Policy Work and Legitimacy at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and the Department of Health

Chapter

Abstract

The mitochondrial donation debates were punctuated by a set of reports produced by key institutional bodies. Here we focus upon three to analyse the boundary and legitimacy work inherent to their conduct. Based on calls for evidence and expert/public consultations, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluded mitochondrial donation was ethical if safe, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) found it was not unsafe and it had broad public support, and the Department of Health (DoH) employed a ‘working definition’ of genetic modification which positioned legalisation as unproblematic. We then locate these conclusions in relation to the concerns of some in the against-cluster about collusion, legitimacy and representativeness.

Keywords

Bioethics Policy work Nuffield Council on Bioethics Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Department of Health 

References

  1. DoH. (2014). Mitochondrial donation: Government response to the consultation on draft regulations to permit the use of new treatment techniques to prevent the transmission of a serious mitochondrial disease from mother to child. Department of Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/serious-mitochondrial-disease-new-techniques-to-prevent-transmission [accessed 27 Nov 2017].
  2. HFEA. (2012, January 19). Press release: HFEA to consult on ethics of ‘mitochondria transfer’. http://hfeaarchive.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/www.hfea.gov.uk/6898.html [accessed 17 Oct 2017].
  3. HFEA. (2013a, March). Mitochondria replacement consultation: Advice to government. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.Google Scholar
  4. HFEA. (2013b, February). Medical frontiers: Debating mitochondria replacement. Annex IV: Summary of the 2012 open consultation. Dialogue by Design.Google Scholar
  5. HFEA. (2014). Third scientific review of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted conception: Update 2014. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/8807.html.
  6. Human Genetics Alert. (2013, June 28). How the HFEA misled the public about ‘mitochondrial replacement’ techniques. Attachment to press release ‘Decision to allow human genetic manipulation is not supported by the public’. http://www.hgalert.org/pReleases/pr28-06-13.htm [accessed 30 Nov 2017].
  7. NCoB. (2012). Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: An ethical review. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  8. Reubi, D. (2013). Re-moralising medicine: The bioethical thought collective and the regulation of the body in British medical research. Social Theory & Health, 11(2), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Science and Technology Committee. (2014, October 22). Oral evidence: Mitochondrial donation, HC 730.Google Scholar
  10. Sulston, J., Deech, B., Warnock, B., & Savill, J. (2015, January 28). Three person IVF. Letter to The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/three-person-ivf-73wgwt096z2 [accessed 20 Oct 2017].

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Social and Political SciencesBrunel University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations