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

Jenny Dyck Brian, Robert Cook-Deegan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S14-S16
JournalHastings Center Report
Volume47
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Bioethics
bioethics
Behavioral Research
behavioral research
Recombinant DNA
Biomedical Research
Incubators
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Advisory Committees
United States Food and Drug Administration
Administrative Personnel
deliberation
heat
politician
president
Hot Temperature
History
Medicine
medicine
regulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Medicine(all)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions. / Brian, Jenny Dyck; Cook-Deegan, Robert.

In: Hastings Center Report, Vol. 47, 01.05.2017, p. S14-S16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{45a329b70f364b6bb3cd728861bb7ac6,
title = "What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Brian, {Jenny Dyck} and Robert Cook-Deegan",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hast.712",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "S14--S16",
journal = "Hastings Center Report",
issn = "0093-0334",
publisher = "Hastings Center",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What's the Use? Disparate Purposes of U.S. Federal Bioethics Commissions

AU - Brian, Jenny Dyck

AU - Cook-Deegan, Robert

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019573491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019573491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hast.712

DO - 10.1002/hast.712

M3 - Article

C2 - 28543652

AN - SCOPUS:85019573491

VL - 47

SP - S14-S16

JO - Hastings Center Report

JF - Hastings Center Report

SN - 0093-0334

ER -