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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We should place on the record the authors were among those who were invited to contribute to the public consultation process and the submissions made by the authors were quoted in the report.
- 2.
- 3.
The consultations process for this review included a call for public submissions and invitations and invitations to present at hearings of the review committee. There were 264 written submissions, of which 158 were provided in confidence (LRC 2011).
- 4.
These had been revised after information about the production of Dolly the sheep using cloning technologies become public in 1997. The Commonwealth government requested more detailed advice on cloning from AHEC, including recommendations for a regulatory model to align with international developments.
- 5.
In making submissions to the public consultation individuals or groups could elect to make a confidential submission to the review committee.
- 6.
It is arguable that other bodies which examine similar controversial bioethical issues, but which have different mandates, more effectively attend to establishing and fostering processes and frameworks for deliberation, such as the Australian Law Reform Commission and the New Zealand Bioethics Council.
References
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.
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.
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.
Anon. 2006. MP’s vote expands research. Canberra Times, December 7, 2.
Australian Government. 2005. Legislation review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and research involving Human Embryos Act 2002, reports. Canberra: Australian Government.
Australian Senate. 2006. Hansard Record for Tuesday 7 November 2006 [online]. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard. Accessed May 2008.
Burke, N. 2006. Cloning ban overturned—Stem cell law passed by 20 votes. Daily Telegraph, December 7, 2.
Chalmers, D. 2002. Professional self-regulation and guidelines in assisted reproduction. Journal of Law and Medicine 9: 414–428.
COAG. 2002. Communiqué of meeting held on 5 April 2002 [online]. Available from: http://coag.gov.au/meetings/050402/index.htm. Accessed Aug 2007.
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.
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.
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.
Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elster, J. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gambetta, D. 1998. “Claro!”: An essay on discursive machismo. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 19–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Harris, I.C. (ed.). 2001. House of representatives practice, 4th ed. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
Harvey, O. 2008. Regulating stem cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: The Lockhart review. New Genetics and Society 27: 33–42.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.
Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36: 299–320.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivison, D. 2002. Postcolonial liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31: 90–94.
King, R. 2006. Embryo cloning gets go-ahead: Where they stand. The West Australian, December 7, 3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.
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.
NHMRC. 1996. Ethical guidelines on assisted reproductive technology. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
NHMRC. 1999. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
NHMRC. 2004. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research (ART guidelines). Canberra: Australian Government.
NHMRC. 2007. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research (ART guidelines). Canberra: Australian Government.
Nicol, D., D. Chalmers, and B. Gogarty. 2002. Regulating biomedical advances: Embryonic stem cell research. Macquarie Law Journal 2: 31–59.
Penguin. 1988. The Penguin dictionary of Australian politics. Melbourne: Penguin.
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.
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.
Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 111–121.
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.
Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ziman, J. 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 99–105.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dodds, S., Ankeny, R.A. (2016). Public Engagement and Deliberation in Human Embryo Research Governance in Australia 2001–2011. In: Dodds, S., Ankeny, R. (eds) Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32239-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32240-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)