Michael Fuchs National ethics councils - Deutscher Ethikrat

Michael Fuchs National ethics councils. Their backgrounds, functions and modes of operation compared
Representatives of states whose legal systems are based on English law stress the
importance of furnishing advice for political action even in fields where legislation is
not considered necessary (Kennedy, Turner-Warwick). In addition to advising the executive,
the committee may offer guidance to the courts (e.g. the CCNE’s Avis No. 63).
In France, where the Committee has often exerted a decisive influence on legislation,
the members emphasize the difference between the ethical and macropolitical perspectives.
Even where the Committee adopts an unequivocal position, other considerations
may contribute to the political decision. For this reason, the CCNE has
always declined to compile draft laws of its own or to present detailed proposals for
legislation. It is interesting to note that none of the bodies discussed here, in its own
self-descriptions, substantially measures its own success by its influence on legislation
– if only because a high degree of correspondence with subsequent legislation
might, in the view of the committee itself, cast doubt on its independence, as the influence
could also be interpreted as having been exerted in the opposite direction.
8. Procedures for involvement of the public and
influencing public debate
It is considered important to influence not only legislation and guidelines but also the
public debate. This influence seems to be a fact both for the social sectors of science and
health and for society as a whole. For instance, the Danish Council has manifestly succeeded
in defining the main topics for public debate (Koch/Zahle). The ethics councils
of every country seem to have acquired great authority by virtue of their competence
for the issues and for ethics, for the thoroughness and seriousness of their problem
analyses, and for the impartial, free and independent manner in which they arrive at
their conclusions. They appear as bodies whose internal discussions initiate or appreciably
enhance the debate between science, the world of politics and the public.
Since non-public deliberations are at least conducive to members’ independence,
specific procedures must be developed to allow public participation. In a survey conducted
by the Council of Europe, the majority of responding states, or their national
ethics committees, emphasized the importance of taking account of public opinion
on new biotechnologies. At the same time, however, in this survey at any rate, no instruments
for determining this opinion, whether now or in the future, were mentioned
(Le Bris, 25). Some committees have since made strenuous efforts to involve
the public in their work. The principal instruments here are the regular hearings and
public conferences held in many countries. In France, where this practice has been established
for some years, schoolchildren and students are given an opportunity of
putting their views publicly and to the members of the National Committee and
92
Government representatives – and, what is more, a genuine discourse can come into
being because such interventions are thoroughly prepared for with the support of the
Committee and teachers. The German National Ethics Council, too, besides its annual
public meeting, every year holds a number of public meetings and evening lectures
(Forum Bioethik). In addition, since the beginning of 2003, the public have been
admitted to plenary meetings of the Council as observers.
Other approaches to promoting citizen participation, such as consensus conferences
and similar citizens’ forums, are the responsibility of institutions other than the
national councils in most countries (e.g. Denmark or Switzerland; for a comparison
of ethics councils and citizens’ conference initiatives, see Fuchs 2001b).
9. Funding, facilities and internal structure
Except for the Nuffield Council, which is privately resourced and receives supplementary
funding from the European Commission, the committees operate wholly or
substantially with public funds. In some cases the committee or its secretariat is free
to decide on the appropriation of resources, while in others funds must be obtained
from the institution of state or authority to which the committee is answerable. The
situation is similar for bodies under the auspices of academies of sciences or quasigovernmental
research councils. Budget allocations are thus made in some cases in
advance and in others on a post hoc basis. All committees reimburse members with
their travelling expenses. In some instances funds are available for other expenses, per
diems and meeting allowances. Further expenditure may be occasioned by hearings
and the commissioning of external experts’ reports.
Most bodies have a secretariat, which sometimes includes scientific staff. The scientific
staff of the President’s Council is particularly worthy of mention because it is
so numerous. An appreciable proportion of the costs of some ethics bodies is accounted
for by the production and dissemination of publications and teaching material,
as well as the holding of conferences and discussion forums. A particularity of
the French Committee is the establishment of a large on-site documentation centre;
other committees, such as those of Portugal and Belgium, have established smaller libraries
or collections of essential reference works.
The committees are very similar in their internal structures. In addition to their
plenary meetings, which take place at four- to six-week intervals, they hold working
and coordinating committee meetings. Additional expertise is often co-opted. The
chair is sometimes elected by the body itself (as in the NBAC in the United States or
the National Ethics Council in Germany) and in other cases appointed externally
(e.g. in the French CCNE or the US President’s Council).
93