This document sets out the Government's reply to the Joint Committee's 31 recommendations set out in its report (HL 169-I/HC 630-I, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780104011348) on the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill published in May 2007 (Cm. 7087; ISBN 9780101708722). The responses are given under a number of headings including: the legislative and regulatory framework, regulatory bodies, inter-species embryos and the 'need for a father'.
This report is a response to the publication of Government proposals to prohibit the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos for research for the time being ("Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act", Cm. 6989, ISBN 9780101698924). It also takes account of recent applications from researchers for licences to create human-animal cytoplasmic hybrid embryos for research. Since the 1990 Act there have been significant developments in science and medicine and there is a need for revised legislation in this area of research. The Committee finds that the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos, and specifically cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, is necessary for research. But development of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos past the 14-day stage should be prohibited and there should be a prohibition on the implantation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos in a woman. The Committee is critical of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for delaying assessment of applications for licences to create cytoplasmic hybrid embryos for research. The Government proposals are considered prohibitive. Some research practices should be permitted under licence immediately. The Committee proposes mechanisms for legislation and regulation of the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos for research. The report criticises the Government for not clearly setting out the areas of research practice intended to fall under the proposed legislation and suggests that greater attention should be paid to implications of the proposals for current research practice and the UK research base.
This report finds that the UK has an excellent research base but is still failing to maximise its potential by translating research into wealth and health. The road to economic recovery will depend, in part, on exploitation of the UK's research base, which in turn requires efficient translation to generate returns on investments. Some areas of bioengineering, such as stem cells, have clearly benefited from strong Government leadership and support, backed up by generous levels of funding from both the public and private sectors. Others, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, are less well supported and funded. This is curious when GM crops are considered by the Government to be safe and offer potential benefits. GM crops are certainly the poor cousin in the bioengineering family, and we strongly urge the Government to signal its support for GM crops as well as improving the regulatory situation in Europe. Regulation of bioengineering is complex and researchers have found that regulations inhibit research and translation, either because of regulatory complexity (stem cells) or a flawed operation of the regulatory process (GM crops). There are good indications that the UK is learning from past experiences in bioengineering when handling new emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. The Government and Research Councils have recognised the value of synthetic biology early, and are providing funding. The Committee is also concerned that while research is well funded there is not enough forethought about synthetic biology translation, for example developing DNA synthesis capability, which would provide the UK with an excellent opportunity to get ahead internationally. If this is not addressed, synthetic biology runs the risk of becoming yet another story of the UK failing to capitalise on a strong research base and falling behind internationally.
This document sets out the Government's reply to the Joint Committee's 31 recommendations set out in its report (HL 169-I/HC 630-I, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780104011348) on the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill published in May 2007 (Cm. 7087; ISBN 9780101708722). The responses are given under a number of headings including: the legislative and regulatory framework, regulatory bodies, inter-species embryos and the 'need for a father'.
The Government set out detailed policy proposals for changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in its White Paper (Cm.6989, ISBN 9780101698924) published in December 2006. These proposed changes to the law and regulation relating to human reproductive technologies, following on from a public consultation exercise undertaken during 2005, sought to balance the competing claims of reproductive liberty and responsibility, patient safety, child welfare, professional autonomy and public accountability. The overarching aim is to achieve the common good through a system which is broadly acceptable to society, given the complex ethical issues involved, and which is effective given the pace of scientific developments. This present document contains the draft text of the proposed Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, published in order to enable pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals by a Parliamentary Committee. It includes the text of the draft Bill, explanatory notes, a draft regulatory impact assessment and a version of how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act would look if amended by the draft Bill and the EU Tissue Directive. The proposals include the creation of the new single regulatory authority on the use of human tissue, cells and blood, to be called the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (RATE), to replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority.
This document sets out the Government's reply to the Committee's report (HCP 272-I, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780215033512) on the Government's policy proposals for changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in order to update the law and regulation relating to human reproductive technologies (Cm. 6989, ISBN 9780101698924). The Committee's report argued that the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos, and specifically cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, are necessary for research purposes, under licence, and criticised the Government for not clearly setting out the areas of research practice intended to fall under the proposed legislation. The Government's response deals with all 34 of the Committee's conclusions and recommendations and finds that the Committee's report has very helpfully moved the debate on this issue forward.
