 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Meetings |
 |
 |
|
|
THIRD COMMISSION MEETING Summary The meeting on Wednesday 6 December opened with a briefing session for Commission Members on ethical issues surrounding the Commission's work. This was followed by the introduction to members of representatives from Citigate Westminster, who would be working with members on AEBC communications. The meeting also included a preparatory session for the next day's public meeting. Dr Mo Mowlam, Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology, Mavis McDonald, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and Jo Durning from the Office of Science and Technology joined members and secretariat for dinner and informal discussions on the evening of 6 December. The Commission held its first public meeting on the morning of Thursday 7 December. People who attended were invited to comment on the Commission's draft Work Plan. A note of the meeting including an outline of the views expressed is attached, together with a list of attendees. Those attending the public meeting were invited to stay on to observe the Commission meeting in the afternoon. Members discussed how the Work Plan should be revised in the light of responses to the written consultation and the comments they had heard during the morning at the public meeting. Present for meetings on both days Members Apologies
for absence Secretariat In
attendance Wednesday 6 December Agenda item 1 - Introductions 1. David Williamson (SERAD), Jo Durning (OST), Graham Davis (DETR) and Renaud Wilson (MAFF) were welcomed to their first meeting of the Commission. 2. Kate Cutler, Barney Wyld and Tanya Croft from Citigate Communications, who were attending the meeting for the discussion of the Commission's communications strategy, were also welcomed. Agenda item 2 - Briefing on ethical issues surrounding the Commission's work by Michael Banner and Ben Mepham: papers AEBC/00/17a & b 3. Following presentations by Michael Banner and Ben Mepham, Members discussed how best to handle ethical issues given the two approaches that had been explained to them. Although there were concerns that the adoption of Ben Mepham's ethical matrix could be too rigid in certain cases, it was recognised that this approach might offer a useful framework for consideration of issues on some topics. While it was difficult to summarise the matrix effectively in so short a time, Ben Mepham stressed that it aimed to facilitate, rather than constrain, discussion, and was now used by several academic and industrial groups in the EU. 4. Michael Banner proposed that the Commission should be clear about the constraints on the kind of thinking it was engaged in at any one time. For example, a cost/benefit approach had limitations because it did not allow all relevant factors to be considered, and an 'interests' approach tended to oversimplify. Dialogue, based on a whole range of factors including philosophical and/or ethical ones, was generally capable of providing the best way forward on an issue. 5. The Commission was grateful for this introduction and agreed that it would return to discussion of its ethical approach (possibly focusing on specific issues) in future. Agenda item 3 - Communications strategy 6. Representatives of Citigate Communications, who had been contracted to handle the Commission's press and publicity to the end of March 2002, gave an introductory presentation. 7. A communications 'audit' would be conducted. The aim of this was to inform the Commission's media strategy by taking the views of Members and others e.g. journalists, civil servants, industry and non-governmental organisations. The strategy subsequently determined and the activity that developed from it would affect how the public viewed and interacted with the Commission. ACTION: Citigate 8. In answer to a question from a member, the secretariat explained that the total value of the sixteen month contract with Citigate was approximately £90k. Agenda
item 4 - Preparation for meeting on 7 December 9. Members discussed the conduct of the next day's meetings, which were to focus on the Work Plan. Members had already seen and been able to consider responses to the written consultation. A thematic summary was included in packs for those attending the public meeting and is being posted on the Commission's website. 10. It was agreed that the Commission would be in listening mode during the morning's public meeting rather than respond to individual comments. This would allow maximum time for members of the audience to make points. The afternoon would be a formal Commission meeting to discuss the points made in the written submissions and during the morning meeting. Members of the public would be able to observe but would not be able to comment during this part of the meeting. AOB 11.
Members discussed whether some future meetings or parts of them should
be held in closed session. It was agreed that there would be a presumption
towards openness for at least part of each meeting but that the Commission
should not be defensive about needing private time to deliberate.
