14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>14</strong>2<br />
questionnaire. Responses made via email or post were<br />
also accepted while the consultation was open. A total<br />
of 1,836 responses were received, the majority of which<br />
were received via the consultation website. Respondents<br />
include stakeholder organizations, individuals with personal<br />
experience of mitochondrial disease, as well as a large<br />
number of members of the public.<br />
Each of these strands tapped into different groups, using<br />
different strategies. An enormous amount of time and<br />
energy was invested by HFEA staff in providing information<br />
to support the events, much of which can still be consulted<br />
on the HFEA website. It is noticeable that media coverage<br />
of the mitochondria replacement story throughout<br />
this period was unusually well-informed: the HFEA<br />
website encourages interested parties to use any text or<br />
illustration they like, to inform their own work, and several<br />
journalists incorporated graphic as well as textual material.<br />
The public consultation also benefited from the fact that,<br />
fortuitously, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics conducted<br />
a six-month inquiry into the ethical issues raised by<br />
“new techniques that aim to prevent the transmission of<br />
maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA disorders” during<br />
the same period, concluding that “if these novel techniques<br />
are adequately proven to be acceptably safe and effective<br />
as treatments, it would be ethical for families to use<br />
them” 7 .<br />
Taken together, the expert and public consultations<br />
provided a solid platform on which to build the HFEA’s<br />
advice to ministers. After more than three years of<br />
engagement with scientists, ethicists and the broader<br />
public on mitochondria replacement, the HFEA reported<br />
to the Secretary of State for Health as follows:<br />
“It is not the task of the HFEA to advise the<br />
Government as to whether it should permit mitochondria<br />
replacement in treatment. That decision would require a<br />
change in the law and is, quite properly, one which only<br />
Parliament can take. If the Government does wish to<br />
take steps to change the law, it must draft Regulations as<br />
provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act<br />
1990 (as amended).”<br />
“Our advice to Government is that there is general<br />
support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the<br />
UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment<br />
setting and is done within a regulatory framework. Despite<br />
the strong ethical concerns that some respondents to the<br />
consultation expressed, the overall view is that ethical<br />
concerns are outweighed by the arguments in favour of<br />
permitting mitochondria replacement.” 8<br />
I think this is a quite remarkable outcome for such a<br />
contentious piece of clinical <strong>innovation</strong>. I believe that<br />
the painstaking way in which the various consultations<br />
were conducted was in large measure responsible for<br />
the unexpectedly consensual and positive outcome.<br />
In February 20<strong>14</strong>, the Department of Health opened<br />
a consultation on draft regulations for the use of<br />
mitochondria replacement techniques, which would<br />
eventually make such treatments lawful.<br />
On 22 July 20<strong>14</strong>, the department published its response<br />
to the consultation on draft regulations, in which it<br />
expressed its satisfaction with the extensive process of<br />
the consultation overall, and announced its decision to go<br />
ahead with putting the regulations before Parliament:<br />
“This consultation on proposed regulations has been<br />
the culmination of detailed consideration over a four year<br />
period, where the Government has aimed to ensure that<br />
full account is taken of all the available <strong>evidence</strong> on the<br />
science, ethics and safety of the techniques and that all<br />
voices are heard.”<br />
“The Government has decided to proceed with putting<br />
regulations before Parliament, subject to giving further<br />
consideration to the Expert Panel’s recommendations,<br />
refining the draft regulations to take account of changes<br />
identified during the consultation, and discussion with<br />
the HFEA about an appropriate approval process. The<br />
Government will consider the timing of the regulations in<br />
the light of these actions. The regulations will be subject<br />
to full scrutiny by the public and Parliament through the<br />
affirmative procedure.” 9<br />
Risk and uncertainty again<br />
When I began writing this chapter, the regulations which<br />
would govern mitochondria replacement treatment were<br />
expected to be put before Parliament by the end of 20<strong>14</strong>.<br />
Given the success of the consultation process that had<br />
preceded the drafting of regulations, it was assumed at the<br />
HFEA that the necessary changes to the statute would<br />
have become law by the end of 20<strong>14</strong>. But that, it turned<br />
out, was not the end of the story.<br />
On 1 September 20<strong>14</strong> a debate took place in the House<br />
of Commons Chamber on mitochondrial replacement<br />
techniques and public safety, scheduled by the Backbench<br />
Business Committee. The motion was moved by the<br />
Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, and ran as follows:<br />
“That this House takes note of the Human Fertilisation<br />
and Embryology Authority’s most recent scientific review<br />
into the safety and efficacy of mitochondrial replacement<br />
techniques which highlights concerns for subsequent<br />
generations of children born through maternal spindle<br />
transfer and pronuclear transfer; welcomes the recent<br />
comments of scientists that, prior to the introduction of<br />
such techniques, more research ought to be undertaken and<br />
a full assessment conducted of the potential <strong>risk</strong> to children<br />
born as a result; and calls upon the Government, in light<br />
of these public safety concerns, to delay bringing forward<br />
regulations on mitochondrial replacement.” (my emphasis)<br />
There was, I confess, some dismay amongst those<br />
who had so carefully seen the matter through to this<br />
point, at the prospect of further delay being introduced.<br />
What was disappointing was that after all the careful<br />
consultation and explanation, there was the old issue of<br />
<strong>risk</strong> and uncertainty once again, raising its ugly head. Those<br />
supporting the motion made it clear that the issue was a<br />
real reluctance to introduce regulations before there was<br />
scientific <strong>evidence</strong> to show that mitochondria replacement<br />
techniques were safe and <strong>risk</strong>-free. This was the very thing