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