The important point was to be open about the format that had been
decided for each meeting and the reasons for the decision. Thursday 7 December - Public meeting 1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. This was the first time AEBC was meeting in public, but it would do so regularly in future. The implications for agriculture and the environment arising from biotechnology were immense. There were many aspects to be taken into account - science, ethics, economics, social interests. AEBC was focusing on the gaps between scientific assessment and public acceptance and, in doing so, was determined to be open and transparent, especially in light of the criticisms made by the BSE inquiry of "a secretive process". 2. Established in June, AEBC had held two meetings and prepared a draft Work Plan which had already been the subject of a written consultation. Members were very grateful for the time and effort people had taken in responding. 3. Today's meeting would be a listening one. Convenors of the Commission's six working groups would outline the three priority and three developmental areas the Commission had been considering and take comments from the floor. In the afternoon, the convenors would report on their assessment of how the Work Plan should be amended in light of the morning session and written responses to consultation. AEBC would particularly welcome views on expectations of the Commission and how best to develop its dialogue with the public. 4. Copies of the slides summarising the working group convenors presentations are reproduced at Annex A to these minutes. The following summarises the comments made by participants in the open meeting: Subgroup A - Strategic decision-making · The Commission should consider how to relate science to public concerns some of which might have a scientific justification but which might also have a non-scientific basis · It would be important for AEBC to find out what people really thought about the farm scale evaluations · AEBC should investigate concerns about damage to people's interests and health, how agriculture would develop in future and the lack of consultation about local developments. A number of people were pleased to see that public perceptions had a place in the Work Plan · Joint fact finding with others was suggested as a possible working method. The Commission was urged not to lose sight of the scientific information already gathered by various groups · Notwithstanding their outcome, attention should be paid to the environmental effects of the evaluations themselves · There had been a lack of meaningful consultation about the FSE proposals. Notification periods for proposed trial sites had been too short · Horizontal gene transfer was the wrong term and should be replaced with gene flow (horizontal gene transfer was nevertheless important and should be included in the gene flow study). It was important that gene flow work should not be delayed and, if possible, it should be done in parallel with the work on the FSEs · The need for the Commission to address the question of the 'need' for GM crops was raised · AEBC was reminded of its strategic role. It was suggested that it should cover the benefits as well as the risks of biotechnology · It was pointed out that choice was important for growers as well as consumers · Liability was an important issue as was the feeding of GM feedstuffs to animals · A number of people suggested that AEBC was not yet as widely known about as it should be · The scope of 'animals' should be broad enough to include, for example, GM fish, lab mice and could cover changes in temperament of animals. The AEBC study itself should also be broad, using for example citizens' juries, to establish more precisely what people thought about issues · There were differing views about rights and wrongs of putting the interests of sentient beings first. Some felt that the public could see no reason for biotechnology/cloning to press ahead and that 'low technology' agriculture should be the preferred option · The place of ethics in the debate was raised. It was felt that a proportionate approach should be adopted. Intuition as well as strict ethical principals should be taken into account · The opportunity for bodies to make more detailed submissions to AEBC would be welcomed · It was felt by some that the animal welfare/protection expertise on the subgroup should be strengthened ·
The subgroup should consider: future markets for GM animals; future
risks (perhaps using the history of BST as a lesson); substantial
equivalence; international work; and the lack of controls on imported
food or labelling of feedstuffs Sub-Group C - Horizon Scanning · AEBC was reminded of the importance of maintaining neutrality, especially with regard to the framing of questions. The Commission should also have a role in combating the secrecy of organisations · Genomics would be the next important phase of development · Crops for industry (eg chemical feedstocks and fuel) represented a significant potential market for UK and an opportunity for AEBC to get ahead of the game · It was pointed out that there was no effective European mechanism for considering the ethical merits of the patent regime and AEBC was asked whether it would have the capacity to consider patents · AEBC was advised to keep in view changing social trends - risk aversion was currently a major trend in the UK but may not continue to be so · In order to get the right information AEBC would be well advised to establish dialogues with the right people including senior R&D, environmental scientists · The influence of the WTO on the global stage was highlighted ·
Assurance was sought that the AEBC would consider social and economic
trends alongside technological trends, and that it would not be assumed
that technological solutions were the only ones available. Presentations (see Annex A) were made by convenors. Comments were not taken from the floor. Summing up 5.
In summing up, the Chair thanked everyone for their relevant and concise
contributions. He also invited people to fill in the 2 forms provided,
the first to add any further points they wished to make and the second
to give an evaluation of the meeting. Introduction
and apologies for absence Confirmation
of minutes of second meeting Review
of morning discussion of Work Plan 4. The Chairman reported that the Commission had met informally on the previous day. A brief account of that meeting would be included with the minutes of the meeting and posted on the AEBC website. Two members, Michael Banner and Ben Mepham had given a briefing session setting out their approaches to ethical debate. 5. Dr Mo Mowlam had joined the Commission for dinner that evening. She was one of the Ministers the Commission reported to. In the course of her remarks, she had emphasised how important it was to the Government that the Commission should be, and should be seen to be, completely independent. 6.
On behalf of the Commission, the Chairman thanked those who had made
comments at the public meeting, stressing how much Members had learned
from the session. They were enormously grateful for the time and effort
people had given. Having reflected, Members would consider what they
had heard and what they had read in the responses to the written consultation
as they discussed how to finalise the Work Plan. A further draft of
the Work Plan would be circulated to Members with the draft minutes
of the meeting. Commission discussion and agreement on revised Work Plan 7.
The Chairman invited convenors to propose amendments to the Work Plan
in light of consultation and the public meeting, changes in or elaborations
on how the work would be taken forward and target dates for delivery.
Subgroup
A · The group recognised that the term 'horizontal gene transfer' was too narrow a reflection of the proposed study and that 'gene flow' (both horizontal and vertical) would be more accurate; ·
the whole of Annex 3 would be replaced with the objectives put forward
by the convenor during the public meeting (see Annex A). 9. The subgroup recognised the need to meet people in areas where farm scale evaluations were being held and would consider the invitation to visit the Highlands Council that had been extended during the morning's discussions. They also proposed to take the opportunity of the Commission's forthcoming meeting in Norwich to meet with local people and hear their views. 10. Members highlighted the need to: explore the relationship between views on local goods and public goods (that something might be essential for the well-being of society but "not in my back yard"); consider the international context; focus how to improve the process rather than second-guess decisions made two years ago; and, ensure that apparent gaps in public consultation should not be repeated in future. 11.
The targets for producing outputs were discussed. There was a strong
feeling that it would be desirable to tackle gene flow immediately
and preferably in parallel with the farm-scale evaluations case study.
It was agreed that it was unlikely that resources would permit this.
However, it was also pointed out that the urgency of looking at gene
flow would be highlighted by the forthcoming growing season, which
would bring to the fore once again the debate surrounding separation
distances. AEBC was not established to deal with short-term crisis
management but Members agreed to inform themselves of the debate and
where possible assist in unblocking channels of communication. The
Deputy Chair suggested that it might be helpful if one or more of
the sub-group members could prepare a very short 'state of the debate'
paper to bring the Commission up to date with current controversies. Subgroup B - Animal modification/Animals and biotechnology 12. The Subgroup had held its first meeting earlier that week; the Commission had now had an opportunity to discuss proposed work and to hear the comments of those at the public meeting which had been enormously helpful in offering views on the way forward. 13. It was proposed that paragraph 10 of the Work Plan consultation paper should be replaced with the primary question set out in the presentation to the public meeting ie : 'How well can current and likely future questions about biotechnology and animals, including genetic modification, be addressed by the existing regulatory and advisory machinery?
14. The Commission reflected on the priority to be given to ethics in debates surrounding animals and biotechnology. A number of views were expressed: some considered ethics had to have a place but could not be pre-eminent, whereas others considered ethics (e.g. represented by impacts on harm, risks, well-being, values) were fundamental. However, it was agreed that while a formal ethical judgement was not necessarily required, the Commission should at least lay out the ground. Issues might be complex. For example, developments arising out of the human genome project could give rise to increased numbers of animal experiments amid increasing public anxieties about animal welfare. The dynamics of these could present some difficult political problems and the AEBC's job would be to draw out the social realities. 15. The group would emphasise the need for high quality input on scientific aspects of animal modification. This reflected a general principle that the Commission should be prepared to evaluate scientific evidence critically and the importance of ensuring that it was of the highest quality. The group was also aware there could be a need to bring in additional expertise in animal welfare and some areas of animal genetics. 16. The group was conscious of the need to ensure that any consultation with the public was meaningful and did not, for example, use unnecessarily obscure scientific jargon. Essentially, the group would strive to check its understanding of what it had learned from consultation. 17.
With regard to timetable targets, the subgroup would commission consumer
research/focus groups, which would take place in parallel with informal
discussions with experts during February. An issues paper would be
put to AEBC in April and a public consultation could be launched in
July. The aim would be to have some form of draft report in the Autumn. Subgroup C - horizon scanning 18.
Paragraph 11 of the Work Plan would be replaced with the terms of
reference presented to the public meeting (see Annex A). The Subgroup
was pleased to have received and heard so many sources of additional
information. In light of this, they hoped to progress their work at
their next meeting on 22 January. Contributions to the database the
subgroup was developing would be very welcome. 19. They needed to pay particular attention to setting up a sound mechanism for scanning for further developments (e.g. via patents); getting to grips with the broad international contexts in agriculture and trade. Members wished to reassure industry that they would be looking at potential benefits as well as risks to UK economy in the course of the subgroup's work. 20.
Commercial confidentiality could be a problem but it was noted that
this was only the case where the research had moved into development
phase. For the longer horizon, information could be found from, for
example, the work of scientific institutes and published papers 21. There was discussion about the remit and the need to define the scope of biotechnology for the purposes of the subgroup. For example, it should encompass non-food crops which create opportunities but also pose environmental questions. However, a very wide definition would have implications on workload and delivery. 22.
With regard to timetable targets, the subgroup would submit a report
to AEBC in September. It would decide in January when to take evidence. 23.
The convenor would review the paragraph in the Work Plan and send
a revised draft to the secretariat. 24. The subgroup had yet to meet but would do so before AEBC's February meeting in Norwich. 25.
The group would aim to create a resource for the Commission as a whole,
which would involve creating and maintaining a network. The basis
of this would, it was hoped, emerge from an academic workshop planned
for January. The aim of the workshop was to bring together - possibly
for the first time - people from a variety of disciplines, using different
methodologies and approaches. In view of the somewhat experimental
nature of this approach, the number of 'observers' including those
from AEBC would be limited. Some of the developmental group members
would, however, be present and the Commission would be kept fully
informed. The convenor would start this process off by circulating
a list of those attending the workshop. A written report of the workshop
would be prepared for the February meeting of the Commission. Developmental Group B - Bioremediation 26.
The paragraph in the Work Plan would be amended to reflect the presentation
given at the public meeting (see Annex A). 27. The Commission was concerned to adopt a balanced approach, considering both potential risks and benefits of all aspects of biotechnology including the enhancement of indigenous bacterial communities for bioremediation. 28. The sub-group might benefit from the contribution of non-scientists. Developmental Group C - Liability 29.
The convenor would redraft the relevant paragraph in the Work Plan
to cover the questions that need addressing and monitoring of laws.
Derek Langslow would transfer to the liability subgroup from the one
on consumer choice and public attitudes. 30.
As a general point, it was agreed that AEBC would incorporate a note
of other topics suggested for study in order to keep them in view
as the Work Plan progressed. Dates for future meetings 31. The dates in paper AEBC/00/19 were agreed. Some interaction with those at the Roslin Institute would be useful when in Edinburgh. The public session of that meeting could involve an evening meeting and be somewhat more interactive in nature. 32. The Secretariat would work up the paper to include subgroup meeting dates, venues and other events (e.g. publication of the Work Plan). ACTION: Secretariat AOB 33. The Commission returned to the subject of the place of closed sessions within its open meeting structure and agreed the following: · the commitment to openness and transparency should underpin all its work; · meetings should be held regularly but not exclusively in public; · it would be open about the format for each meeting and the reasons why it had been chosen; ·
it should not be defensive about meeting in private when this was
the best way of making progress. minutes of subgroup meetings should be circulated to all Members as well as being posted on the website; members should be allowed to attend meetings of any subgroups; there should be regular discussions between sub-group convenors; meetings of whole Commission should have time allocated to workshops at which other members could be briefed by and have an opportunity to discuss substantive issues coming through from subgroups. 35. It was agreed that subgroups could issue their own consultation letters. However, final drafts and lists of proposed consultees should be circulated to all Commission members so that they had an opportunity to comment (a five day deadline would be the norm). It would also be made clear that, in these cases, consultations were being made by the sub-group and not the whole Commission.
Annex A Copies of the slides used by sub-group convenors for the presentations made at AEBC public meeting on 7 December Sub-Group A - Decision-making in Biotechnology 1.
Members of the Group: 2.
The Group's Remit: We
have chosen to do this through two case studies: 3.
Why are we looking at the Farm Scale Trials? · The commercial growing of the GMHT crops in the trials depends upon the outcome of the trials and Ministers are likely to face difficult decisions when the results are published 4. The role of the AEBC is to provide strategic advice to the Government. By choosing a case study in an important and difficult area, we hope to fulfil this role and to give advice that may assist in future decision-making. 5. To evaluate the role of FSE's in the regulatory process and in appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the environment. This objective will be appraised by: ·
reviewing the reasons for setting up the trials; 6. Identifying the significant gaps in information that may remain following the conclusion of the FSE's relevant to appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the environment taking into account the public's continuing concerns about the application of GM plant technology. 7.
Working Methods 8.
Our discussions are ongoing. However… 9.
As regards public concern, we have identified three different aspects: Sub-Group B - Animal Modification 1.
Members of the Group: 2.
The Primary Question
2. Describe existing regulatory and advisory machinery and the way each part currently interprets its brief 3. Map 1 onto 2 and identify gaps and possible solutions 4.
Recognise:
Step
1 Step
2 Step
3 l
Discussion with Commission of issues consultation paper 6. Process and Timetable - Phase Two Step
4 Step
5 Step
6 Step
7 Step
8 Sub-Group C - Horizon Scanning 1.
Members 2.
Terms of Reference 3.
This will include information on: 4.
Issues Developmental Group A - Consumer Choice and Public Attitudes to GM 1. Members of the Group: Robin Grove-White (Convenor), Helen Browning, Dave Carmichael, Ed Dart, Sue Mayer, Ben Mepham and Derek Langslow 2.
Nature and range of public responses
1.
Members of the Group: 2.
Risk Issues 3.
Why should the AEBC be involved? 4.
Next Steps?
1.
Members of the Group 3.
Why is liability so important? The debate needs to extend beyond the lawyers. Title
Surname First name Institution |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
