Advertisement

Public Engagement and Deliberation in Human Embryo Research Governance in Australia 2001–2011

  • Susan DoddsEmail author
  • Rachel A. Ankeny
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)

Abstract

This chapter identifies and evaluates Australian processes for developing policy with regard to embryo research, including the legislative process, the work of a legislative review committee, parliamentary debates, and the production of the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines for such research. We examine various mechanisms used during each of these policymaking stages to engage various publics, and the procedures for balancing conflicting values, which were particularly evident given the strong promotion of biotechnology investment by government side by side with vigorous opposition to certain technologies by segments of the Australian community. We explore the ethical and democratic challenges posed by developments in embryo research as well as various difficulties that arose in engaging the Australian public during these policymaking processes, whether these might prove to be impediments to the development of justifiable and legitimate life sciences research policy in Australia, and what the future prospects are for productive and meaningful public engagement in these contentious areas.

Keywords

Policymaking Embryo research Australian legislation Research guidelines Public engagement Deliberation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-Making and Liberal Democracy”, (DP0556068); research assistance by Fiona Mackenzie, Kerry Ross, Eliza Goddard, and Cobi Smith is gratefully acknowledged.

Versions of parts of this paper were previously published as

Rachel A. Ankeny and Susan Dodds. 2008. Hearing community voices: Public engagement in Australian embryo research policy, 2005–7. New Genetics and Society 27: 217–232. Reprinted with the permission of Taylor and Francis.

Susan Dodds and Rachel A. Ankeny. 2006. Regulation of hESC research in Australia: Promises and pitfalls for deliberative democratic approaches. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3: 95–107. Reprinted with the permission of Springer.

References

  1. AHEC (Australian Health Ethics Committee), and NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council). 1998. Scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to cloning human beings. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  2. ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission), and AHEC (Australian Health Ethics Committee). 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. Sydney: Australian Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews Report. 2001. Human cloning: Scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Commonwealth of Australia (Andrews, K., chair), Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Anon. 2006. MP’s vote expands research. Canberra Times, December 7, 2.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Government. 2005. Legislation review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and research involving Human Embryos Act 2002, reports. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Senate. 2006. Hansard Record for Tuesday 7 November 2006 [online]. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard. Accessed May 2008.
  7. Burke, N. 2006. Cloning ban overturned—Stem cell law passed by 20 votes. Daily Telegraph, December 7, 2.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. 2002. Professional self-regulation and guidelines in assisted reproduction. Journal of Law and Medicine 9: 414–428.Google Scholar
  9. COAG. 2002. Communiqué of meeting held on 5 April 2002 [online]. Available from: http://coag.gov.au/meetings/050402/index.htm. Accessed Aug 2007.
  10. COAG (Council of Australian Governments). 2001. Communique of meeting held on June 8, 2001. [Cited 2006 April 24]. Available from: http://coag.gov.au/meetings/080601/index.htm.
  11. Delli Carpini, M.X., F. Lomax Cook, and L.R. Jacobs. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds, S. 2013. Trust, accountability and participation: Conditions and constrains on “new” democratic models. In Public engagement and emerging technologies, ed. K. O’Doherty and E. Einseidel, 69–79. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elster, J. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gambetta, D. 1998. “Claro!”: An essay on discursive machismo. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GenEthics Network. 2002. Submission to the Senate Committee on the bill to regulate research involving embryos, October 2002. Available from http://www.geneethics.org/community/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=21. Accessed 14 May 2005.
  17. Harris, I.C. (ed.). 2001. House of representatives practice, 4th ed. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, O. 2008. Regulating stem cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: The Lockhart review. New Genetics and Society 27: 33–42.Google Scholar
  19. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ivison, D. 2002. Postcolonial liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. 2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31: 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, R. 2006. Embryo cloning gets go-ahead: Where they stand. The West Australian, December 7, 3.Google Scholar
  25. Knowles, S. 2002. Provisions of the research involving human embryos and prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 [Selection of Bills Committee of Inquiry (chair, S. Knowles)]. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  26. LRC (Legislation Review Committee). 2005a. Legislation review (J.S. Lockhart, chair): Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 [online]. Now archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/63190/20060912-0000/www.lockhartreview.com.au/index.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
  27. LRC (Legislation Review Committee). 2005b. Legislation review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. Discussion Forum, 8 September 2005, Intercontinental Hotel Sydney (J.S. Lockhart, chair) [online]. Now archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/63190/20060912-0000/www.lockhartreview.com.au/committeedocs.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
  28. LRC (Legislation Review Committeee). 2011. Report of the independent review of the prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and research involving Human Embryos Act 2002, (P. Heerey, Chair) Reports, Canberra. June 2011. https://legislationreview.nhmrc.gov.au/files/legislation_review_reports.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2013.
  29. LRC. n.d. Legislation review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and research involving Human Embryos Act 2002: Public consultation – Key questions (J.S. Lockhart, chair) [online]. Now archived at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/63190/20060912-0000/www.lockhartreview.com.au/committeedocs.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
  30. Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. McGurk, B., A. Sinclair, and A. Diduck. 2006. An assessment of stakeholder advisory committees in forest management: Case studies from Manitoba, Canada. Society & Natural Resources 19: 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NHMRC. 1996. Ethical guidelines on assisted reproductive technology. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  33. NHMRC. 1999. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  34. NHMRC. 2004. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research (ART guidelines). Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  35. NHMRC. 2007. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research (ART guidelines). Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  36. Nicol, D., D. Chalmers, and B. Gogarty. 2002. Regulating biomedical advances: Embryonic stem cell research. Macquarie Law Journal 2: 31–59.Google Scholar
  37. Penguin. 1988. The Penguin dictionary of Australian politics. Melbourne: Penguin.Google Scholar
  38. Skene, L., I. Kerridge, B. Marshall, P. McCombe, and P. Schofield. 2008. The Lockhart committee: Developing policy through commitment to moral values, community and democratic processess. Journal of Law and Medicine 16: 132–138.Google Scholar
  39. Tate, M. (chair). 1986. Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, Parliament of Australia. Human embryo experimentation in Australia. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  40. Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.Google Scholar
  42. Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ziman, J. 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of HumanitiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.School of HumanitiesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations