UPDATE ON UNESCO ETHICS DIVISION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 003497

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

PASS HHS WILLIAM STEIGER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO UNESCO
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON UNESCO ETHICS DIVISION



1. Summary and comment-U.S. Mission Health Attache met May 19 with
Henk Ten Have, director of the Division of Ethics of Science and
Technology, which is located in UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences
sector. Along with Ten Have were two of his staff, Sabina Colombo
(bioethics) and Simone SCHOLZe (Ethics of Science). They discussed
a number of ethics issues currently being worked on at UNESCO,
especially bioethics and the ethics of science. The secretariat
staff insisted throughout that there are no plans for further
normative instruments and made clear that they understood U.S.
opposition to new normative instruments in this area. Given the
division's historic propensity for normative instruments, this is an
area that will require continuous monitoring by the Mission. End
summary.


2. IBC SUBGROUPS-The International Bioethics Commission (IBC)
(Note: This is a non-governmental group of "experts.") is preparing
a report on clarification of the Bioethics Declaration passed at the
General Conference last fall. The subgroup meetings will be closed,
since members want a chance to discuss things without concern for
Member State pressure. There will be another meeting of the Social
Responsibility subgroup after the June meeting (note: U.S. experts
invited to present at this meeting, as well as an individual from
the U.S. who is on this working group, are not able to make the June
meeting but will be invited to participate in the second meeting);
then a meeting of the full IBC (which also will have a report from
the informed consent subgroup) in November. The IBC report will go
to the Intergovernmental Bioethics commission (IGBC),where the USG
will be able to make its views known, and then to the
Director-General (DG) and finally the General Conference. (Comment:
the danger is that some Member States might use the report at the
General Conference to urge further action. A number of other
delegations make no secret of their approval for UNESCO's work in
the field of ethics and take an expansive view of the Bioethics
Declaration and see it as just a first step in making various other
issues (social, environmental, access to healthcare, knowledge
transfer, etc.) as matters of ethics.)


3. NANOTECHNOLGOY-The division will soon be publishing a brochure on
ethical issues in nanotechnology. It will have chapters from people
in Japan, Brazil, China, et al, but none from the U.S. Ten Have
said this is because the U.S. delegation did not think engaging in
nanotechnology issues was a good idea. He reports that the brochure
will just cover concepts and will have no recommendations.
(Comment: Ten Have clearly missed our meaning, that UNESCO should
not pursue this issue period.) Ten Have also mentioned that Nigel
Cameron has been appointed (by the USG) to a delegation dealing with
the EU on nanotechnology issues, and wants to be involved with
UNESCO on nano medicine issues.


4. ETHICS OF SCIENCE-The recent Geneva consultation to guide the
DG's reflection on the ethics of science (see paragraph 5) was also
discussed. Health Attache described U.S. problems with a concept
paper issued before the meeting by a Professor Song from Korea.
This poorly written paper also included unfounded references to
alleged U.S. war crimes during the Korean War. Though Song was not
invited to the Geneva meeting because the Secretariat thought his
paper was weak, he will be preparing the report, based on the
consultations, for the DG, and then the Executive Board.


5. Ten Have and staff said that SHS was not propounding work on a
normative instrument in connection with ethics in science. In fact,
the result of the Switzerland consultation (as well as an earlier
one in India) was a recommendation that there should be neither a
new normative instrument, nor an update to the 1974 Declaration; the
1974 declaration's requirements are still valid, and the focus
should be on making sure people know about it and on looking to
implementation of it rather than on re-writing it. Ten Have also
said there should be research on how it applies to new problems. He
and his staff thought the U.S. intervention in Switzerland was
"strong" in light of the fact, as he said, that SHS does not intend
to do a normative instrument--neither a new one nor a revision of
the 1974 declaration. Health attache emphasized the importance of
not using language or format (i.e., should we amend 1974
declaration?) that suggests a normative instrument because states
that want more normative instruments will jump on it. USG will be
invited to the consultation to be held in Brazil.


6. At the 33rd General Conference last fall, the U.S. Delegation
successfully obtained a resolution substituting a reflection by the
DG on ethics in science for a provision that called for a
feasibility study on preparing a declaration on ethics in science.
Nevertheless, the agenda for this fall's 175th Executive Board (ExB)
meeting contains an item that is entitled, "Report by the
Director-General on the feasibility study on the elaboration of an
international declaration on science ethics to serve as a basis for
an ethical code of conduct for scientists." Secretariat staff
explained this was necessary because of the direction of an earlier
Executive Board to prepare a feasibility study. Their report will
include a draft resolution to change the title; this has to be done
or the item will appear at the GC under this title. The Secretariat
cannot make this change; the ExB must do it.


7. They are going to be doing three things in science ethics: a)
study of existing codes (probably 60 of them); b) consultations in
the regions; c) study of the 1974 Declaration--is it useful; how
make it work (they have received no reports on implementation of it
from member states).


8. GEO DATA BASE-The division is willing to have the Mission's
health attache join the work group on creating a legal database on
how countries have responded to the issues in the ethics
declarations as a health law expert, not as a member of the
delegation. The difficulty of finding the applicable laws in a
place like the U.S. was also discussed. They are going to prepare a
database of the laws, etc. in 9 countries (they have 9 experts)
where the laws are available in English but are not as complicated
as in the U.S. Health Attache stressed that the items should be
listed as topics--not tied to articles in the three
declarations--because states may do things before or independently
of the declarations and also because it implies that a state has
breached some duty if there is no "law" attached to the state's
name. It should be a database on issues, not an exercise on how
states have followed the declarations. (Comment: This is going to
be difficult for them to accept.)


9. EXPANSION OF THE BIOETHICS DECLARATION-Health Attache raised the
DG's speech to the IBC in Japan (last December) and his November
letter to IBC members. The secretariat staff speculated that others
might have changed the speech without sending it back to them for
clearance. They were surprised to hear that the DG was made to say
that there was not much difference between the Declaration that
member states agreed on and what the IBC had presented. Health
Attache pointed to the discussion in the caption in SHS Newsletter
11 about access to medicine as an ethical issue like clean water,
and they discussed whether this implied that it was an ethical
principle or only said that it was an issue as to whether it was.
The secretariat staff understood U.S. concerns that the Declaration
not be expanded and that the U.S. will remain vigilant about
language that gives comfort to Member States who want to expand it
and use it to bring in a different agenda. Mission is preparing a
letter to the DG and explanatory memorandum on this issue, and will
send it soon to Washington.

KOSS