This report is a response to the publication of Government proposals to prohibit the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos for research for the time being ("Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act", Cm. 6989, ISBN 9780101698924). It also takes account of recent applications from researchers for licences to create human-animal cytoplasmic hybrid embryos for research. Since the 1990 Act there have been significant developments in science and medicine and there is a need for revised legislation in this area of research. The Committee finds that the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos, and specifically cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, is necessary for research. But development of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos past the 14-day stage should be prohibited and there should be a prohibition on the implantation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos in a woman. The Committee is critical of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for delaying assessment of applications for licences to create cytoplasmic hybrid embryos for research. The Government proposals are considered prohibitive. Some research practices should be permitted under licence immediately. The Committee proposes mechanisms for legislation and regulation of the creation of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos for research. The report criticises the Government for not clearly setting out the areas of research practice intended to fall under the proposed legislation and suggests that greater attention should be paid to implications of the proposals for current research practice and the UK research base.
Sets out the Government's response to the 104 recommendations made in the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report of their year long inquiry into options for the future regulation of human reproductive technologies in the UK.
The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
This document sets out the Government's detailed policy proposals for changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in order to update the law and regulation relating to human reproductive technologies, following on from a public consultation exercise undertaken during 2005. The proposals seek to balance the competing claims of reproductive liberty and responsibility, patient safety, child welfare, professional autonomy and public accountability. The overarching aim is to achieve the common good through a system which is broadly acceptable to society, given the complex ethical issues involved, and which is effective given the pace of scientific developments. Proposals include the creation of the new Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (RATE), to replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, in order to establish a single regulatory authority on the use of human tissue, cells and blood. It is proposed that the current model of regulation should continue, recognising the special status ascribed to the human embryo coupled with the permissibility of embryo research within defined limits, and with the continuation of the ban on human reproductive cloning. The Government intends to publish these proposed changes. as a draft Bill, in due course for pre-legislative scrutiny.
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not there should be a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. The Government is committed to considering the need for a Bill of Rights and other political parties have expressed interest in developing one. The Committee intends its report to contribute to this debate. They have considered evidence from a range of witnesses about whether there is a need for a Bill of Rights including: who the Bill of Rights should cover; what the Bill should include; whether it should incorporate social and economic rights; how a Bill of Rights would fit in with and affect the relationship between Parliament, the executive and the courts; whether the Bill should refer to responsibilities, and how Government should consult the public about a future Bill. In Annex 1 there is an outline of what a draft Bill might look like. It is intended that this practical document demonstrates the potential simplicity of a Bill of Rights. The Committee is of the view that the United Kingdom should adopt a Bill of Rights and Freedoms. There are many groups in society, such as older people and adults with learning disabilities, whose human rights are insufficiently protected. The Committee argues that a UK Bill of Rights and Freedoms is desirable in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalised and vulnerable people in particular. There are some additional rights which they believe should be included in a Bill of Rights and Freedoms: these are discussed in chapters four to six. The Committee recommends for inclusion, amongst others: the right to trial by jury; the right to administrative justice and international human rights (as yet not incorporated into UK law). Also there is a strong case for a Bill of Rights and Freedoms having detailed rights for children, and they recommend that the public should be consulted about including specific rights for other vulnerable groups. In addition, they argue that there is a strong case for including the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The Committee concludes that rights cannot be contingent on performing duties or responsibilities and recommends that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should not include directly enforceable duties, however, acknowledging that responsibilities are implicit in human rights instruments. On that basis, and to that end it's suggested that the language of responsibilities could have a role to play in a Bill of Rights and Freedoms, perhaps in the Preamble to the Bill.
The Bill (which will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, except for certain clauses which will apply to the UK) was introduced in the House of Commons on 3 December 2003. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative framework for whole body donation, and the taking, storage and use of human organs and tissue. The Bill seeks to define "appropriate consent" in relation to bodies of deceased children, and in relation to bodies of living or deceased adults. A Human Tissue Authority will be established, which will issue licences to carry on relevant activities.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.