Cargando…

What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions

In the forty‐year history of U.S. bioethics commissions, these government‐sanctioned forums have often demonstrated their power to address pressing problems and to enable policy change. For example, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brian, Jenny Dyck, Cook‐Deegan, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6618125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28543652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.712
_version_ 1783433848753750016
author Brian, Jenny Dyck
Cook‐Deegan, Robert
author_facet Brian, Jenny Dyck
Cook‐Deegan, Robert
author_sort Brian, Jenny Dyck
collection PubMed
description In the forty‐year history of U.S. bioethics commissions, these government‐sanctioned forums have often demonstrated their power to address pressing problems and to enable policy change. For example, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established in 1974, left a legacy of reports that were translated into regulations and had an enormous practical impact. And the 1982 report Splicing Life, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, became the basis for the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee as well as for the Food and Drug Administration's developing “Points to Consider” when contemplating the introduction of recombinant DNA into human beings. Some efforts of bioethics commissions, however, are not tightly connected to policy change or to outcomes directly linked to a specific report. While direct policy impact is indeed a useful metric for government bioethics commissions, it is not their only legitimate utility. For instance, bioethics commissions can also be incubators for deliberation on a hot topic, giving policy‐makers time to think through options while the political heat has some time to dissipate. Or a bioethics commission may stake out a position that enables a politician to take action while not necessarily following its recommendations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6618125
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66181252019-07-22 What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions Brian, Jenny Dyck Cook‐Deegan, Robert Hastings Cent Rep Commentaries In the forty‐year history of U.S. bioethics commissions, these government‐sanctioned forums have often demonstrated their power to address pressing problems and to enable policy change. For example, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established in 1974, left a legacy of reports that were translated into regulations and had an enormous practical impact. And the 1982 report Splicing Life, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, became the basis for the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee as well as for the Food and Drug Administration's developing “Points to Consider” when contemplating the introduction of recombinant DNA into human beings. Some efforts of bioethics commissions, however, are not tightly connected to policy change or to outcomes directly linked to a specific report. While direct policy impact is indeed a useful metric for government bioethics commissions, it is not their only legitimate utility. For instance, bioethics commissions can also be incubators for deliberation on a hot topic, giving policy‐makers time to think through options while the political heat has some time to dissipate. Or a bioethics commission may stake out a position that enables a politician to take action while not necessarily following its recommendations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-22 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC6618125/ /pubmed/28543652 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.712 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Hastings Center Report, published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Hastings Center This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentaries
Brian, Jenny Dyck
Cook‐Deegan, Robert
What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title_full What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title_fullStr What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title_full_unstemmed What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title_short What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions
title_sort what's the use? disparate purposes of u.s. federal bioethics commissions
topic Commentaries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6618125/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28543652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.712
work_keys_str_mv AT brianjennydyck whatstheusedisparatepurposesofusfederalbioethicscommissions
AT cookdeeganrobert whatstheusedisparatepurposesofusfederalbioethicscommissions