, N. (1995) Citizens’ juries: one solution for difficulty environmental questions, in: R. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fishkin, J (1995) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CN.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stewart, J., E. Kendall and A. Coote (1994) Citizen juries. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Coote, A. and J. Lenaghan (1997) Citizens’ juries: theory into practice, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jefferson Center, Citizens’ juries, www.jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury/

  25. Health Canada (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotranplantation. Ottawa: Therapeutic Products Program.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Health Canada (2000) Minister Rock announces launch of public involvement process on xenotransplantation. Press release. Ottawa, July 22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Expert Working Group on Xenotransplantation (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotransplantation, Health Canada, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Volpe, J. (1999). Organ and tissue donation and transplantation: a Canadian approach. Report of the Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: House of Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Medlock, J. (2001) What’s the verdict? Evaluating a Citizens’ Jury on Xenotransplantation. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Canadian Public Health Association (2001) Animal-to-human transplantation: should Canada proceed? A public consultation on xenotransplantation, CPHA, Ottawa.

  31. Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wynn, B. and S. Mayer (1993) How science fails the environment. New scientist, 5 June, 35.

  33. Einsiedel, E.F. (In Preparation) Assessing Technology — constructively and democratically.

  34. Feenberg, A. (2001) Questioning technology, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edna F. Einsiedel.

Additional information

This study was supported by a grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Einsiedel, E.F., Ross, H. Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 579–591 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9

Keywords

Navigation