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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |