PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROUND TABLE OF MINISTERS OF SCIENCE

BIOETHICS
International Implications

Paris, 22–23 October 2001

 BIOETHICS

International Implications

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROUND TABLE OF MINISTERS OF SCIENCE

Paris, 22–23 October 2001

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of UNESCO.

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Division of the Ethics of Science and Technology

Human and Social Science Sector
SHS/BIO–MINSC/03/1

© UNESCO, 2003
 Preface

The last decade of the twentieth century witnessed several major discoveries and developments
in the life sciences through which the mechanisms of life itself have been unveiled: examples include
the birth of the first cloned mammal (Dolly the sheep), the derivation of human embryonic stem cells and
the near completion of the international endeavour of decoding the human genome sequence. However,
an ambiguity, perhaps an ambivalence, lies at the heart of these achievements. On the one hand,
these scientific results have enormous potential to improve the well-being of humankind. On the other hand,
they could cause immeasurable harm if applied without careful consideration. Today, more than ever,
human ethical responsibility must form an integral part of interventions in the mechanisms of life if respect
for human rights and human dignity is to be secured.
Over recent years, bioethics has substantially extended its scope. Today, it covers a wide and diverse
range of areas, such as the donation and transplantation of organs, palliative care, equitable access to health
services, the participation of human beings in experimental research and treatments, and artificial reproductive
technologies.
As the only international organization in the United Nations system entrusted with an ethical mandate,
UNESCO has played a leading role in international discussions on bioethics, in particular through the work
of its International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC).
The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, the result of five years of intensive
deliberation by the IBC, has been highly commended by the international community since its adoption
at the 29th session of the General Conference in 1997 and its endorsement by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1998.
At national and international levels, each State has a crucial role in promoting bioethical reflection,
disseminating information, and drafting legislation aimed at protecting human rights and human dignity.
Each State and region faces different ethical challenges depending on its social norms and practices, cultural
values and biomedical needs. However, the basic principles regarding human life and well-being are
commonly shared in the international community and we should be vigilant to prevent any violation of these
principles. Here lies the importance of gathering decision-makers at an international level in order
to exchange their views and confirm their common ethical values. However, no meeting involving decision-
makers in a discussion on bioethical issues had been held at a truly global level. I therefore decided
to organize a Round Table of Ministers of Science on “Bioethics: International Implications” on 22 and
23 October 2001 as part of a series of meetings during the 31st Session of the General Conference.

-1-
 The Round Table gathered together Ministers of Science and representatives of Ministers of some
101 Member States and Observer States. The large participation of Member States and the intense and
active discussions during each session, together with the quality of presentations from specialists, are proof
of the importance placed on bioethical issues world-wide and of the timeliness of this initiative.
At the close of the Round Table, a Communiqué was adopted by the participating and represented
Ministers of Science. Each clause of the Communiqué carries a strong message from Member States
on bioethical issues that affect our daily lives. Without doubt, the Communiqué will serve as a key point
of reference that will help to structure and guide the bioethics programme of UNESCO in the years ahead.
It gives me pleasure, therefore, to present the proceedings of this important Round Table of Ministers
of Science. This publication is a testimony of our firm commitment to international solidarity in scientific
progress, and to safeguarding human rights and human dignity from the misuse of science and technology,
particularly in the life sciences.

Koïchiro Matsuura
Director-General of UNESCO

-2-
 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Introduction 5

Communiqué (23 October 2001) 11

Opening Speeches of Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO 15

Opening Speeches of Mrs Noëlle Lenoir, Representative of the Host Country 20

1ST SESSION: “Basic Concepts and Principles of Bioethics” 23

Moderated by Mr Pius Y. Ng’Wandu (United Republic of Tanzania),
Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education

The Foundations and Principles of Bioethics: A Need for Constant Re-examination 25

Mr Leonardo De Castro (Philippines),
Professor of Philosophy, University of the Philippines,
Director of the Bioethics Society of the Philippine

Bioethics and Public Policy 30

Mr Norman Neureiter (United States of America),
Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State,
in charge of the coordination with the White House

2ND SESSION: “What are the Major Challenges in Bioethics?” 35

Moderated by Mr Murli Manohar Joshi (India),
Minister of Human Resource Development

Future Major Issues in Bioethics 37

Mr Alexander McCall Smith (United Kingdom),
Professor of Medical Law, University of Edinburgh,
Vice-Chairperson of the Human Genetics Commission of the United Kingdom

Current Approach to the Major Challenges in Bioethics and their Future View 39
Mr Takashi Aoyama (Japan),
Senior Vice Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
3RD SESSION: “Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:
The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics” 43

Introduction by Mr Marwan Hamade (Lebanon), 45

Minister for Displaced Persons,
Chairperson of the Lebanese Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences

The Normative Scope and Effectiveness of a Universal Instrument on Bioethics 47

Mr Ryuichi Ida (Japan),
Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Chairperson of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) (1998 – 2002)
Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:
The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics 52
Mr Patrick Robinson (Jamaica),
Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

4TH SESSION: “Consciousness-raising, Information, Education and Public Debate” 61

Introduction by Mr Guy de Teramond (Costa Rica), 63

Minister for Science and Technology

Information and Awarenesss-raising: The Canadian Example 65

Mr Gilbert Normand (Canada),
Secretary of State, Science, Research and Development

Bioethics and Public Debate 68

Mr Gábor Szabo (Hungary),
State Secretary of the Ministry of Education responsible for Scientific Affairs

Closing session 71
Speech of Mr Ahmed Jalali, President of the General Conference of UNESCO 73
Closing Speech of Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO 75

ANNEXES 77

Programme 79

List of Participants 81
 Introduction

Although in its beginnings, ethical reflection was carried out only by the philosophical and scientific
elite, today the need to think through the ethical implications of scientific research and to anticipate
its applications is felt throughout the world. In this regard, the Declaration on Science and the Use
of Scientific Knowledge and the Science Agenda – Framework for Action adopted on 1 July 1999
in Budapest, Hungary, highlighted the ethical dimension of the present-day development of science and
technology. Bioethics, a field that covers both the ethical and legal and the social and cultural dimensions
of the life sciences and the technologies which are associated with them, today plays a predominant role
in ensuring respect for human dignity and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Decision-makers in the public and private sectors and society as a whole have become aware,
at the dawn of this new century, of the human and social implications of the advances made in biomedical
research and their applications. Aware of the particular responsibility incumbent on States not only
in ethical reflection but also in the elaboration of legislation which might eventuate, the Director-General
of UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, took the initiative of organizing a Round Table of Ministers
of Science on “Bioethics: international implications” at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 22 and
23 October 2001, which was without doubt one of the important moments of the 31st session
of the General Conference.
This encounter is structured around four issues designed to be mutually complementary:
1) Basic concepts and principles of bioethics;
2) Current issues in bioethics;
3) Institutional and regulatory norms and systems: the rationale for a universal text on bioethics;
4) Consciousness-raising, information, education and public debate.

Basic Concepts and Principles of Bioethics

The first session devoted to the basic concepts and principles of bioethics was led by
Mr Pius Ng’Wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of the United Republic
of Tanzania.
Throughout history, certain key texts, such as the Hippocratic oath, have defined the principles and
forged the corresponding concepts on which bioethics is predicated. However, it is on the pedestal
of the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that bioethics is, indisputably,
founded. Other texts, such as the Nuremberg Code (1947), the Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
of the World Medical Association (WMA) – some of whose features are spelled out in greater detail
in the Declarations of Tokyo (1975), Venice (1983) and Hong Kong (1989) – and the International
Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (1992 revised in 2002) prepared
by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), have established rules

-5-
for the protection of persons taking part in biomedical research, and defined the principles that should
govern clinical tests involving human beings. Finally, given the magnitude of the ethical issues raised
by genetics, UNESCO has contributed, thanks to the political will expressed by the international
community, to the formulation of basic principles through the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights, adopted unanimously and by acclamation by the General Conference
in 1997 and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1998.
Intangible bioethics principles seem to inevitably raise a number of questions. Respect for human
dignity – is this principle understood in the same way in all cultures?; respect for autonomy and freedom
of choice – in particular with the need for free, express and informed consent; the primacy of individual
well-being and integrity of the person – but what is understood by integrity particularly in cases of voluntary
clinical testing?; the principle of equality and non-discrimination – how are the principles not only
of beneficence but also of non-maleficence to be ensured?; justice and equity principles – what means
should be set up to ensure access by all to the results of research?; the principal of solidarity –
what mechanisms should be set up so that research covers all diseases?; the principles of precaution and
responsibility – how should the precautionary principle be applied and how does this principle tie in with
the responsibility of the different actors involved?; right to privacy – should provision not be made
for some special form of protection, in particular concerning genetic data?; and the right to ownership –
how are the rights to ownership and the freedom to dispose of one’s body to be reconciled with
the principle of non-commercialization of the human body?
The first speaker, Mr Leonardo De Castro, Professor of Philosophy at the University of the Philippines
and Director of the Bioethics Society of Philippines, referred to several intangible bioethical principles such
as the principle of justice, of autonomy and the respect for privacy. He pointed out that these principles
do not constitute an absolute guarantee and therefore stressed the need for a public and democratic
debate. Mr Norman Neureiter, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State of the United
States of America, in charge of the coordination with the White House, added that human beings have
always sought to change nature in order to improve their own living conditions. Giving the example of
cloning, he indicated that the challenges raised by scientific progress are today as numerous as discoveries.

What are the Current Issues in Bioethics?

The second session, chaired by Mr Murli Manohar Joshi, Minister of Human Resource Development
of India, raised the question of the current issues in bioethics.
Bioethics today covers a very wide field which raises an equally wide number of challenges. While in
the early 1970s such reflection focused essentially on medically assisted procreation, that focus has since
broadened considerably. In addition to questions relating to the beginnings and the end of human life,
it now covers issues raised by the donation of organs, tissues and cells, including gametes, research
in embryology, the participation of human beings in experimental research projects and treatments,
equitable access to health services, the scientific, epidemiological, diagnostic and therapeutic use
of genetics, the introduction into agriculture and stockbreeding of transgenic technology and genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), palliative care and end-of-life care, etc.

-6-
 Embryonic stem cell research and cloning are without doubt among the issues most discussed at present
at the international level. Such research would in future make it possible to create organs and tissues, which
are in very short supply at present, for transplantation purposes. Nevertheless, the question is raised of
whether this warrants the creation of embryos only for research purposes. Furthermore, such research raises
the issue of the definition of the status of the embryon. Considering the wide variety of views and opinions
expressed on this subject by many national advisory committees and the International Bioethics Committee
of UNESCO (IBC) in its Report on “The Use of Embryonic Stem Cells in Therapeutic Research”
(6 April 2001) is it conceivable, or even desirable, to define the status of the embryo? Human cloning,
defined in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights as a practice contrary
to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, has given rise to considerable debate on
the position to be taken in relation to therapeutic cloning. The debate on cloning and embryonic stem cells
lead directly to the issue of human organ and tissue donation. It should be ensured that the ever-growing
number of people awaiting organ transplants (kidney, liver or pancreas…) or tissues (cornea or marrow)
will not lead to trafficking. The debate focuses on the means to be implemented – should such trafficking
come under criminal law – and on the question of whether such penal sanctions should apply equally strictly
to institutions and persons who profit from it and to the “victims”?
Moreover, the discoveries on the human genome require reflection on the commercialization and
patenting of the human genome. Issues raised by the collection, treatment, use and storage of genetic data.
The rights (including moral rights) of a person over his or her genetic data, both while alive and after death
should be determined? The collection and treatment of genetic data within the framework of population
genetics are more and more frequent and require on-going ethical evaluation with the participation
of representatives of the groups concerned in decision-making, especially when isolated communities
or indigenous population groups are involved. Finally, it can be asked whether end-of-life care and
palliative care, which ease considerably the suffering of people in the terminal phase of disease, should
lead to “active euthanasia” and to the limit to be drawn between refusing to prolong life unduly by medical
means and “passive euthanasia”?
Mr Alexander McCall Smith, Professor of Medical Law at the University of Edinburgh (United
Kingdom), Vice-Chairperson of the Human Genetics Commission of the United Kingdom raised three
major questions to which bioethics must provide answers: those concerning human life, those concerning
access to health care and those linked to human values. Mr Takashi Aoyama, Senior Vice Minister of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, felt that the concept of the value of human
life is broadly shared at present and expressed his conviction that scientific progress and its applications will
greatly improve the conditions of human life. However, some such progress raises serious ethical issues:
international coordination with a view to the definition of universal principles is therefore now imperative.

-7-
 Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems: Rationale for a Universal
Text on Bioethics

The third session which dealt with the topic of “Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:
The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics” was led by Mr Marwan Hamadé, Minister for Displaced
Persons of Lebanon and Chairperson of the Lebanese Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life
Sciences.
Lawmakers are increasingly confronted with issues relating to bioethics. In this domain, the debate
often revolves around the level at which the legislative and regulatory framework should be placed.
If the framework is too general, it may be less useful in terms of its application to specific practices.
Conversely, if it is very detailed, it may be rendered obsolete by rapid advances in practices and
techniques. What is needed, therefore, is to strike a balance so as to forge norms and introduce
institutional mechanisms that can stand the test of time.
It is true that, in matters of bioethics, many States have framed laws and regulations aimed at protecting
rights and freedoms. However, any denial of human dignity or infringement of liberty, wherever it occurs,
constitutes an unacceptable violation of the rights of the human person and, as such, concerns the entire
international community. Moreover, States are concerned by the need to ensure the dissemination
of scientific knowledge and the equitable distribution of research findings. Finally, they cannot but observe
the growing number of practices that extend beyond national borders. As a result, any biomedical
research or practice that is contrary to the founding principles of bioethics, such as cloning for the purpose
of human reproduction, is liable to spread rapidly to other countries. Consequently, States will remain
vulnerable to potential abuses in these areas unless they resolutely embark upon the path of international
consultation.
It would appear that the international community feels the need to set guiding principles, or indeed
legislate, in so rapidly advancing an area with such wide ramifications. If so, it must be asked what would
be the limits of such norms and of such an institutional and regulatory framework and to what extent would
the international community be able to ensure compliance with them. The role not only of specialists but
also of decision-makers and civil society should be defined as well as that devolved upon international
organizations both within and outside the United Nations system.
The Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, adopted in 1997
and open since then for accession and ratification, clearly shows how beneficial it would be for the
international community to provide itself with an instrument, no doubt non-binding, covering all the fields
of bioethics. If UNESCO were to embark upon such a venture, it would do so in cooperation
with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Health
Organization, the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization etc.
In his address, Mr Ryuichi Ida, Professor of International Law, Kyoto University (Japan) and
Chairperson of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (1998 – 2002), pointed out that
the IBC already contributes to the circulation of a universal norm, which takes account of the diversity

-8-
of values and thinking. This action could be embodied in a universal text, which should not have binding
force, as a moral sanction for failure to respect the norm could be sufficient. Mr. Patrick Robinson,
Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, expressed the view that a binding
international instrument was necessary because bioethics concerns the entire world, even if only around
thirty countries had adopted appropriate legislation in this field.

Consciousness-raising, Information, Education and Public Debate

The fourth session devoted to “Consciousness-raising, Information, Education and Public Debate”
was led by Mr Guy de Teramond, Minister of Science and Technology of Costa Rica.
It must be noted that citizens are increasingly making it clear that they wish to be informed more fully
about the choices that are being made for the societies they live in, particularly in the fields of health,
research and biotechnologies, and to be able to participate more actively in the decision-making process.
But such participation must be informed, i.e. based on scientific information that is as comprehensive
as possible, and it must be balanced, which means presenting different, even conflicting, viewpoints and
also the uncertainties. There needs to be envisioned the most appropriate means of organizing public
debates, with support from the mass media, while ensuring that all actors take part in it (scientists, union
and industry representatives, politicians, etc.). The national ethics committees have here a role to play.
With regard to consciousness-raising, information, education and public debate, we should learn from
the successes achieved in some countries and from the recorded failures. In addition, deep reflection
should be placed on the means of implementation for arriving at a real account of the results of these public
debates in order to avoid an “rebound effect” of citizens mistrusting these mechanisms.
Finally, particular emphasis should be placed on the importance of education in bioethics.
The organization of bioethics education in institutions that are well-versed in approaching the mainstream
disciplines but are generally less well prepared to treat multidisciplinary fields should be addressed quickly,
as well as the way of taking into consideration the expectations of youth in relation to bioethics. UNESCO
must ensure its mission in this sense. A number of countries have invited UNESCO to create
an international fund to finance educational projects and appreciation of bioethics. Once again,
international cooperation is evoked as the only way to promote exchange of scientific knowledge and
technology between developed and developing countries.
In his presentation, Mr Gilbert Normand, Secretary of State of Canada, Science, Research and
Development reminded the meeting of the duty of States and international institutions to provide
information and create awareness. For example, Canada through the creation of a bioethics committee
has launched a wide-ranging public debate on bioethics, the outcomes of which will help to underpin
appropriate legislation. Mr Gábor Szabo, State Secretary of the Ministry of Education of Hungary
responsible for Scientific Affairs, pointed out that although the public debate is sometimes difficult and
laborious, it remains necessary, primarily because of the need to enlighten the public so that it can exercise
its responsibilities, but also because the effectiveness of legal mechanisms or legislation depended
on the level of education and information of the public.

-9-
 Conclusion

There is no doubt that bioethics issues are now at the forefront internationally in terms of the protection
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Round Table of Ministers of Science on “Bioethics:
International Implications” constituted one of the important moments of the 31st session of the General
Conference of UNESCO. Participation by more than 100 Ministers of Science from all over the world
is evidence of the commitment of States to take part in this much-needed cooperative endeavor so that
international agreements may emerge on issues that are crucial for humanity.
At the close of the proceedings of the Round Table on “Bioethics: International Implications”,
during the session moderated by Mr Björn Bjarnason, Minister of Education, Science and Culture
of Iceland, the participating or represented Ministers of Science adopted unanimously and by acclamation
the Communiqué of 23 October 2001. This Communiqué is a hard-hitting message showing that
the international community agrees on the avenues that must remain sealed off: the use of biological and
genetic research for non-peaceful purposes; the cloning of human beings for reproductive purposes,
and the patentability of the human genome. It also agrees on what should be opened up, in particular
the possible drafting of a universal instrument on bioethics.
This work, which brings together the presentations made by speakers of the Round Table, is intended
to be a tool for those who wish to extend reflection on bioethics, from governments to citizens to
specialists. The work includes first the Communiqué and the opening remarks, then the interventions
delivered during the four working sessions and finally the closing remarks. The annex includes
the programme and the list of participants.

- 10 -
 Communiqué (adopted on 23 October 2001)

At the close of the Round Table on “Bioethics: International Implications” held on 22 and 23 October 2001
during the 31st session of the UNESCO General Conference, we, the participating or represented ministers
of science, arrived, on the basis of our exchanges, at the following joint positions.
1. Bioethics is today a key issue in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It plays
a predominant role in the social choices that need to be made in order to bring together scientific progress and the
inalienable primacy of respect for human dignity, integrity and freedom. Nevertheless, this concern must take into
account the imperative of freedom of research.
2. Ethical reflection is an integral part of scientific and technological development. Such reflection must commit
itself to anticipate the problems and take up the challenges posed by scientific and technological progress rather
than attempt to deal with them after the fact.
3. The accelerating pace of scientific discovery and technological innovation calls for prompt and specific
action with the participation of all stakeholders concerned (the scientific community, governments of Member
States, educational institutions, national and international academies of sciences, the public and private sectors, civil
society, media, etc.). In this connection, national ethics committees and similar consultative bodies – independent,
multidisciplinary, pluralistic – have a duty to draw the attention of decision-makers to the constantly new questions
raised by scientific advances and the implications of the various decisions that may be taken.
4. Governments of Member States and legislators with whom decision making ultimately rests, have major
responsibilities in this regard. In this process, they must see to it that citizens have an opportunity for informed,
pluralistic public debate, and must take into account the various schools of thought, value systems, historical and
cultural backgrounds, and philosophical and religious convictions that make up our various societies. Clearly,
bioethics must be based on the practice of democracy and the active participation of all citizens.
5. The questions raised by today’s bioethics are intrinsically so international in scope that they transcend all
boundaries. Founded on the bedrock of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other international
instruments such as the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which was unanimously
adopted, by acclamation, by UNESCO’s General Conference in 1997, and was endorsed by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1998, the now universally recognized essential principles of bioethics, human
dignity, freedom, justice, equity and solidarity, may provide inspiration to States in their efforts to draft legislation
and/or regulations.
6. There is a close relationship between science and the future of humanity, and this relationship will to a large
extent determine the global equilibrium. International law and its effective application have an increasingly important
role to play in these areas. States need to strengthen their international exchanges regarding the ethical and legal
implications of life sciences research and applications in order to conclude such agreements as are necessary
on these matters, which are so crucial for all humanity.

- 11 -
7. In conclusion, we, the participating and represented ministers of science:
i - Undertake to participate actively in the promotion of the principles set out in the Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and in its implementation, in particular
by drawing inspiration from it in the formulation of our legislation or regulations,
and by considering possible extensions to the Declaration when it is evaluated in 2002–2003;
ii - Reiterate that it is for States, in accordance with article 15 of the Universal Declaration
on the Human Genome and Human Rights, to ensure that the results of research in biology
and genetics are used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
iii - Reaffirm that human reproductive cloning is a practice contrary to human dignity, as provided
by Article 11 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights,
and consider that Member States should take appropriate measures, including legislative
or regulatory, at both national and international levels, in order to prohibit effectively human
reproductive cloning;
iv - Reaffirm that, in accordance with article 4 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome
and Human Rights, “the human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains”
and, aware of the concerns expressed about the patentability of the human genome, believe
such concerns warrant further considerations;
v - Believe that UNESCO, as a leading agency in bioethics at the international level, should pursue
its mission as an intellectual forum, and strengthen its standard-setting, information, awareness
and educational activities, and should play its advocacy role to Member States, in particular
through its International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and its Intergovernmental Bioethics
Committee (IGBC);
vi - Invite UNESCO to foster international co-operation and to explore new mechanisms,
including the creation of an international fund, for the financing of education and training,
research and dissemination, and transfer of technology concerning the human genome and
other relevant issues concerning bioethics, and to set up regional and international networks
of national ethics committees;
vii - Invite the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system to draw
freely on the competence of UNESCO and the expertise of its two above-mentioned
committees and other competent organizations in analysing and formulating proposals
in the area of bioethics, so as to avoid all duplication of efforts;
viii - Invite UNESCO to examine the possibility of developing, starting from the Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, a universal instrument on bioethics,
in association with national ethics committees and similar bodies, in cooperation with
the governments of Member States and relevant international organizations, chiefly the United
Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other competent
organizations at the international and regional level, and in consultation with the public and
private sectors, the scientific community and representatives of civil society.

- 12 -
 8. We request the Director-General to bring this communiqué to the attention of the States taking part
in the 31st session of the General Conference, and to disseminate it as widely as possible to international,
regional and national bodies concerned and to the press.

- 13 -
 Opening Speeches of Mr Koïchiro Matsuura
Director-General of UNESCO

Mr President of the General Conference,

Madam Chairperson of the Executive Board,
Distinguished Ministers of Science,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is with great pleasure that I welcome you all to this Round Table of Ministers of Science on Bioethics. I am
very much looking forward to our debates and discussions on this vital subject, which touches upon issues that are
often fascinating and sometimes very troubling. It is my hope that, on the basis of our shared values regarding human
dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, we shall find considerable common ground in our deliberations.
You will be interested to know that, in anticipation of this meeting and with a view to widening the scope
of public debate on bioethics, UNESCO has held an interactive discussion forum on the Internet from 9 to
19 October. During the course of my presentation this morning, I shall make reference to some of the results
of this consultation.
Major developments have occurred in recent years which have enormously increased our knowledge
of the fundamental bases and mechanisms of life. And the pace of change is not relenting. In the fields of genetics
and embryology, for example, advances are ongoing in gene therapy, pre-implementation diagnosis,
and the storage of gametes and tissues.
The new biotechnologies, and the sciences on which they are based, are shaping all our futures. However,
serious ethical concerns have arisen both on the part of specialists and within civil society and the international
community. Along with our greater knowledge and understanding of life’s secrets and our stronger command
of the techniques of intervention into nature, we are required to reflect deeply on the meaning and possible
implications of these developments. And we must reflect with speed: given the astonishing pace of change,
this reflection is needed urgently.
The reason why bioethics has developed so much in recent years is because a number of scientific and
technological advances have come to pose serious challenges for human rights and respect for human dignity.
We all agree that scientific research and its applications should aim at one goal, namely, the well-being of the whole
of humankind. We all agree that our scientific knowledge and technologies always should be used with wisdom
and responsibility. However, the age of scientific innocence is over. We now know that, despite the best
of intentions, scientific and technological advances may have unintended, adverse consequences for human life
and human welfare.

- 15 -
 Bioethics is our response in the field of life sciences and biotechnology. It demands that, in all our
thoughts and actions, we remain conscious of the ethical implications of scientific discoveries and results.
This ethical reflection, however, cannot be an afterthought, but must be integrated into the very process
of scientific and technological research. It is not, therefore, an external or imported consideration;
on the contrary, the ethical dimension is inherent in science as a practice. What, then, of the freedom
of research? This must be respected, of course. Freedom of research is a real value but, in the perspective
of bioethics, it is not absolute or omnipotent. It is necessary, therefore, to reconcile different principles and
values, which is the real test of wisdom.
If originally it was largely reactive in character, bioethics today must also be anticipatory. It is imperative
that we are fully aware not only of ongoing developments in science but also of their potential ramifications
and future directions. The anticipatory character of bioethics requires that it is truly integrated into
the research process from the outset. It is important, therefore, to conceptualize the research process not
as the private domain of scientists, technologists and their institutions but as a matter of fundamental public
interest. And given the role of Ministers of Science in promoting scientific research, we look to you to
ensure that the ethical dimension is embedded within it.
Policy-makers and decision-makers like yourselves need to be fully informed if you are to be sensitive
to all the nuances and implications involved in a particular issue. You need to be well-informed about
the scientific background and about all the possible aspects and consequences of adopting a certain line
of scientific research. The ethical implications must figure most prominently.
Informed decision-making, of course, must also be based on public debate. Through educational
processes, information and public debate, citizens need to be informed about what is at stake. Some
of our Internet respondents have highlighted the need for popularizing and democratizing the subject
of bioethics so that it becomes more accessible to ordinary people.
In some countries, national committees of ethics have been established to examine bioethical issues
and their policy implications. Made up of key stakeholders and representatives of relevant disciplines
of study, these national committees are a valuable means for focusing debate and consultation on bioethical
concerns. UNESCO, by the way, stands ready to assist countries in setting up such committees, which
often play a vital role within the wider democratic context of decision-making in this area.
Thus, bioethics serves as a vital bridge between science and the human condition. It guides us towards
further and deeper reflection on nature and life, providing us with the ethical principles and guidance
appropriate to the scientific and technological advances taking place. However, in bioethical debates,
the possibility of reaching universal agreement and consensus is far from a settled question. It is clear that
bioethical issues are extremely complex and sensitive, especially when it comes to questions of life and
death. In this on-going debate, different economic, social, philosophical, cultural and religious values
influence people’s judgements and decisions.
In the case of embryo research, for example, different laws and regulations exist, varying from State
to State depending on the very perception of the status of an embryo. Furthermore, the questions raised
by advances in genomics and proteomics have different implications according to different legal, intellectual
and ethical traditions.

- 16 -
 However, controversy is both the essence and the motor of any meaningful ethical debate.
The aim of an ethical debate is not to impose one’s values on others, but to bring different perspectives
and value systems to bear upon an issue in order to reach the most appropriate and defendable
decision.
Despite the difficulties, we believe that a universal agreement and set of principles on bioethics
are needed. We believe we must try to make substantive progress in this direction. The very nature
of bioethical issues endows them with universal relevance and importance. Developments in the life
sciences and biotechnology have implications not only for the whole of humanity today but for all
generations to come. If reproductive human cloning occurs in one country, all countries will be affected.
If the idea of the human genome as the heritage of all of humankind is compromised, then all of humankind
will be bear the consequences. In the domain of bioethics, universality is the rule.
This is why international cooperation is so vital in this area. In fact, this is why this Round Table has
been convened. It is the first time the world’s Ministers of Science have met specifically to debate
the question of bioethics. This meeting is designed to take international discussion of bioethics to another
level. It also turns out to be a timely meeting since the subject of bioethics will shortly be addressed
by the United Nations General Assembly.
It is my hope that a clear and strong message comes from this Round Table and the General
Conference. This message has two main aspects: first, that a universal instrument and set of principles on
bioethics are indeed required; and, second, that UNESCO, as the sole organization within the United
Nations system entrusted with a responsibility for the ethical dimension, is best equipped to take this matter
forward.
Naturally, we welcome the high profile that debate in the United Nations General Assembly will bring
to the question of bioethics. We also welcome and respect the contributions that other organizations
in the United Nations system bring to the developments and issues addressed by bioethics. It is our hope
that, at this crucial juncture, the highly respected and well-functioning mechanisms established by
UNESCO are not thrown into disarray by needless duplication of effort. International cooperation
in regard to bioethics already has a productive, responsible and reputable framework, the framework which
has been created and sustained by UNESCO. This framework – with its international, intergovernmental
and inter-agency dimensions – is well placed to take the bioethics debate forward.
In light of the foregoing remarks, allow me to outline the agenda of the Round Table and to offer some
brief explanations for purposes of clarification.
During the first session of the Round Table, we shall revisit and examine in depth the founding
concepts and principles of bioethics. This revisiting is necessary because a number of concepts that were
current just ten years ago have been rendered obsolete or outdated by the rapid developments in the life
sciences and biotechnology as well as within bioethics itself. Some of our Internet respondents have
queried how the principle of solidarity can be reconciled with profit-making. Others have asked whether
the right of ownership of one’s body as well as its free use might not, paradoxically, encourage traffic of
human organs. Clearly, interesting questions continue to rise.

- 17 -
 The second session is devoted to current challenges that we are facing in bioethical debates.
In addition to questions relating to the beginnings and the end of human life, bioethics now covers
numerous issues raised by advanced medical treatments and scientific research such as the donation of
organs, tissues and cells, including gametes; the participation of human beings in experimental research and
treatments; equitable access to health services; the scientific, epidemiological, diagnostic and therapeutic
use of genetics; and so on. I am sure that different questions regarding the national, regional and
international level will be raised during the forthcoming discussions. Indeed, we are here to listen to all
voices and all concerns arising from the different regions of the world. It is our task to fully understand what
are the urgent issues at stake and how they should be addressed. Our Internet consultation, by the way,
found an overarching pre-occupation with the respect for the dignity of human beings. Issues of eugenics
and euthanasia also were raised.
The third session is devoted to exploring the possibility of establishing a universal instrument on
bioethics. Bioethics has become a major issue in the international and political sphere: for example,
on 30 March 2001, Mr Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic, speaking before the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights, mentioned the possibility of drawing up a universal instrument on
bioethics. Indeed, for the reasons given earlier, UNESCO is convinced that it would be greatly beneficial
for the international community to provide itself with an instrument covering all the domains of bioethics;
the benefit of such an instrument is exemplified by the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,
elaborated in the framework of the Council of Europe, adopted in 1997.
As a result, I wrote to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to propose that President Chirac’s
suggestion, which I think an excellent idea, could be studied and indeed acted upon by UNESCO
in view of the expertise on hand. Naturally, UNESCO would work in close cooperation with other
relevant international organizations.
As I have already mentioned, reaching agreement on a universal text is not an easy endeavour, a fact
which our Internet respondents also point out in recognition of the different appraoches to bioethics
among different cultures and civilizations. But UNESCO has considerable experience and expertise to
draw upon. As you know, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights has been
highly appreciated by the international community since it was adopted unanimously and by acclamation,
by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 29th session in 1997 and endorsed by the General
Assembly of the United Nations at its 53rd Session in 1998. This Declaration, while focusing specifically
on the human genome, incorporates all the fundamental principles concerning bioethics. Furthermore,
Article 11 of the Declaration states that “practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive
cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted.”
As noted earlier, the United Nations General Assembly, in its Sixth Commission scheduled to take
place in November 2001, will discuss the possibility of drawing up an international convention against
the reproductive cloning of human beings. The very basis of its discussion will be Article 11 that I just
referred to, which is the first internationally agreed statement directed against reproductive human cloning.
As you are aware, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights was drafted
by the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC), which is comprised of outstanding

- 18 -
specialists from the whole world. One of the persons most responsible for the human genome Declaration,
Ms Noelle Lenoir, was the first chairperson of the IBC. I am delighted she is with us today and that
UNESCO, her natural home, can benefit from her enormous knowledge and expertise.
The IBC demonstrated its high-level competence in drafting the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights as well as in preparing a number of expert reports. Recent work of the IBC
includes the reports on “The Use of Embryonic Stem Cells in Therapeutic Research” and on “Solidarity
and International Cooperation between Developed and Developing Countries concerning the Human
Genome”, which were presented at the Seventh Session of the IBC. In addition, highly commended
draft reports on “Follow-up of the International Symposium on Ethics, Intellectual Property and Genomics”
and on “Collection, Treatment, Storage and Use of Genetic Data” were presented at the Eighth IBC Session.
The IBC exercises outstanding leadership in international bioethical discussions and I am convinced it will
continue to do so in the future.
The work of the IBC is much appreciated by the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC),
to which the IBC reports. The governmental representatives and experts on the IGBC review the IBC’s
output and draw out its implications for policy and legislation. The IGBC is a vital mechanism for promoting
international cooperation in the field of bioethics.
Turning next to the fourth session of the Round Table, we shall discuss questions concerning
awareness-raising, education, information and public debate in regard to bioethics. Bioethics education,
which requires a multidisciplinary approach, is a new challenge in the field of education. UNESCO
is ready to help in facing this challenge since it has a long and rich experience as the leading world
organization in the field of education.
We are all aware of the ever-increasing concern of the public over bioethical issues and its eagerness
for information about them. Our Internet consultation has confirmed this. The importance of involving all
parties and stakeholders – decision-makers, researchers, health care professionals, patients, their families
and the community as a whole – in the discussion is abundantly clear. Effective systems of disseminating
information, assisting the decision-making process and assessing the consequences should be established.
In the final session, the Communiqué of the Round Table will be examined. This Communiqué will
be the fruit of your collective hard work, drawing upon the rich debates and exchanges of experience.
The Round Table’s Communiqué will be an important step forward in the debate on bioethics and
on the way international cooperation may be advanced.
I wish you every success in your deliberations.
Thank you for your kind attention.

- 19 -
 Opening Speeches of Mrs Noëlle Lenoir
Representative of the Host Country

Director-General,
Distinguished Ministers,
Distinguished Ambassadors,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I make no secret of the fact that it is a huge pleasure for me to appear before your important gathering
today. I am speaking here on behalf of my country, France, which has always warmly supported the work
done by UNESCO, and is proud to be the host country.
However, some ten years ago, I was here in another capacity. It was in 1992 that Federico Mayor,
then the Organization’s Director-General, decided to involve UNESCO determinedly in the field
of bioethics and gave me the task of chairing the International Bioethics Committee. It was in this role that
for five years I headed the work of preparing the text that was to become the Universal Declaration
on the Human Genome and Human Rights.
You know what success this UNESCO mission has had. The Declaration has truly become a universal
benchmark.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary enthusiasm and spirit of dialogue shown
by members of the IBC, including my successor, Professor Ryuichi Ida. Without their energy, it would
certainly not have been possible to have the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human
Rights adopted, unanimously and by acclamation, by UNESCO’s General Conference in 1997 and
endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1998. Yet this document, you will agree, deals with
an eminently difficult subject: that of respect for human dignity in the face of the real challenge to our
scientific civilization posed by genetics. Over and above the work of the IBC itself, it is the very nature
of UNESCO that made this consensus possible. For UNESCO is home to all the world's cultures and
currents of philosophical thought. And its Directors-General – previously Mr Federico Mayor and now
Mr Koïchiro Matsuura – have succeeded in developing this potential, with the unfailing support
of the General Conference.
So where do we stand at present?
Firstly, it is clear that bioethics has become increasingly topical as the life sciences make further advances
and also I would say – unfortunately – as a result of a distinctly disquieting international situation.
The major current concern is terrorism, whose violence has exceeded our worst nightmares. Among
the forms of this new terrorism, both global and anonymous, is bioterrorism, which Article 15 of

- 20 -
the UNESCO Declaration expressly condemns. In the words of the article, States “should seek to ensure
that research results [relating to the human genome] are not used for non-peaceful purposes”. Is it not time
for the international community to issue a forceful reminder of this requirement?
The other current concern, which might – were it not so critical – seem derisory in the present
international context, concerns human cloning. An American researcher, backed by an obscure sect,
has announced to the accompaniment of much media fanfare that he will soon be producing an original
specimen of the human species in the form of a clone. Here again, the Declaration takes a clear stand,
describing “reproductive cloning of human beings” as a practice “contrary to human dignity”. Thus we can
only endorse the laudable initiative of the French and German Foreign Ministers, Mr Védrine and
Mr Fischer, in proposing to prohibit such a practice through a standard-setting instrument.
Thus bioethics, as UNESCO sensed immediately, is a truly international challenge. This is clear.
We may go even further and say that it is a challenge for civilization.
A growing awareness of the phenomenon has led all the organizations of the United Nations system –
and this may be seen as the price of the success of UNESCO’s endeavour – to interest themselves
likewise in the social and moral challenges of advances in the life sciences. This is true of the World Health
Organization, the International Labour Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights and even the World Intellectual Property Organization,
which is at the centre of the patents issue. The World Trade Organization itself is directly concerned
by the dilemmas relating to patentability of living organisms. In fact, as attested by the recent Advice from
UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee on the patentability of the human genome, this question
is crucial both for research and for a potential readjustment between North and South. It is thus readily
understandable why the Secretary-General of the United Nations recently showed himself very conscious
of the international implications of bioethics.
For my part, I believe that UNESCO has a special role to play. UNESCO is, after all, the inventor
of the concept of a universal law of bioethics, even if this invention was not patented at the time.
This special role stems in the first place from UNESCO's unique mission in the field of education.
For education is the key to the diffusion of bioethical thinking throughout the world. One of the tasks that
UNESCO has set itself for 2002–2003 is to evaluate the impact of the Universal Declaration
on the Human Genome and Human Rights. UNESCO is indeed in a particularly good position to
undertake such an evaluation. For example, consideration could be given to launching a far-reaching
international survey, especially through universities and young people in all countries. It is young people
who are most directly affected by a document that lays down the safeguards required to ensure that
increasingly rapid scientific progress is of benefit to humanity rather than detrimental to it. These young
people can tell us whether the text of the Declaration responds to their doubts and whether it has had
a genuine influence on theory and practice in their different countries. This survey might also,
when the time comes, provide an opportunity within UNESCO for intercultural exchanges on bioethics.
UNESCO, and this will be my final remark, is at the heart of multiculturalism and therefore
of the mutual respect among cultures that this implies. As the President of the French Republic declared
in this very place on 15 October this year, in a speech that has already become a landmark, the dialogue

- 21 -
between cultures – all cultures – on the basis of total equality, has never been so necessary. Without
this mutually enriching dialogue, and without the ability to listen that it demands, peace is not possible.
The fundamental unity of all members of the human family does not exclude recognition of their diversity.
This message is contained in the very terms of the first article of the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights. Victor Hugo once said that a poet's homeland is civilization in its entirety.
It is this poetry composed of all the world's cultures that UNESCO, in fulfillment of its distinctive cultural role,
is best placed to inspire today. As it has done in the past, and as it will continue to do in the future.

- 22 -
 FIRST SESSION

Basic Concepts and Principles

of Bioethics

• Mr Leonardo De Castro (Philippines)

“The Foundations and Principles of Bioethics:

A Need for Constant Re-examination”

• Mr Norman Neureiter (United States of America)

“Bioethics and Public Policy”

 The Foundations and Principles of Bioethics:
A Need for Constant Re-examination
Leonardo D. de Castro
Professor of Philosophy, University of the Philippines,
Director of the Bioethics Society of the Philippines

“It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.
If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
These familiar lines from Lewis Carroll have never been more relevant than they are today.
The scientific enterprise has been churning out inventions and discoveries at such a fast pace that people
are able to do things without first knowing why they have to do them or whether it is good to do them
or not. Sometimes, people finish what they do without truly understanding what they have accomplished.
The world as we know it today, is shaped largely by science as applied by popular media, industry,
medicine and, sadly, institutions of war. The developments affect various aspects of our lives in a
comprehensive fashion and change the ways we view the world and behave in it. Our perceptions and
aspirations are constantly being altered together with our notions of who we are and what constitutes our
humanity. The process of change has been largely spontaneous and free-flowing but hardly democratic.
If ordinary persons are to have a stake in their own future, they cannot be mere spectators
as the scientific drama passes them by. They have to be active participants so they can have a hand
in shaping their destiny. It is the job of scientists and technologists to point out to people in general what
lies along the road ahead and what options exist. But it is for society as a whole to decide which
of the alternatives are worth pursuing and how to deal with the emerging challenges to its values,
perceptions and aspirations.
The need for greater societal involvement in the scientific enterprise constitutes an essential element
that lies at the heart of bioethics. As modern technology makes possible an increasing capacity
for unprecedented levels of intervention in natural processes, scientific creativity, politics and market forces
cannot be relied upon to provide the only sources of direction. Through bioethics, society has played
a role. But the role needs to be enhanced. For instance, society ought to have a greater involvement
in deliberations on the principles of bioethics.

Justice and Equity

I have been told about a saying that goes like this:

“If the rich could pay the poor to die for them, the poor would make a very good living.”
In the field of biomedicine, the paradox of justice and equity expressed in this saying has come close
to reality. Poor people have been taking risks in vaccine trials and other studies without ever having enough

- 25 -
money to buy the products that they helped to develop. Jobless people have sold their blood or their
kidneys for money that could give their own families a chance to survive. Yes, the poor have had to die
in order to make a living – and they have not even made a good living. In the Philippines, many
of the poor people who were enticed to give up kidneys for monetary considerations have regretted that
they tried to make a living in that manner. They now believe that they were not paid enough and that
they got a bad commercial deal for the suffering that they had to experience.
But this brings to the fore another issue, another question of principle that many countries have had
to face. If the organ transactions have been inequitable, would it be correct to deal with the inequity
by intervening in the process and making sure that the sources of the human organs receive compensation
that is more commensurate to the dangers arising from organ removal? The danger with this approach
is that it appears to legitimize the commercial character of a transaction involving human body parts. Should
we take it to mean that the human body and its parts are subject to ownership? How then do we deal
with human tissues and proteins? Are these to be regarded also as property? If so, who can have
ownership? Is ownership something that can be transferred or sold for a fee?
I regret that I have only questions and no categorical answers to offer at this time.

Autonomy

The concept of autonomy originated among the early Greeks to characterize the independent Hellenic
city-states that were engaged in self-rule or self-governance. Since then, there have been many nuances
in the way that the concept has been understood and applied to concrete situations. However as we sift
through the many interpretations, the following elements appear to stand out:
1. Freedom from interference by others;
2. Capacity for intentional action
a. Awareness of one’s capabilities, needs and life goals;
b. Ability to relate decisions to one’s important concerns;
c. Maturity;
3. Absence of various forms of constraint
a. Physical and material;
b. Social and cultural;
c. Economic.
Until recently, bioethical discussions of autonomy took place mostly within the context of health care
and research. In the therapeutic or experimental interaction between the health care provider and
the patient, autonomy has been invoked to ensure that persons being treated or used as research subjects
are given the opportunity to make the ultimate decisions regarding their bodies. We have also seen
the principle of autonomy invoked in matters pertaining to contraception, abortion and other reproductive
health concerns. In this regard, restrictions imposed by governments, mostly acting under the inspiration
of religious faith or authority, have generated controversy. It remains to be seen how the world community
ought to react in the face of such disagreements.

- 26 -
 In many of the cases referred to, the issue revolves around the correct approach to cultural differences that
appear to have significant implications for basic human rights. For instance, some controversial gender-specific
practices have ignited the passions of women’s groups. There is good reason to be respectful of
differences since it is in how we differ from one another that we are able to assert our individual, cultural
or national identities. Autonomy resides in these identities. At the same time, there is something to be said
in favor of a distinction between respecting moral, cultural and religious differences on the one hand and,
on the other hand, accepting as equally good all practices that such differences are taken to justify.
One can hardly disagree with the feminist claim that practices tending to perpetrate and strengthen
exploitative power discrepancies ought to be legitimate targets of indignation and criticism.
Even if the criticism of the practices comes from people of other nationalities, the principle of solidarity
can be invoked in favor of the collective action of women wishing to provide support for other people
of the same gender. In recognition of the principle of solidarity and out of regard for human dignity, people
find a need to come to the rescue of those who share our humanity but are at a disadvantage because
of conditions or characteristics that render them helpless.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Privacy refers to the right of a person to define a boundary beyond which one cannot be subjected
to public scrutiny, observation and intrusion. Thus, one invokes the principle of privacy to prevent others
from gaining empirical access or to keep pertinent information from getting to others. In a biomedical
context, the need for privacy has been important in relation to matters that could be stigmatizing,
embarrassing, or harmful in some way to a person.
In light of developments in the field of genetics, the concern for privacy has become more urgent
because of the nature of the information that can be made available. Arguments for confidentiality
as regards genetic information have been compelling for a number of reasons:
1. the contentious presumption of genetic determinism;
2. the futuristic character of the information;
3. the implications not only for the individual but also for family members.
Out of concern for the modern issues regarding confidentiality, an IBC Working Group drafted
a report on the collection, processing, storage and use of genetic data.

Informed Consent

The developments in genetic research have also opened up new frontiers for the consideration
of informed consent. Some applications deal with seemingly simple questions like those having to do with
information about food items that are offered to us in supermarkets. Thus, there are questions about the
cultivation of plants using genetically-modified organisms and the labelling of food derived from such crops.
Other applications deal with the possible implications of genetic interventions for our identities and our nature
as human beings. The examples have a profound implication for human autonomy because the procedures
involved have a capacity to alter our genetic make-up as well as our environment in a manner that is irreversible.
- 27 -
 Based on the precautionary principle, there seems to be a need for careful and comprehensive
consultation because everyone has a stake in the future. On the other hand, we have to remember that
it is through intensive genetic research that we are able to enhance our autonomy by discovering more
about ourselves, and our nature and capabilities as human beings. Like other philosophical or moral
principles, the principle of autonomy can be – and has actually been – interpreted in ways that seek
to preserve opportunities for control and exploitation by authorities or parties that thrive on the absence
of equality among members of society. When the principle of autonomy is invoked without taking into
account the pervasive differences in power based on gender, race or economic situation, it serves
as an instrument for the exploitation rather than the protection of vulnerable populations.
The same qualification must be kept in mind when we speak of bioethics principles in general.
While bioethical principles are important expressions of universal values they cannot always be invoked
to guarantee universal and absolute good. Even as we endorse the acceptance of universal declarations
revolving around fundamental principles of bioethics, we need to be constantly critical in our approach
to ensure that they do not become instruments of tyranny and oppression. Partly because many changes
in the world have been taking place very rapidly, we must be constantly on guard – re-evaluating our
positions and subjecting our hypotheses and conclusions to public scrutiny and consultation.
In this regard, there are, to my mind, two very important middle-level principles that are worthy
of consideration. The first one is scientific integrity. The second is democratic consultation. These are not
fundamental principles, being mere derivatives of the ones earlier mentioned. However, they have
a pervading importance in the context of recent developments.

Scientific Integrity

Scientific integrity consists of a number of related aspects. The first one is an enabling condition –
it involves the scientist’s right to freedom of research, which the Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights declares as necessary for the progress of knowledge and as part of
the freedom of thought.
A second aspect involves the professional responsibility to be true to one’s scientific calling.
It embraces the imperative to strive for excellence in one’s field of specialization and to do the utmost to
gain new and valuable knowledge.
A third aspect involves a moral dimension. It pertains to the scientist’s commitment to the principle
of beneficence and to do good for society. As the Universal Declaration provides, “the applications of
research, including applications in biology, genetics and medicine... shall seek to offer relief from suffering
and improve the health of individuals and humankind as a whole.”

Democratic Consultation

“Democratic consultation” may sound like an overused term but that does not mean that authorities
have been overzealous in efforts to explain their work to ordinary people. The inconsistent portrayals
of science in the media are an indication of the actual situation on the ground. On the one hand,
- 28 -
we see science being deified, portrayed as some kind of god capable of providing humankind’s
deliverance from various problems and afflictions. On the other hand, we see science demonized
as an arrogant enterprise that is insensitive to the values and traditions that have shaped our cultures and
our lives. My guess is that the scientific enterprise has been misunderstood for the simple reason that it has
not done enough to make itself sufficiently understood. In consultative processes, the attitude seems
to have mostly been: “If you only knew how good this is, you would have embraced it wholeheartedly
from the very beginning”.
“If you only knew...” – it is not only the scientist but also the ordinary person who could have a reason
to use these words. To illustrate this point, I want to narrate a short anecdote and I beg your indulgence
if you have heard it already.
Once there was a scientist looking for something to do that would justify a promotion. He found
himself in a distant farm away from the city. There, he came across a farmer who seemed to him to have
difficulty counting his goats.
‘Look,’ he said to the farmer. ‘If I can tell you exactly how many goats you have, will you give me one
of them?’
‘Oh – OK,’ said the farmer.
Thereupon, the scientist set up his computer, connected to a satellite, and used his modern
instrumentation to get the correct number of goats in the farm. When he was done, he gave the farmer
an amazingly accurate count. The farmer could not resist when the scientist picked the animal of his choice
as a reward.
Before the scientist could leave, the farmer thought of a way to retaliate.
‘Look,’ the farmer said to the scientist. ‘If I tell you what kind of job you have, will you give me back
my animal?’
‘Well... yes,’ the scientist said with a bit of hesitation.
‘You must be an extension worker from an international agency,’ the farmer proclaimed.
‘My... how did you know that?’
‘Simple,’ said the farmer. ‘First you came here without consultation. Second, you had the nerve to tell
me what I already knew. Third, you couldn’t tell a goat from a lamb.’
Democratic consultation is important because science must be a democratic enterprise. While it has
a lot to do with scientists pushing further forward the frontiers of knowledge, it also ought to be concerned
about providing food for those who are starving and medical cures for those who are sick. Science and
bioethics must go hand in hand. The scientist and the ordinary person must be inseparable partners.

- 29 -
 Bioethics and Public Policy
Norman Neureiter
Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State,
in charge of the coordination with the White House

For thousands of years humans have been utilizing and modifying biological processes for the improvement
of the quality of life. Age-old practices, such as selective breeding of crops and farm animals, or the use
of traditional medicines have led to our quest for understanding the fundamental principles underlying biological
phenomena, particularly in the field of genetics – the study of inheritance. Sophisticated technology derived
from biological research, which we call “biotechnology”, now enables us to battle genetic and infectious
diseases and; to engineer microbes, crops and livestock for desired qualities or productivity, and holds future
promise to create tailored medications and vaccines customized for each individual patient. However, along
with these triumphs come new challenges as we struggle with the issues of ethics governing the applications
of these advances in the biological sciences.
The issues of bioethics cover a tremendous range of subjects such as prenatal diagnosis, organ and tissue
donations, participation in experimental treatments with or without therapeutic benefits, use of humans and
animals for scientific research, use of genetic tests for non-medical purposes, confidentiality of genetic data,
interventions on germ-line cells (i.e. sperm and egg), genetic counselling, genetically modified organisms,
food and environmental safety, ethics on bioprospecting in relation to intellectual property rights, research
on embryonic stem cells, human cloning, brain research, palliative care and end-of-life care and even euthanasia.
The potential benefits offered by technological advances must be considered in the context
of the associated social, legal and moral implications. For example, the use of an individual’s genetic data can
provide better treatment and preventive measures against inherited diseases. Yet, it also raises the possibility
of misuse of such information by health care providers that may prevent an individual from receiving the very
benefits of a therapy that the technology promises.
One such area that raises fierce debate is the subject of human reproductive cloning – a process defined
by the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryos. The Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee
(IGBC), in its recommendations (16 May 2001), reaffirmed that human reproductive cloning is a practice
contrary to human dignity, as provided by Article 11 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights. This focus on human dignity was also recalled in the “Monaco Statement: Considerations on
Bioethics and the Rights of the Child” adopted by the participants at the International Symposium
AMADE–UNESCO on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child (Monaco, 28–30 April, 2000).
In the United States of America the debate on the ethics of human cloning started in the early 1990s.
In early 1997, came the news that Ian Wilmut and colleagues at the Roslin Institute, Scotland had the previous
year successfully cloned Dolly, the sheep. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton instituted a ban on federal

- 30 -
funding of research related to human reproductive cloning. Also at that time, the recently appointed National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) was asked to address the ethical and legal issues related
to the cloning of human beings.
The NBAC Report, “Cloning Human Beings”, published in June 1997, outlined the following
major concerns.

Religious Perspectives

Religious positions on human cloning are pluralistic in their premises, modes of argument and
conclusions. Nevertheless, several major themes are prominent in Roman Catholic, Protestant, Islamic
and Jewish positions, including responsible human dominion over nature, human dignity and destiny,
procreation and family life. Some argue that cloning a human to create a child is “intrinsically immoral”
(perhaps because it violates the “sanctity of human life” as created by God). But most importantly,
various religious groups argue against cloning on the principles of “basic human value”, “human dignity”
and “family values”. In his discussion on human cloning, Protestant theologian Paul Ramsey argued that
it would assault the meaning of parenthood by transforming “procreation” into “reproduction” and
by severing the expression and sustainment of mutual love from the procreative end of human sexual
expression. Some Jewish thinkers hold a more open view on the subject and affirm that the Divine
mandate of mastery empowers human beings with the responsibility to shape a malleable world through
discovery and innovation. They stress that the Jewish tradition is relatively optimistic because of Divine
control and care in the face of uncertainty about unanticipated consequences. One writer, Rabbi Tendler,
emphasizes the importance of moral education as the best form of human control over cloning
technology. Without going into further detail, it is apparent that different religions have different views
on these issues, but in the political context of public decision-making, the existence of divergent views
is very important and must be taken into consideration.

Socio-Ethical Perspectives

If religious reasons are to be considered as largely philosophical arguments, the potential social
implications of human cloning take on a more pragmatic tone. These concerns address the threats
of “psychological harm” and “physical harm” to the resulting child.
Concerns of psychological harm involve issues of human identity and individuality. In his testimony before
the NBAC on March 13, 1997, Gilbert Meilaender (a Lutheran) commented on the importance of genetic
uniqueness not only for the individuals but also in the eyes of the parents. Psychological harm can stem from
the desire of parents to “control” the traits of their offsprings, based on what they consider “desirable”.
As a consequence, humans may be treated as “objects” that can be “customized”. This would devalue
the role of families and parents in the society as they embark on “designing” rather than “begetting” children.
The societal climate might encourage the undesirable attitude that children are to be valued according to how
closely they meet parental expectations rather than loved for their own sake. This is similar to the arguments
made in the “Monaco Statement: Considerations on Bioethics and the Rights of the Child”.

- 31 -
 Furthermore, the possibility of human cloning leads to the well-known concerns surrounding eugenics,
especially concerns about ethnic cleansing in an effort to create an “improved” human race. Selection of desired
genetic prototypes also leads to the possibility of generating large numbers of people whose life choices are
limited by their own constrained self image or by the constraining expectations of others. These may be clones
of “good” people or “evil” people, depending on the choices and the objectives of the selectors.
Concerns about physical harm center around the dangers involved in the manipulations of ova, nuclei and
embryos, in the course of the complex technological procedures. Such technologies pose the risks of multiple
miscarriages and severe developmental abnormalities, among others. The high failure rate of such techniques
was apparent in the case of Dolly the sheep, where cloning succeeded in only one of 277 attempts.
Thus there is virtually universal concern regarding the current safety of attempting to use such
techniques on human beings. No argument seems more convincing than that of the scientific community,
where there is broad consensus that the state of the present technology would put humans at risk.
Without further research and sophistication of technology, use of these techniques would be unethical
experimentation on humans. This violates the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki
on the ethics of research with human subjects. These documents make abundantly clear that science,
however valuable, must observe important moral boundaries. Scientific research must not endanger
community safety nor the rights of its human subjects.
In the United States of America, both the federal government and the states already regulate
researchers’ methods in order to protect the rights of research subjects and community safety.
If the government can show that restrictions on cloning and cloning technology are sufficiently important
to the general well-being of individuals or society, such restrictions are likely to be upheld as legitimate
constitutional governmental actions, even if scientists were held to have a First Amendment right
of scientific inquiry (Robertson, 1977). The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 (H.R. 2505) would
support a ban on the cloning of human beings by somatic cell nuclear transfer. (Note: The Senate Bill S.1899,
introduced in January, 2002, is identical to H.R. 2505, which was passed in the House of
Representatives in July, 2001). The Bush Administration has stated its position as being unequivocally
opposed to the cloning of human beings either for reproduction or for research purposes. The moral and ethical
issues posed by human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored in the quest of scientific discovery.
At the same time, the Administration strongly approves of the development of cell and tissue-based therapies
based on research involving the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce
DNA molecules, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants or animals other than humans.
Such scientific techniques have enabled researchers to develop innovative drugs to treat diseases such as
breast cancer, and to aid in the treatment of injuries, for example in cloning skin cells for skin grafts.
As we look ahead into the future, we need to be prepared for the day when techniques such
as human cloning are not limited by shortcomings in the technology, but rather by our lack of understanding
of these processes and their implications for our daily lives. Therefore, as our dependence on the use
of technology increases and the fruits of scientific research diffuse into every aspect of human life, the need
for information, education and public debate becomes even more apparent. Biological research, bioethics
and public policy-making must go forward together.

- 32 -
 Author’s note (April, 2002)

Subsequent to the Round Table that was held in Paris in October 2001, the United States
of America has formulated a definitive position that strongly opposes the cloning of human embryos,
both for reproductive and therapeutic research purposes. This position was most recently articulated
on 26 February 2002, in the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee convened to consider the elaboration
of a mandate for the negotiation of an international convention banning human reproductive cloning.
The United States of America delegation made the following statement: “The United States of
Amercia supports a global and comprehensive ban on human cloning through somatic cell nuclear transfer,
regardless of the purpose for which the human clone is produced. The United States of America does not
support a ban limited to ‘reproductive’ cloning. We believe that so-called ‘therapeutic’ or ‘experimental’
cloning, which involves the creation and destruction of human embryos, must be included.”

References

“Bioethics Programme: Priorities and Prospects”, Executive Board, UNESCO 162nd session
(Paris, Aug. 23, 2001)
“Bioethics and the Rights of the Child [Monaco Statement]”, UNESCO 31st General Conference
(Paris, July 18, 2001)
“Cloning Human Beings: report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission”
(Rockville, June 1997)
H.R. 2505 – Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 posted on the website of The Office of
Management and Budget, The Whitehouse, (July 30, 2001),
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/107-1/HR2505-h.html

- 33 -
 SECOND SESSION

“What are the Major Challenges

in Bioethics?”

• Mr Alexander McCall Smith (United Kingdom)

“Future Major Issues in Bioethics”

• Mr Takashi Aoyama (Japan)

“Current Approach to the Major Challenges

in Bioethics and their Future View”
 Future Major Issues in Bioethics
Alexander McCall Smith
Professor of Medical Law, University of Edinburgh
Vice-Chairperson of the Human Genetics Commission, United Kingdom

Over past decades the importance of bioethics has been increasingly recognised. The issues that
have arisen in this period have been varied and considerable progress has undoubtedly been made
at both national and international level. At the national level, many states have now created national
bioethics committees, responsible for giving advice to governments about a wide range of matters.
At the international level, there has been a growing understanding of the need to ensure co-operation
not only in order to share insights but also to respond to problems which have an increasingly
transnational dimension. The debate, therefore, has become more visible.
But what are the main issues that are likely to dominate this debate in the years ahead? This question
is important in order to consider possible avenues of international exchange of views and possible
co-operation towards the framing of international instruments.
The following main categories of issue are likely to be central to the forthcoming debate. In each
category, I have attempted to indicate where the areas of tension and discussion are most likely to arise.

Fundamental Issues of Human Life

This encompasses a number of extremely important issues surrounding the way we bring life into
existence, and the way in which we intervene to mould the nature of future human lives.
The first issue is the extent that the individual should be allowed to control reproduction. This issue
has arisen as a result of the development of assisted reproduction. In one view, this should be a private
matter, an aspect of individual autonomy which the individual should decide. In another, the State should
have the right to determine the circumstances in which reproductive rights may be exercised. It may
be predicted that this will be an area of growing tension between individual claims and State interest
in restraining individual freedom. With increasingly fluid borders, it will be difficult for States to dictate
the boundaries of the acceptable in this area. Already we have seen people travelling from one jurisdiction
to another in order to access reproductive services. This trend is likely to increase and it may be one
of the factors that will lead to greater pressure for international agreements.
The second issue is the extent to which we should permit the human life to be created
in the laboratory. This issue has been prominent in bioethics debate, particularly in the context
of embryonic stem cell research. Opinion is extremely divided and it seems that this will be a further cause
for debate. In particular, issues will arise over the status of human cell lines and over
the commodification of human material.

- 37 -
 In this first category we face growing possibilities of determining the characteristics of future human life,
through developing techniques of pre-implantation diagnosis, pre-natal genetic diagnosis in general and in
the context of attempts to modify the embryo. The debate about eugenics will therefore return to the fore.

Access and Use

This category of issues is more political. It encompasses questions of justice in bioethics and how
we are to distribute medical resources. If globalisation continues, inequities in health care provision will
become increasingly obvious – and increasingly controversial. Many voices in bioethics now say:
We are our brother’s keeper. It may be expected that these claims will become more prominent. They will,
in particular, affect the debate over intellectual property in this context.

Central Value Issues

This category of issues centres upon the question of how we are to identify some of the basic values
that govern the bioethics debate. We talk of human dignity, but what does this mean? Similarly, reference
is often made in bioethics to concepts of autonomy and privacy. The boundaries of these concepts will
need to be explored in order for it to be understood how we are to tackle concrete problems,
such as those surrounding genetic databases. The debate here will be very much influenced by human
rights considerations, which prompts the prediction that bioethics will play an increasingly large role
in the human rights debate. At the heart of this will be a discussion on what it is to be human and how
biotechnology can be developed in accordance with certain basic human standards. Will technology drive
the debate or will we constrain technology if it threatens human values? At present it is not altogether clear
that we shall be able to do this and this criticism will loom larger in coming years.

How are these Issues Best Approached?

The following steps might be taken:

1) We should recognise that these issues are all international issues now: it is impossible to regulate
science on a purely national basis;
2) We should acknowledge that there is unlikely to be international agreement on many issues –
individual positions must be respected;
3) We should concentrate on identifying the core values on which we can agree – fundamental
human dignity and basis respect for human life;
4) We should identify basic process standards (for example, ethical review procedures). We should
seek to ensure that the need to ensure ethical review is recognised at every level;
5) We should seek international agreement, where possible, through the development of international
instruments (such as the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights).
These instruments may be couched in broad terms but it is possible for them to set the basic
standards, which can then be developed through the addition of protocols. The important thing
is to get bioethical values recognised as being of the utmost importance.

- 38 -
 Current Approach to the Major
Challenges in Bioethics and their Future View
Takashi Aoyama
Senior Vice Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan

Opening Remarks

It is a great honor for me to have this opportunity to make a presentation on bioethics. I am extremely
grateful to the Chairperson, Director-General and all of you here.
Before starting my presentation, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families and
friends of the victims of terrorism in the United States of America last month.

Basic Concepts on Bioethics

First, I would like to talk about the basic concepts of bioethics.

I am grateful to have been born into this world. I inherited this life from my parents and ancestors,
and my children have inherited their life from me. Everyone in the world shares this idea of the preciousness
of life, which is, in my belief, the basic principle of bioethics.
Recent rapid progress in life sciences and technology has deepened our understanding
of the essentials of life. At the same time, these developments are expected to contribute
to the improvement of our lives through better diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The advancements have
enabled us to delve deeper into the inner workings of all stages of life, from birth to death. In doing so,
they have raised a number of ethical, legal and social issues, such as a renewed awareness of human dignity.
In this connection, we must not only evaluate the potential benefits that developments in life sciences may
bring to the fields of health promotion and treatment of disease, but also look at the related ethical values
and principles and carefully examine problems that may arise.
In Japan, just after the report of the birth of Dolly the sheep in the United Kingdom in 1997, bioethical
issues concerning advanced life sciences started to be discussed at the Bioethics Committee under
the Council for Science and Technology, an advisory board of the Prime Minister. The Committee
examined cloning technology, human embryonic stem cells and human genome research and formulated
principles for each of these three fields. We are now addressing bioethical issues on the basis
of these discussions.
Although bioethics deals with various different matters, today I would like to focus on the approaches
to the major bioethical themes of cloning techniques, human embryonic stem cells and the human genome.

- 39 -
 Cloning Technology

Cloning technology is expected to produce positive results in the fields of stock-breeding and medicine.
On the other hand, it is conceivable that the same technology might be used for cloning human beings.
A careful examination made by the Bioethics Committee in Japan came to the conclusion that cloning
human beings should be prohibited and punishable by law for the following reasons:
a. Human beings would become tools for specific purposes. The technology could lead to the stock
breeding of humans;
b. A cloned child would be always compared with the donor of the somatic cell, even though he or she
would be quite a different person from the donor. The uniqueness of personality would be violated;
c. Because cloning human beings is asexual reproduction, the general concept of the family in our
society would be destroyed;
d. The baby and pregnant woman would face high risks.
Consequently, the Law Concerning Regulation Relating to Human Cloning and Other Similar
Techniques was brought into force in June this year. Cloning human beings is now legally prohibited
in Japan. Incidentally, an international project on the cloning of human beings was announced this year.
On the instructions of the Prime Minister, the Japanese Government expressed its view within Japan and
abroad that cloning human beings threatens human dignity and should not be permitted.
Recently in the United States of America, President Bush stated that he was against the cloning
of human beings and I also heard that the House of Representatives passed a bill prohibiting such
techniques. Meanwhile, France and Germany issued a joint proposal for a discussion at the United Nations
on an international agreement for the prohibition of cloning human beings. Such movements around the
world show that this is an issue to be addressed together by different countries. It is my own personal belief
that human cloning techniques should not be allowed and that the way to enforce this is through international
cooperation.

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Another major bioethical theme is that of human embryonic stem cells. In Japan, the Guidelines
for Derivation and Utilization of Human Embryonic Stem Cells was released this September.
Work on human embryonic stem cells is likely to be a good news to people who are blind,
deaf or who suffer from diabetes or other diseases. I believe that human embryonic stem cell research
is necessary to realize “regenerative medicine”. But it does raise ethical issues because in order to obtain
embryonic stem cells human embryos must be destroyed.
In Japan, we first discussed how to deal with human embryos and then discussed whether we should
allow human embryos to be used for research purposes. We concluded that a human embryo is not human
life but should be recognized as “the beginning of a human life”. And supernumerary embryos are allowed
to be used for the derivation of embryonic stem cells.

- 40 -
 In the United States of America, President Bush announced that federal funds would be allocated
to research using existing human embryonic stem cells. Research using human embryos is prohibited
in Germany, while in France, I hear they are preparing a bill to permit the derivation of human embryonic
stem cells from supernumerary embryos. In the United Kingdom, regulation under the law was reformed
to permit the derivation of human embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos.
Each country has its own approach to matters relating to human embryonic stem cells due to
the diversity of views on human embryos. Some believe that embryos have human life, others believe
that embryos are just a cluster of cells. This raises a difficult question, “When does human life begin?”
The decision made by each country should be respected, but, at the same time, some mutual
understanding is also needed. In this connection, I think that the exchange of views at UNESCO
is very significant.

Human Genome Research

The third topic is human genome research. Everyone, whether a researcher or potential donor
of samples, has something to do with human genome research, so ordinary people as well as scientists
should pay attention to it.
The Fundamental Principles of Research on the Human Genome have been settled on in Japan,
on the basis of the Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights issued by UNESCO
in 1997. These principles state that the human genome is the heritage of humanity and the blueprint
of human life, while at the same time the existence of a human being is not determined only by his or her
genome. The principles go on to prescribe the basic matters that should be taken into consideration
from ethical, legal and social points of view.
Human genome research is expected to make a significant contribution to frontier medicine.
At the same time, various potential problems are foreseen, such as discrimination in employment
or insurance and the leakage of personal information. I believe that international harmonization is essential.
UNESCO has gained precious experience in creating the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome
and Human Rights, and the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) is now discussing the confidentiality
of genetic information. I sincerely hope that UNESCO continues to deepen the discussion on genetic
information on the basis of its experience.

International Coordination

Bioethical issues are no longer domestic ones because research in life sciences is now being
performed globally and across borders under conditions of international competition and coordination.
And yet, bioethics is very closely linked to history, culture and religion, which sometimes makes
it extremely difficult to establish universal rules. We can say, however, that human life is invaluable.
This is universal. From this point of view, I am convinced of the significance of discussing the universal
principles of bioethics at the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and this kind of ministerial
meeting.

- 41 -
 In Japan, we analyze the situation abroad, mainly in the United States of America and European
countries, when we make bioethical rules. We will soon start a research project this year, entitled Dialogue
and Dissemination on Bioethics in Asian Countries, headed by Professor Ida, Chairperson of the IBC,
who is attending this meeting today. On this occasion, I hope that Japan will promote bioethical dialogue
in the Asian region, and contribute in such a way as to encourage all other Asian countries to announce
their ideas on bioethics to the international society.

- 42 -
 THIRD SESSION

“Institutional and Regulatory

Norms and Systems: The Rationale
for a Universal Text on Bioethics”

• Introduction by Mr Marwan Hamadé (Lebanon)

• Mr Ryuichi Ida (Japan)

“The Normative Scope and Effectiveness of a Universal

Instrument on Bioethics”

• Mr Patrick Robinson (Jamaca)

“Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:

The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics”
 Introduction by Mr Marwan Hamadé
Minister for Displaced Persons,
Chairperson of the Lebanese Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences

Our first two sessions on the concepts and principles of bioethics and on the major challenges
in bioethics, respectively, bring us inevitably to this third session and to the debate I have the honour
to moderate. I take this opportunity to say once more how grateful we are to the Director-General
of UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, for having thus widened the debate on the ethics of life and going
so far as to goad us to action by inviting us all here and indeed goading – the word is not too strong,
believe me – our governments and their legislative assemblies out of their most deeply entrenched
positions.
The tranquil assurance of seeing research continue on its own momentum without upsetting balances
and without jostling values, is a thing of the past. Demands are now made of societies, institutions and
individuals with regard to what most closely touches upon their convictions, their laws and their very
beings. The interactions and linkages are evolving so quickly that they have brought to the fore the issue
raised by the President of the French Republic, Mr Jacques Chirac, before the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights as to the advisability of drawing up a universal text on bioethics.
It is this proposal, plus the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the International Bioethics
Committee (IBC), that prompted our Director-General to set the theme of this third session: “Institutional
and Regulatory Norms and Systems: The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics”. I would add,
Mr Director-General, that the real challenge could also be entitled “What is to be done and how
to achieve it?”. Will the document be binding? Will it be left to the discretion of governments?
Has science not imposed its pace and course on politics or will politics be regulating the course
of science? This theme is one of the culminating points of our round table, and it is no mere chance that
it is at this culminating point that the Director-General has already set the main terms of our final
communiqué. I think that the most tangible proposals of the Communiqué will emerge from the statements
of this morning and this afternoon, and from today’s debates.
Some will be asking themselves, as I believe our two speakers will, what the rationale is for a text.
We already have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; we have the Helsinki (revised in Tokyo,
Venice and Hong Kong) Declaration; we have the Council for International Organizations of Medical
Sciences (CIOMS) Guidelines; and we have the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights, unanimously adopted by acclamation by the General Conference of UNESCO and
endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. Is a universal text possible? I heard some speakers
just now and some commentators forestalling our session by questioning the feasibility of such a text
in the world’s present magma of cultures, religions and philosophies. Are we going to be able to find

- 45 -
an alliance? The more targeted the target is, the more attainable it will be. This is comparable to what
is happening today in the alliance called the alliance against terrorism in the world; for the broader
the target, the weaker the alliance. Is it conceivable in the present situation marked by economic decay,
social inequalities and the chasms separating North from South and East from West? Science being
a battlefield anyway, will bioethics not itself become a new area of conflict? Take, for instance, the question
of intellectual property applied to the human genome – some have already spoken in this connection
of the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – or the various stances on the use of embryonic
stem cells. Is it not likely that all this will exacerbate what some have rather hastily dubbed the ‘clash
of civilizations’? This is no doubt what prompted Ms Lenoir herself to refer this morning to the dangers
of bioterrorism. But then on the contrary, could it not be contended that the special responsibility of States
in bioethical reflection should and could be exercised through a text? I recall in this respect the 1997
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe. There is also the Franco-
German initiative for a convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings, submitted to
the United Nations General Assembly. Failing agreement on a binding text, consideration could be given
to a code bringing together the hundreds of texts and thousands of fragments of texts and to devising
a system or even an institution, the whole compelling recognition as a universal instrument.
This, then, is the challenge we are called on to take up through a series of common positions,
in the hope of course that they will be better respected than the political and security resolutions of other
United Nations forums, including the Security Council. That UNESCO should be the right place for such
joint efforts is borne out by your presence here and at this level. Besides, the International Bioethics
Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) have, for a number of years
already, been assuming a pioneering role in this connection.

- 46 -
 The Normative Scope and Effectiveness
of a Universal Instrument on Bioethics
Mr Ryuichi Ida
Professor of International Law, Kyoto University (Japan),
Chairperson of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (1998-2002)

The unprecedented growth of science and technology is one of the challenges facing
the contemporary world. Although science's contribution to human progress is immeasurable, its dazzling
advances nevertheless have their reverse side and may sometimes jeopardize the social order governing
the human community.
Science is one of humankind's main intellectual activities. In this respect, freedom of research
is an integral part of freedom of thought, which itself is one of the foundations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. Freedom of research is the platform on which science develops. That is why
it cannot be unreasonably restricted.
This said, science, which is only one of the human community's major activities, is not perfect in itself.
It is therefore essential for scientists when conducting their research to take account of its interaction with
various spheres of society. Research in the life sciences, a new branch of science, should always take into
consideration the social, legal and ethical implications.
In the face of present-day problems, science must simultaneously meet two requirements: that of
pursuing its own development and of guaranteeing the safety and well-being of the human race.
The task that falls to bioethics, a sort of code of conduct for the life sciences, is to ensure that this dual
ambition is respected. It is a matter of determining how and by what means we should resolve social,
legal and ethical issues.
This paper will discuss the standard-setting aspect of a universal bioethics instrument from three angles:
the possibility of regulating science; the normative scope of a possible universal instrument; and application
of bioethical standards.

Possibility of Regulating Science

As far as the oversight of science is concerned, the human community, which recognizes
the importance of the role played by scientific development in human progress and prosperity,
has traditionally avoided recourse to the law and has been content with self-regulation by the scientific
community. If, however, the law does intervene, it is usually concerned with the application of scientific
research findings rather than the research itself.

- 47 -
 However, the life sciences have a characteristic that distinguishes them from other scientific fields:
the biosciences, and especially genomic bioscience, bear on human existence as a whole. Since each
human genome is, as it were, the photograph of each human being’s life, once an individual's genetic data
are revealed his life may be disclosed regardless of confidentiality. It is therefore necessary for society
to oversee genomic research effectively in order to be able to protect human rights and human dignity.
But what oversight can be exercised over research? The need for oversight is as obvious as the means
of applying it are hard to determine.
The definition of life is not the same throughout the world and differs according to culture, nation and
religion. This diversity makes strict and uniform regulation of the life sciences difficult.
Moreover, it is not always easy to be precise in the field of ethics. As a code of conduct derived
from a consensus within a given society, ethics differs from morality and religion. It cannot be imposed from
above but is developed through a meeting of minds that respects intellectual pluralism. Ethical standards
are naturally expressed in general terms. This is true for bioethics as well, since, whilst acknowledging
the diversity of values and conceptions of human life, it highlights the minimum rules that all members
of society must observe.
It is of course possible that if a given society reaches a firm consensus, the government will translate
these ethical standards into law. But even in this case the provisions are often very general and additional
regulations have to be adopted in order to implement them. Because of these difficulties, ethical standards
have in most cases remained in the form of a framework regulation. It must be realized that legal standards,
especially in the criminal field, should be adopted only in cases where the social order and society's
fundamental values are threatened. Thus, in a number of countries, reproductive human cloning is
prohibited by law; these countries consider this practice contrary to human dignity and think that its
prohibition is not a matter for ethics alone but deserves to be laid down in law.
Strict legal checks are necessary, over and above ethics, since ethical standards entail only “social”
sanctions, which do not guarantee compliance with such standards. Ethical standards, by their nature,
simply require members of society to abide by them in good faith and nothing more. Consequently,
if a practice or part of research were likely to jeopardize one of society's fundamental values, ethical
standards would be unable to prevent this. It is law that ensures compliance with standards and
the protection of fundamental values, as well as the stability of society.
However, recourse to law is not always the answer. As far as universal bioethics is concerned,
values and conceptions of life and death are so varied that it is hard to imagine a set of legal standards valid
for everyone. It is equally difficult to reach a consensus on the idea of ethical values. The question
of research into embryonic stem cells, addressed in a recent report by the working group
of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) responsible for this issue, bears witness to this. The working
group held lengthy discussions in an attempt to define a number of ethical guidelines but ultimately could
only set out the various points of view, since the value attributed to the human embryo varies from country
to country. Several other examples could be cited, such as abortion, prenatal diagnosis, gene therapy and
organ donation.

- 48 -
 In the present context, universal bioethical standards can more easily be established in a non-legal
(or para-legal) and non-binding form, remaining as “principles”, unless it is the case that a consensus
in favour of legal rules can be reached on a specific issue, such as reproductive human cloning.

The Normative Scope of a Universal Instrument

Although bioethics legislation exists at the national level (bioethics laws in France, the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act in the United Kingdom and the Embryo Protection Act in Germany)
and at the regional level (Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine), there are no international
or universal legal rules. The diversity of values within each community is the main reason for this absence
of universal legal instruments. However, various provisions in the field of bioethics or biomedical ethics
have been adopted by non-governmental professional organizations such as the CIOMS and
the World Medical Association (WMA). Take, for example, the WMA Declaration of Helsinki.
It comes from a world association of doctors and has been revised several times, most recently in 2000,
in step with advances in medical science. It is respected and has been cited on many occasions.
However, such documents are no more than codes of professional ethics, without binding force.
Here again, we can only rely on individuals' good faith to apply them. Finally, at international level,
a number of guiding principles have been laid down by the World Health Organization (WHO).
They are usually drawn up by independent experts and are published as reference documents
by the relevant WHO department without, however, having to be approved by the World Health
Assembly. They are, naturally, non-binding.
So far we have only one universal instrument on bioethics: the UNESCO Universal Declaration on
the Human Genome and Human Rights. The Declaration falls neither into the category of international
conventions nor into that of recommendations provided for in the UNESCO Constitution.
It is a declaration of an international organization and, as such, non-binding. However, unlike
the WHO guiding principles, this Declaration was approved by the General Conference – a body
comprising all UNESCO Member States (186) – and endorsed by the United Nations General
Assembly. Consequently, the Declaration, although it has no official legal force, has a quasi-legal value.
UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights is currently the only
international instrument containing ethical guidelines for new scientific fields. Well-known and often
cited throughout the world, it has become a reference document for bioethics. Thus in many countries
the principles set out in the Declaration are very frequently included in legal or ethical rules
by the competent authorities or the professional associations concerned. This is the case in Japan,
for example, where a set of Fundamental Principles and Guidelines on genome research has been
drawn up. These de facto applications give the Declaration considerable normative force.
As its title suggests, the Declaration has its place in the series of international instruments
for the protection of human rights in the same way as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
whose legal force is today universally recognized. The UNESCO Declaration represents an extension
of human rights protection to the field of biological science.

- 49 -
 Implementation Mechanism

The question of a mechanism for implementing the Declaration is of paramount importance. Article 24
of the Declaration provides that the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) shall contribute to
the dissemination of its principles and to the further examination of issues raised by their application and
by the evolution of the technologies concerned. It is also called upon to organize consultations,
make recommendations and give concerted opinions, in particular regarding the identification of practices
contrary to human dignity. In other words, the Declaration designates the IBC as the body responsible
for implementing it. An emerging tendency in the field of international conventions has been to pursue
the effective application of established rules, even despite strict and specific obligations in some cases.
The attainment of objectives takes on major importance and a treaty embodies measures to facilitate this
aim. It is no longer, then, a question of reneging on an obligation. It is this idea that is central to multilateral
conventions on the environment. Thus an effective implementation mechanism is more important than
conventional sanctions.
The need for an implementation mechanism is even more urgent for human rights conventions.
Although the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not oblige States to fulfil their
obligations in their territories by means of traditional sanctions, it does, on the other hand, provide
for monitoring by the Human Rights Committee, to which falls the task of interpreting the wording
of the convention and examining publicly whether a State's actions meet the human rights standards laid
down in the Covenant. In the field of bioethics the most important thing is to enforce ethical standards.
Setting out bioethical standards is not enough to guarantee respect for human dignity and protection
of human rights, since the penalties are social rather than legal. It is therefore essential to have monitoring.
The mechanism for implementing the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human
Rights is a model of effectiveness. Two bodies work in parallel within UNESCO: the International
Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC). The IBC has
36 experts from various backgrounds working separately in their personal capacities in a range of fields.
The IGBC consists of 36 State representatives who examine the work of the IBC, make recommendations
and deliver opinions. Since it is States that are ultimately responsible for promoting bioethics, the IGBC's
role of intermediary between the IBC and individual States is essential. This partnership between
a government committee and a committee of independent experts has become a model for effective
enforcement of established standards, whether in the form of resolutions, recommendations or a binding
multilateral convention.
This paper has tried to identify a number of elements relevant to a universal instrument on bioethics,
whilst taking account of the progress of UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights following its adoption. These elements may be summed up under five headings:
1. A universal instrument on bioethics is feasible and indeed essential in the diverse world in which
we live. We are striving towards universal respect for the ultimate value of human life and dignity;
2. This universal instrument on bioethics must nevertheless be a framework instrument embodying
general guidelines in order that each national community may adapt them to its own system of ethical
- 50 -
 values and cultural traditions. It must be realized that bioethics results from a process of reflection
not only by scientists but also by the population as a whole;
3. The universal instrument will not be legally binding. Ethics, by its nature, constitutes a social rather
than a legal standard. Compliance is dependent on a social assessment of the act in question;
4. The universal instrument will constitute a benchmark and a basis for standard-setting of greater scope
and effectiveness in the future. It is desirable that an effective universal instrument unifying human
values to a large extent should soon be produced.
5. The universal instrument will embody an implementation mechanism, without which its provisions
would be fated to remain no more than an empty expression of good intentions.
Our tireless commitment and determination in the service of bioethics will remain a dead letter
if we do not have the necessary instruments for putting into practice the humanist principles we uphold.
We cannot act without tools. In the face of the new hopes and new dangers of the post-genomic era,
we must adapt our way of thinking and give it the necessary means to turn it into action. New technologies
call for new approaches. The task is ambitious, but thanks to all your efforts we shall together surely
succeed.

- 51 -
 Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:
The Rationale for
a Universal Text on Bioethics
Patrick Robinson
Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Introduction

Many different factors explain why States come together to adopt an international convention or treaty.
Much depends on the particular circumstances relating to each treaty. However, it is possible to identify
four broad factors.
First, the subject matter of the convention may be of such importance to the international community
as a whole that States perceive their interests to be affected by it. Moreover, the subject matter may take
on specific importance by reason of new developments – the importance and new developments factors.
Second, there may be a need, not just to have an international convention on the subject, but to have
one that is open to as many States as possible – the universal or global factor.
Third, there may be a need to give coherence and order to an area that is relatively unregulated,
and that is characterized at the international level by a multiplicity of instruments and at the national level
by varied pieces of legislation – the rationalization factor.
Fourth, there may be a need not only to have a universal instrument on an important subject that serves
to lend coherence to an otherwise unregulated or poorly regulated subject, but also to do so in a manner
that binds the parties to such an instrument – the legal or normative factor.
I propose to comment on these four factors in relation to a possible international convention
on bioethics(1).

Part I – The Rationale for an International Convention

The Importance and New Developments Factors

There is no gainsaying the importance of the subject of bioethics to the international community.
Every single State, big or small, developed or developing, capital exporting or capital importing,
has a vested interest in the ethical implications of advances in medicine and biology. That alone would
justify the elaboration of an international convention of bioethics. However, the need for such

1. I have not dealt with bioethics in the field of agriculture. The fact that I have not done so does not mean that I discount its importance.

- 52 -
a convention is made all the more urgent by recent developments, in particular the mapping of the human
genome sequence in the 2000, which has raised, among other issues, the question of the patentability
of the human genome. If the international community is to derive the full benefits from scientific advances
in this area, a binding legal instrument, setting out the rights and duties of States, researchers, investors
and individuals is necessary. A great injustice will be done if the controversy surrounding the patentability
of the human genome is not resolved quickly. The mood of anxiety and concern in the international
community is captured in this passage from the Report of the International Bioethics Commitee
of UNESCO (IBC) on Ethics, Intellectual Property and Genomics: “Without action, the current
municipal, regional and international intellectual property regimes will continue to apply. More patents
will be sought and granted in accordance with such laws. The spiral of patents in relation to human
genome sequences will expand. The costs of future therapies and genetic tests will become prohibitive
for most human beings and nations. Science will be restrained instead of encouraged. And a remarkable
opportunity for humanity to act in a way defensive of the entire human species will be lost.”

The Universal or Global Factor

In March 2001 UNESCO published a paper entitled: “Transposing into domestic law the principles
set out in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights: an international overview”.
The paper set out the legislation of some thirty States that had provisions that could be said to implement
the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (hereafter the Declaration).
My understanding is that the figure of thirty represents the number of States that answered requests
for information and would almost certainly represent the number of States with legislation on matters relating
to bioethics. Even if we were to add another ten or twenty States to take account of States with relevant
legislation, but which did not provide the information to UNESCO, we are still left with a very small
percentage, 16 to 20% of United Nations members that have legislation on this important subject.
But an even more startling statistic is that of the thirty States with legislation only five are developing States.
For whatever reason, the subject of bioethics appears to be somewhat arcane and esoteric for the vast
majority of States.
An international convention would, therefore, seek to attract to a single instrument a much wider range
of States than the small number that now have legislation on the subject. The wider the participation
in the convention the greater will be its impact and the more influential the norms and standards
it establishes. Participating States will be obliged to take the necessary administrative and legislative measures
to give effect to the convention.
The convention would spur interest in and provide information on a subject that has implications
for every State. The convention would itself serve an educational purpose. Developing States would
become parties to the convention, which would provide for technology transfer and technical assistance
to them, thus helping to bridge the gap in technology between developed and developing States.

- 53 -
 The Rationalization Factor
The field of bioethics is presently marked by a motley congregation of domestic laws and international
instruments. Apart from the varied nature of the legislation in some thirty States, there are international
instruments from the following bodies:
1. The World Medical Association “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human
Subjects” – called the Declaration of Helsinki (1964);
2. Directives of the European Union (1995 and 1998);
3. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997) (hereafter
“the Council of Europe Convention”) and its Additional Protocol on Human Cloning –
this is the only international convention on the subject, though it is of a regional character;
4. World Health Organization: Proposed International Guidelines on Ethical Issues in Medical
Genetics and Genetic Sciences (1997);
5. Various Resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights concerning Bioethics
(1997, 1999, 2000, 2001);
6. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights of UNESCO (1997) –
the only genuinely international instrument on the subject, though of a non-binding character;
7. The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000);
8. The Pan-American Health Organization: Evaluation of the Regional Program on Bioethics
(27 April 2000).
The Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly is now studying the question
of an international convention on human cloning.
This disorganized body of instruments and information cries out for rationalization, and the best way
to do that is by way of an international convention on bioethics that would be open to all States and that
would, in a single instrument, seek to give coherence to the multitude of norms and standards reflected
in the various existing instruments.

The Legal or Normative Factor

There is now only one binding legal international instrument on bioethics, that is, the Council of Europe
Convention, and only one genuinely international instrument, the Declaration, which is non-binding.
The need for a binding, legal instrument is urgent. The rapid pace in technological developments,
highlighted by the first sequencing of the human genome in 2000 and the controversy regarding patenting
of the human genome make it imperative that a binding legal regime acceptable to the vast majority of States
be established as quickly as possible, if the benefits of advances in science are to be preserved,
not for a privileged few, but for the international community as a whole. A treaty regime, setting up legal
rights and obligations, offers greater protection to the interests of the international community, particularly
those of the disadvantaged, than one which reflects general principles in a non-binding instrument,
such as a Declaration.

- 54 -
 However, declarations quite often have provisions that reflect rules of customary international law,
that would in any event bind States. The Declaration is an example. The fact that the Declaration has such
provisions may serve to facilitate their transition to a treaty regime – a transition that, in my view, is rendered
the more urgent by recent developments in the field of biomedicine.
Eighteen years elapsed between the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and
the two United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
respectively, which put into treaty form the principles in the Universal Declaration. Only four years have
passed since the adoption of the Declaration. But the two matters can not be compared. The rapid
development in science and technology makes it unwise to wait for another fourteen years before adopting
an international convention that gives legal effect to the Declaration.
I appreciate the point of view that it may be better at this stage not to go beyond the Declaration,
and to leave it to each State to implement the Declaration in accordance with its own culture. However,
that approach may lead to the division of human rights and produce a regime in which the content of the
rights vary according to locality, country and region. This would run counter to the principle of the
universality, indivisibility and inter relatedness of human rights, set out in the Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action.(2)

PART II - Strategies for the Elaboration and Implementation

of an International Convention on Bioethics
In this section I consider three matters:
a) The scope of an international convention;
b) The main norms to be reflected in such a convention;
c) The mechanisms for implementing and enforcing such a convention.

The Scope of an International Convention on Bioethics

What will an international bioethics convention seek to achieve? What will be its scope?
There are two options.
The convention could be of limited scope, confined to “fleshing out” or giving teeth to the basic
principles in bioethics. The Declaration is itself limited in scope, applying, as it does, only to the human
genome. The Council of Europe Convention, with its wider application to biomedicine, would also be
a useful point of reference.

2. Article 1(5) of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action provides: “all human rights are universal, indivisible and
interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and
with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious
backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems,
to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

- 55 -
 Alternatively, the scope could be wider, covering not only the kind of principles in the Declaration
and the Council of Europe Convention, but also some practical issues such as human cloning,
the collection, treatment, storage and use of genetic data and embryonic stem cell research.
I favour the narrower scope. We should not be over-ambitious. Zeal must be tempered by realism.
A convention of narrower scope will be concluded more quickly and is more likely to attract a larger
number of States. However, even if the convention has the narrower scope, an institutional machinery
could be established for the elaboration of other treaties or additional protocols. It might be difficult
to include in a convention on bioethics all the relevant topics; moreover, the attempt to secure agreement
on so many topics might militate against agreement on the Convention as a whole.
An important matter would be the relationship between the Convention on Bioethics and other
relevant Conventions on related subject matters, such as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations
Convention on Biodiversity. Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties deals with
the application of treaties relating to the same subject matter. The compatibility of the new onvention with
the two treaties mentioned would have to be determined. Intellectual property rights would be,
I anticipate, one of the key elements either in a convention on bioethics, or else, in an additional protocol
to such a convention. Even in a convention with limited scope, intellectual property questions would have
to be confronted because of the principle in Article 4 of the Declaration that the human genome
in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gain.

The Main Norms to be Reflected in an International Convention on Bioethics

I have already expressed a preference for a convention of narrow scope, because it is more achievable
and would better promote the principle of the universality of the convention. As I have indicated,
such a convention would give body to the main bioethical principles in the Declaration, the Council
of Europe Convention and other relevant instruments.
Some of the principles in the instruments mentioned already reflect customary international law;
that should facilitate their incorporation in the new convention, although one would expect debate about
precise formulations.
I mention two of the principles that have customary status. The overarching principle in bioethics
is respect for human dignity, reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration.
It is also reflected in Article 1 of the Council of Europe Convention, which obliges the Parties to protect
the dignity and identity of the individual. It underlies the prohibition of financial gain from the human
genome in its natural state (Article 4 of the Declaration) and is the basis of the requirements
in that Declaration relating to research. It is also the basis of the principle in Article 10 of the Declaration
as well as Article 2 of the Council of Europe Convention of primacy of the human being over the sole
interests of science and research. Although the principle of respect for human dignity reflects customary
international law, it does not necessarily follow that provisions implementing it in an International
Convention on bioethics would have the same status. Thus, while the prohibition of practices contrary

- 56 -
to human dignity (Articles 11 and 24 of the Declaration) derives from the fundamental and customary norm
of respect for human dignity, it would be a matter of debate whether particular practices offend that principle.
The second principle is the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of one’s genetic characteristics.
In human rights instruments and most modern national constitutions the prohibition against discrimination
is generally expressed in two ways. First, there is the guarantee of the enjoyment of all the fundamental rights
without discrimination on any ground, including sex, race and colour (see Article 14 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Article 2 of the ICCPR;
Section 13 of the Jamaican Constitution). The second way in which discrimination is usually mentioned
relates to the principle of equality before the law – the prohibition of discrimination on any ground such
as race and colour – see Article 26 of the ICCPR and Section 24 of the Jamaican Constitution, which,
however, has an exhaustive list of grounds for discrimination.
Protection against discrimination on grounds such as those in the human rights instruments
is a fundamental human right of customary status. In these instruments the grounds for discrimination are not
exhaustive and must surely include discrimination on the basis of one’s genetic characteristics for the reason
that such discrimination is of the same kind (ejusdem generis) as the others listed. It is vital that the convention
should entrench this right, and that States Parties be obliged to treat it in their national systems as a fundamental
human right of the same importance and with the same legal incidents as any other fundamental human right
such as the right to life or of association. Thus, States Parties whose Constitutions provide a special regime for
the protection of fundamental human rights, including provisions for access to the courts for their enforcement,
for rendering more difficult their amendment and for damages for infringement of those rights, must take the
necessary measures to ensure that the same regime is applicable to the right of the individual to protection
against discrimination on the basis of his genetic characteristics - a right that will be exceedingly important in
such areas as employment and insurance. One important consequence of treating it as a fundamental human
right is that derogations from it, if they are to be valid, would have to be set out in a law, and, moreover,
would have to be strictly limited to those that are necessary in the public interest.

The Mechanisms for Implementing and Enforcing an International Convention on Bioethics

The most obvious way in which the convention would be implemented and enforced is by the States
Parties themselves. They will have the customary duty to fulfill their obligations under the convention –
pacta sunt servanda. However, the convention will have a provision obliging them to take the necessary
administrative and legislative measures to give effect to its provisions. Thus, depending on their respective
constitutional systems, they may have to enact legislation to give the convention the force of law
in their countries, so that aggrieved persons may bring actions for alleged breaches. In any event, a State
Party must ensure that the convention is legally enforceable in its courts.
A mechanism will have to be established to deal with disputes between States Parties concerning
the interpretation or application of the convention. The current trend is to set up special courts
for specialized areas of international law, e.g., the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the two
International Criminal Tribunals in respect of the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the prospective
International Criminal Court and the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body. I suspect that

- 57 -
it may be difficult to get agreement on the establishment of another special international tribunal,
notwithstanding the specialized character of bioethics as a subject. The matter is complicated by
the relationship between the Convention and the WTO TRIPS Agreement, in respect of which there
is a discrete dispute settlement system.
In the absence of a special international tribunal being established, disputes could be settled
on a compulsory basis with any State Party having the right to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation
or application of the convention to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration; in respect
of the latter there are several existing facilities. However, I would not rule out the establishment of a special
tribunal, because such a body offers the advantages of specialized knowledge on the part of the judges
as well as expeditiousness in the proceedings, and could be a forum for the settlement of disputes not only
between States, but also, subject to certain conditions, between individuals and States.
The convention would also set up certain institutions to facilitate its implementation. I would
contemplate a conference of States Parties that would take place annually for the purpose of discussing
matters relating to the implementation of the convention. But experience suggests that such a body may,
by reason of its size, be unwieldly, and unsuitable for executive action. It may, therefore, be necessary
to set up a smaller body with executive powers. But in any event, whether in the form of a Plenary of States
Parties or a smaller body, a mechanism should be established for the elaboration of additional protocols
to the convention on relevant subject areas such as human cloning, use of genetic data and embryonic
stem cell research.
Finally, I would comment on three other issues that touch upon the implementation and enforcement
of an international convention on bioethics.
To give the convention credibility a reasonable number of ratifications should be required for its entry
into force. Sixty was the number required for the entry into force of the Law of the Sea Convention and
is the number required for the entry into force of the Statute of an International Criminal Court; it represents
about a third of the membership of the United Nations. That is the number I would recommend.
There is a strong case for not allowing reservations to an International Convention on Bioethics,
because of its organic links with human rights treaties, or, like the TRIPS Agreement, permitting reservations
only with the consent of the States Parties to the convention.
An important way of assessing how a convention is working is a review mechanism. The Convention
could provide for a review five years after its entry into force.

Conclusions

The proposal of the Director-General of UNESCO for the elaboration of a universal instrument
on bioethics deserves support. We should accept the challenge of elaborating an international convention
on bioethics. The interests of the international community as a whole, including, in particular,
the disadvantaged, those particularly vulnerable to disease of a genetic character, deserve no less.
UNESCO should assume a leadership role in the preparation and negotiation of such a convention.
It would work in conjunction with other United Nations bodies such as World Health Organization,

- 58 -
the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, the World Trade
Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization as well as stakeholders and civil society.
The Minister of Iran offer to host the first international conference on the human genome should be
seriously considered. But its purpose should perhaps be widened to cover the subjects relevant
to the drafting of an international convention on bioethics, perhaps in the form of a preparatory meeting.

- 59 -
 FOURTH SESSION

“Consciousness-raising, Information,
Education and Public Debate”

• Introduction by Mr Guy de Teramond (Costa Rica)

• Mr Gilbert Normand (Canada)

“Information and Awareness-raising: The Canadian Example”

• Mr Gábor Szabo (Hungary)

“Bioethics and Public Debate”

 Introduction by Mr Guy de Teramond
Minister for Science and Technology, Costa Rica

The aim of the Round Table today on information, education and public debate is to stress the need
to ensure the participation of all citizens – an enormous responsibility. However, as mentioned
by several speakers yesterday, UNESCO, where all cultures are represented, or almost all,
has a privileged role to play. The respect for all cultures and human dignity, the need for dialogue
between these different cultures, the fundamental unity of the human race, the total respect for human
life – major concepts raised throughout this Round Table. In the words of His Excellency
the Ambassador of Japan human life does not have a price. We also heard “he who saves a life saves
humanity”. And of course the discussion around the human genome, the common heritage of humanity.
But what do we really know about the genome? What are we to teach? Do we know its fundamental
nature? What do we really know?
The discussion today will address the subject of consciousness-raising, information, education and
public debate ensuring the participation of all citizens, a difficult undertaking due to the vast amount
of knowledge and the complexity of the issues.

Code and Information, Computers and the Genetic Code:

In the past few decades we have seen scientific and technological changes never seen before
in the history of mankind. Fundamental discoveries from the origin and expansion of the universe following
the Big Bang, the continental drift and plate tectonics, the basis of the chemistry of life and the map of our
genome, as well as the large-scale deployment of instruments of modern technology in particular
information technologies, the Internet, powerful instrument for the change, development and betterment
of the society. I cannot resist avoiding comparison of both disciplines – genetics and computers – to better
understand our present knowledge and limitations of what we really know about the genome and what
we are supposed to teach, since both are based on code and information.
We learned from the description of the molecular structure of the DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953
that the information in the genome is in fact encoded digitally, i.e. in numbers or in letters if you want
as given by the order of the nucleotide bases A, G, T and C. It is surprising that nature chose a four digit
basis to store information, while we humans chose a system of two digits 0 and 1, a binary code, to encode
information in our computers. But what we have learned very recently from the map of the genome
sequence variation is that 99.9% of the genetic code between any two individuals is the same. Only 0.1%
is responsible for the magnificent genetic diversity we observe between individuals. So many wars,
so much destruction and incomprehension for just 0.1% of difference!

- 63 -
 There are about three million changes or permutations along the DNA sequence between any two
individuals that scientists call single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), representing a single change in one
of those letters or numbers, or single base substitution, among 3,000 million nucleotides that comprise
the normal human genome or karyotype. What is most amazing is that we have also been able to chart
the evolution and the journey of the human race across the planet by studying those permutations.
If we know how many permutations there are in a given generation, then we can compute the number
of generations of the human race which come about to be 5,000 generations. And if you multiply that
number roughly for 20 years, a generation span, that gives us about 100 thousand years for the human race
– a relatively young species, extremely intelligent and indeed quite aggressive.
This subject is part of our teaching as well. We have traced the migration of the human race a hundred
thousand years ago into its journey from Africa to Europe, and in a path towards the North and the East:
to Asia, Siberia, and then to Australia and to America across the Bering Strait.
In our present days we can find computers everywhere. But imagine there is a place in the world which
is not contaminated by computers and by chance a computer just happens to appear in this peaceful place.
People stare in wonder at this instrument never seen before and after years of research they finally make
this amazing finding: information is encoded digitally in 0s and 1s. Indeed a great discovery! Sometime later
they find a digital sequence in the computer code that interprets the keyboard commands, another great
discovery.
As in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, our scientists in this remote place believe they understand
the language of this computer, but in fact they are unaware that indeed this is just a representation, a digital
representation, of a computer program written by a computer scientist, a human, and compiled – translated
to digital code to be understandable to the computer. This tale illustrates the fact that in many ways
we are at the same stage of understanding in our studies of the genetic code. We know how genetic
information is encoded – in four digits. We understand many sequences from a given place to another
along the DNA fibers and how instructions are interpreted and transmitted, but we do not know
the program, no idea, no clue, we only know the digital representation. Certainly, many will argue that
there is no such thing as program or purpose, but as our knowledge has increased as never before
in the past decades, we also have acquired a measure of what we don’t know. This is the deep sense
of wonder and mystery that pervades Einstein’s view of the world, or of Isaac Newton that towards
the end of his life said: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been
only like a boy playing on the sea shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble
or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”.
We belong to a species that has traced its past 15 billion years ago, that has found the origin
of its diversity in the universality of its genome. We have a common origin and a common future
for mankind or no future at all.

- 64 -
 Information and Awareness-raising:
The Canadian Example
Gilbert Normand
Secretary of State, Science, Research and Development, Canada

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this opportunity to speak, in such distinguished company,
on the subjects that concern us and bring us together today. I shall not dwell on the importance of our
discussions. I know that I am preaching to the converted and am addressing an informed audience,
very conscious of the implications of our initiatives for the future of the human race.
Scarcely a few decades ago, only a privileged few could clearly foresee the scale and development
of what we are in the habit of calling – despite remarkable advances – the “new technologies”. Whether
we like it or not, these new technologies are invading the daily existence of a large part of the planet and
are every day opening up new prospects whose scope is sometimes very difficult to gauge.
This is particularly true of science in general and, above all, the specific field that concerns us here:
biotechnology, its applications and, in particular, its implications. For it is a clear fact that, of all
technologies, biotechnology is the one that, taken as a whole, is growing fastest throughout the world.
It follows that this rapid growth arouses enormous interest among some but also gives rise to many
doubts, not to say anxiety, among others. This was the case, for example, when in February 1997 the world
learned with amazement of the birth of a cloned ewe in Scotland. Such an event confirmed, so to speak,
the incredible power of biotechnology, a tremendously promising power, to be sure, in many respects
but also worrying with regard to its applications and ramifications. It thereby refocused the spotlight
on the vexing question of socio-ethical issues that, although already amply explored, had perhaps not yet
received the attention and priority that they deserved.
It is particularly gratifying that such an influential international organization as UNESCO is today putting
bioethics in the very forefront of its priorities.
As we all know, the immeasurable ramifications of biotechnology encompass a multitude of aspects,
ranging from the national economy to simple everyday life, and the public is becoming worried on this score.
The public is concerned and mistrustful of this science with which it is still very unfamiliar. And it is precisely
because it is unfamiliar with this science that it mistrusts it. A very recent survey in Canada in fact shows that
only 57% of those questioned had heard of biotechnology. Only 43% were in some degree familiar with it.
The public must therefore know more before being able to make an informed judgment, and it is our
responsibility as members of the government, to provide this knowledge. We must raise the public's awareness
of this new science and familiarize it with the tremendous possibilities for the present but above all for the future,
since we are all thinking of the legacy that we shall bequeath the human race. We must inform the public,
educate it and, at the same time, open up the debate to this same public so as to involve it in a decision-making
process that will have a far-reaching impact on human dignity and fundamental human rights.

- 65 -
 Over the past two decades the field of bioethics has expanded in step with biotechnology to take
in plant and animal transgenesis, organ donation, human reproduction and many other spheres.
But however multifarious and diverse the challenges of bioethics, they affect and encompass the whole
of humanity and consequently know no boundaries, whether territorial, racial or social.
They are undeniably universal in character. And for some time now, people have been weighing up,
in different settings, the timeliness and likewise the need for an international instrument on bioethical
standards. In this connection, we may here recall the French President's recent proposal to the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights, which was moreover favourably received by this body.
Canada, for its part, has long been active in the vast and complex field of bioethics. As early as 1968
it established the Canadian Council on Animal Care, whose task was to manage research work and whose
achievements have been appreciated throughout the world.
Subsequently, the Federal Government set up the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies, which also received a very positive welcome from the international community. Thus, for the
first time, the Canadian general public became aware of the extent of a debate that has continued to grow.
Let us not forget that ten years ago we still knew nothing about the stem cells that are now headline news.
Encouraged by the results of its work and conscious of impending uncertainties, the Canadian
Government decided in 1998 to entrust a special mission to a new working group consisting
of representatives from the three main research councils - for medicine, natural sciences and social sciences
respectively. It had the task of promoting ethical research and establishing selection criteria for
the researchers and organizations to be supported by the three councils. The tripartite working group
has drawn up a policy statement on research involving human beings. This statement, which is also highly
regarded across the globe, is the result of extensive consultations and addresses issues such as the ethical
framework, research involving aboriginal peoples and research in human genetics.
We trust that the results of our work serve the interests of the international community. In Canada
they have encouraged contacts between the various researchers and scientists and also provided ministers
with advice on social and ethical issues in the fields of health and biotechnology. Finally, and most
importantly, they will doubtless feed into the various laws that regulate Canadian society in this vast field.
Far-reaching consultations carried out with the Canadian public are currently contributing to the debate
on a draft bill on human-assisted reproduction, which includes prohibitions on human cloning, genetic
modification of germ cells and trade in human embryos. Canada opposes these practices out of respect
for human dignity. Our position is akin to those of France and Germany, tending towards the introduction
of an international convention against reproductive human cloning, as a logical extension of UNESCO’s
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997). And of course we also believe
that only a universal convention of this kind can guarantee its effectiveness.
But however important all these considerations are, vis-à-vis the many challenges of bioethics,
they concern only one aspect of the responsibilities that we have to shoulder as specialists, decision-makers
and legislators. The other aspect is the sharing our knowledge with the public that we are serving.

- 66 -
 This may be done in various ways, of course, whether through the universities or through partnerships;
but, whatever way is chosen, it requires the use of appropriate tools. Currently, Canada already
has a number of organizations engaged in promotion and awareness-raising in the sciences, but each
remains representative of its own activities. We still lack a national, impartial and not-for-profit organization
that can survey scientific development in general and promote it both at home and abroad. This is a gap
that we are about to fill with a new body that we are calling “The Canadian Academies”. For, of course,
sharing our knowledge with the public means first and foremost acquainting them with our discoveries,
the new horizons of science and its applications to everyday human life.
And at the same time we must keep the public informed. Firstly, because the right to information
is universal but also because we – the “discoverers” and the legislators – are in the best position to do
this and above all to do it “to good effect”. It sometimes happens that bad experiences give rise
to prejudice. And it also happens that organizations with doubtful aims spread information that is either
incomplete or distorted, thus creating suspicion. Our great challenge in the fields of information and
awareness-raising is therefore, first and foremost, to inspire confidence. But to deserve this confidence
we must always “tell it as it is”. This is what is known as “transparency”, which is crucial to public perception
and therefore engenders confidence. And in such complex and sensitive fields as biotechnology and
bioethics the public must be able to distinguish between those who derive profit – economic or otherwise –
from information and those who provide information purely and simply for the well-being of humanity. That
is why we must act with very great caution and clear-sightedness.
Recent history has taught us that new technologies are of benefit above all to the rich countries,
widening the North/South divide rather than bridging it. We would doubtless be well-advised to see that
history does not repeat itself with regard to the benefits of science.
The establishment of such a bond of confidence with the public rests partly on transparency, as I have
already mentioned, and partly on consultation. The consultation process must open up the debate to all
members of society, and to all peoples, including above all vulnerable and disadvantaged minorities.
I know that many initiatives exist across the world and Canada, for its part, is taking action:
at the international level, in concert with UNESCO for instance, with regard to aboriginal peoples and
nationally, with citizens’ conferences, whose inauguration in Calgary in 1999 deserves a special mention.
By imparting our knowledge – suitably popularized – to the public, we will give our work
the credibility it needs to achieve the universal objective that we must all defend in the spirit
of the UNESCO Declaration: the sound management of humanity's heritage, the human genome,
in keeping with respect for the rights of the individual.

- 67 -
 Bioethics and Public Debate
Gábor Szabo
State Secretary of the Ministry of Education, responsible for scientific affairs, Hungary

Mr Chairperson,
Director-General,
Honourable Ministers,
It is a great honour for me to have an opportunity to present my views to this very distinguished
audience, for which I would like to express my gratitude towards the organizers.
I am not an expert on bioethics and although I do have some first hand experience in clinical trials
of laser-based methods, I do not claim to be one. I would like to present instead the point of view
of the shall-we-say “educated outsider”. Such a view has a place in this public debate; of that I am certain.
Furthermore, as a physicist, I would like to make a plea that the mistakes made in the past by scientists
in ignoring the public debate on nuclear technology not be repeated for I feel that there are clear signs
indicating that biomedical research is perhaps beginning to go in the same wrong direction. Allow me
to present the issue in a somewhat broader context.
The traditional approach of the “ignorant scientist” – show me the money and I’ll show you my
results – is extremely dangerous. The danger lies in risks not being shared and could easily lead to
a disproportionate loss of confidence in science as such. Another possible approach, which actually goes
back to public debate, is that the benefits and risks should be seriously presented to the public,
responsibility shared, a common judgment made, and consensus reached via public debate. Indeed
it is a longer and much more difficult process but I believe there is no other solution. I also want to stress
the need for sincerity and honesty - perhaps the only long-term strategy I know. Other solutions may work
in the short term but for the long term I can imagine no workable approach that neglects honesty.
We must ensure, of course, that all available legal instruments are put in place but instruments alone
are not enough. The real solution lies in legal instruments and full public support. Let me give just a simple
example. Legal instruments forbidding child labour have been in place for quite a long time but real
changes were brought about only with the pressure of the public to support and strengthen these legal
instruments.
It is somewhat of a paradox that public opinion, and therefore public debate, is inherently national
but the issues of bioethics with which we are dealing are inherently international. Thus, there is an absolute
need for some kind of an international guidance and this is exactly where UNESCO has its unique
mission. I was very pleased to learn that the elaboration of a universal instrument on bioethics is being
considered. This is, in my opinion, extremely important as it will be a fundamental instrument to guide
public debate at national level.

- 68 -
 What then should be considered in the public debate? First of all, fundamental concepts –
even definitions – are subjective, dependent on cultural and social factors. I would like to recall for instance
the remarks made by the Honourable Minister from India who asked how, in a country where there
is a huge illiterate population, informed consent can be interpreted. Another consideration is the driving
force of rapid economic exploitation of results in industrial use, which can actually go faster than the
complete understanding of their long-term consequences. Clear examples of this exist in biotechnology.
Another very important issue is the principle of precaution versus the freedom of science.
Appropriate freedom must be given to the scientist in his/her quest but at the same time due precaution
must accompany this freedom. The application of a precautionary principle at a later phase is dangerous
and may even be counterproductive. Restrictions on a certain type of research – that may have been
sensible if applied before the given scientific field produced harmful results – may hinder efforts to find
the cure. A good example is biological weapons used for mass destruction. What should be done?
Should all kinds of research in this direction be stopped or should answers be sought with the aid
of technology and engineering? The risks are there, the danger is there - it is too late for precaution.
The principle of precaution versus freedom of science therefore is an issue of paramount importance.
The next question, which is just as important, is that the human body is being considered
as a commodity; even on a large scale the eco-system itself is considered as a commodity. What is wrong
with that? To give a very simple example, my life-style and work schedule could be considered risky
in a biological sense: to achieve social and economic status I use my body as a commodity and I would
be most unhappy if somebody were to forbid me to do that. But what about poor people who have no
other choice in their desperate situation than to become organ donors? There is a very difficult border line
where human integrity must be ensured and inhuman consequences avoided. On a larger scale
the ecosystem is similar in that there is a danger of some developing countries becoming the ‘genetic waste-
baskets’ of industry. This is something that, under no circumstances, should be allowed to happen.
Participation of the media in the public debate is vital - their help is required but so too is responsibility
on their part. As an illustration, imagine a consensus in the international media not to bring headlines
on whoever makes the first human clone. Irresponsible researchers whose main – perhaps only –
drive is to claim fame by being the first to make a human clone would certainly be discouraged.
Participation of the scientific community in the public debate, on the other hand, is also essential.
The problem is that when we are speaking about advanced scientific matters, very complicated issues must
be presented to the public in an understandable way. It is only the scientist himself/herself who can do this.
This is, of course, problematic because I know much too well that in a scientific career it is a rather thankless
task – at least in the short term – writing papers in a simplified language for the public instead
of technical papers and grant applications for one’s professional advancement. But scientists must
understand the importance of this issue and that the public needs their input in this debate.
Finally, as a university professor, I am fully aware of the role of education at all possible levels, starting right
from elementary school: awareness-raising must begin in early childhood. For example, in a number of countries,
a real change can be seen in the attitude of children towards natural resources. This has been achieved simply
because education and awareness-raising of issues related to environmental protection began at a very early age.

- 69 -
 Today, many of the problems brought about by scientific development twenty years ago can be
solved. It would be very unfair from us if we left such a legacy to our children: we take the credit for
the brilliant ideas you clean up the mess. We must consider the issues right now which could be of extreme
importance for the generations to come. We must be patient, we must not be discouraged to make and
provoke public debate because, although it is a long and arduous task, it is the only solution I can imagine.
In conclusion allow me to share with you a little anecdote that may help to illuminate my main message.
A turtle is swimming in the mud and of course it is extremely difficult for him. He struggles to advance and
all the time just keeps saying to himself, “Thank goodness I’m slow”. An eagle hovering overhead,
gets curious flies down and asks the turtle “Why do you keep saying“ “Thank goodness I’m slow?”
The turtle replies, “Because I know I’m going in the wrong direction!”.
So let us hope that we are not going entirely in the wrong direction and instead of slowing down
progress, through public debate much better solutions might be achieved.

- 70 -
CLOSING SESSION

Mr Ahmed Jalali,
President of the General Conference of UNESCO

Mr Koïchiro Matsuura,
Director-General of UNESCO
 Speech of Mr Ahmed Jalali
President of the General Conference of UNESCO

Director-General,
Distinguished Ministers,
Distinguished Ambassadors,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honoured to be able to take the floor very briefly in this outstanding gathering.
Mr Director-General, I would first of all like to thank you for this initiative. I do not recall such
a profound intervention in a specialized discipline by a gathering of Ministers. It is an excellent start to
the creation of modalities of dialogue between different branches of human knowledge – especially
between science and other branches of knowledge.
One branch of this possible dialogue that we should initiate is a dialogue between science and culture –
not as a matter of luxury, not as a moral recommendation, but as a necessity. These days, it seems that
interdisciplinarity between the different fields of science has now been expanded to between science and
all other disciplines, including the field of culture.
Through dialogue we can teach our societies that, like culture, science is the result of a common
heritage of human beings and is a historical entity and we can discover by enhancing dialogue between
culture and science. We can introduce good modalities for dialogue among civilizations because science
by itself is carrying an ethical message for us - the fact that during its history science was not claiming
to manifest the truth, science was claiming that it was striving for a further degree of confirmation.
And by this, science can teach us tolerance which is needed in other disciplines, in other fields of human
knowledge.
If one looks at the history of science, it is not made up of established theories as being the truth.
The history of science is constituted of theories that they try to provide the possibility of falsification and
refutability for themselves. This is a criteria for a scientific theory, to be scientific, to be potentially refutable
and this is something that we can learn from science for other disciplines of our knowledge. This is a moral
message, it is an ethical message. Here we are, we have organized in fact a dialogue between
the disciplines of ethics and morality and science but, as I mentioned, science has an ethical message
for us.
Having all of these factors, through this dialogue we can offer better background knowledge so
needed in the world’s situation today for a dialogue among civilizations. Because looking at phenomena
of this world, depending on our background knowledge we choose points, we choose special elements
and upon that selection we build our conclusions. Our background knowledge which is mainly prepared

- 73 -
these days in scientific theories and technology, that background knowledge can help us to have a variety
of selections. That background knowledge will prepare for us ad hoc theories for our conclusion vis à vis
different matters. You may recall the discussions in Oxford one hundred and fifty years ago between
Charles Darwin and the grandfather of the first Director-General of UNESCO, Thomas Huxley, a biologist
and many of you are no doubt aware of how a scientific theory was received by the clergy. Depending
on the context that we prepare, the kind of reaction will be different and we do need through this dialogue
which should take place between scientists, members of the clergy, philosophers, thinkers and artists,
through the creation of such a platform definitely we can encourage ourselves to think of practical, concrete
and a better conceptualisation of what we call dialogue among civilizations, especially in the field of beliefs
and religions we do need to teach our masses that science can provide us with a better contextual
constraint of our beliefs. Science can provide us with a better context, to understand the manifestation –
the social manifestation – of our beliefs, and science will also understand that without paying attention
to that context it may not be able to deliver its message for the security and peace of humankind
as it is stated in our Constitution by creating intellectual and moral solidarity among humankind.

- 74 -
 Closing Speech of Mr Koïchiro Matsuura
Director-General of UNESCO

Mr President of the General Conference,

Honourable Ministers,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have thus reached the end of this first Round Table of Ministers of Science on bioethics.
I must say I am delighted that so many of you responded to my invitation, with 55 ministers of science
and 47 observer States participating in the round table. The number and standing of the eminent persons
gathered here bolsters my twofold conviction that bioethics issues are an essential part of the debate about
today’s world, and that in this respect UNESCO occupies a unique place in the community of nations
and of people.
First of all, my heartfelt congratulations go to the speakers who were so good as to introduce the various
sessions that have punctuated the proceedings. Their excellent presentations did much to maintain
the outstanding tone of the ensuing debates.
I think that the ethical questions raised by progress in biotechnology and the life sciences have now
been framed collectively, and require answers that are thought out and developed collectively. The need
referred to by many speakers for an intercultural dialogue in formulating those answers reminds us quite
rightly there are no owners of what is human, other than humanity as a whole. Many of you also laid
emphasis on development of the skills and research capabilities of the countries of the South, and the need
for education for all in bioethics so that everyone can understand its implications in an enlightened way.
These are requirements that also fall within the ambit of ethics.
The broad support you have shown for the work UNESCO has been carrying out for several years
now on these questions, through the International Bioethics Committee and the Intergovernmental
Bioethics Committee, naturally affords me great satisfaction. I am convinced that by virtue of its
interdisciplinary nature UNESCO has acquired a know-how and expertise that make of it the ideal place
for such a debate. The intercultural dialogue you have called for, bioethics education and also education
in humanist values are central to UNESCO’s tasks.
The final Communiqué of the Ministers of Science that you have just adopted unanimously
will structure and guide UNESCO’s bioethics programme in 2002-2003 and in the years ahead.
It is a hard-hitting message showing that in these troubled times, when some people seem to have lost their
bearings, the international community agrees on the avenues that must remain sealed off to humanity:
the use of biological and genetic research for non-peaceful purposes; the cloning of human beings
for reproductive purposes, and the patentability of the human genome. It also agrees on what should be
- 75 -
opened up: the development of an international instrument on genetic data and the possible drafting of
a universal instrument on bioethics. Lastly, it agrees on the need for international solidarity giving everyone
access to education, research and the dissemination of information in that respect.
A few weeks ago, I took part in another ministerial meeting, in Geneva, namely the International
Conference on Education on the theme “learning to live together”. Learning to live together is not just
a necessary aspect of any educational process; it is an essential condition of our very existence. These two
days have also placed life, together, at the centre of our concerns. Is this not what should, day by day,
be guiding all of our actions?
I would not want to conclude without addressing my warmest thanks and congratulations to the five
chairpersons, the five moderators, who have presided over our debates and in particular the minister who
chaired the meeting at which the Communiqué was adopted. I should also like to congratulate
the Secretariat team that enabled this meeting to go so smoothly and in particular Mr Kutukdjian,
who spared no effort in this respect.
I cannot resist, finally, taking my turn to use metaphor as many of you have done before me.
I will borrow from the Japanese tradition that reminds us that “however high the falcon flies, it still seeks
its food on earth”.
 ANNEXES

Programme

List of participants
 Programme of the Round Table of Minister of Science
“Bioethics: International Implications”
Monday 22 October 2001

Morning
10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Opening Ceremony
Addresses by
• Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO
• Ms Noëlle Lenoir (France), Representative of the Host Country,
Chairperson of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies to the European Commission

10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. SESSION 1 “Basic Concepts and Principles of Bioethics”
Moderated by
• Mr Pius Y. Ng’Wandu (United Republic of Tanzania), Minister
of Science, Technology and Higher Education
Presentations by
• Mr Leonardo De Castro (Philippines), Professor of Philosophy,
University of the Philippines, Director of the Bioethics Society
of the Philippines
• Mr Norman Neureiter (United States of America), Science and
Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State

11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Discussion

12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. SESSION 2 “What are the Major Challenges in Bioethics?”
Moderated by
• Mr Murli Manohar Joshi (India), Minister of Human Resource
Development
Presentations by
• Mr Alexander McCall Smith (United Kingdom), Professor
of Medical Law, University of Edinburgh, Vice-Chairperson
of the Human Genetics Commission
• Mr Takashi Aoyama (Japan), Senior Vice Minister of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

- 79 -
Afternoon
3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Discussion

4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. SESSION 3 “Institutional and Regulatory Norms and Systems:
The Rationale for a Universal Text on Bioethics”
Moderated by
• Mr Marwan Hamadé (Lebanon), Minister for Displaced Persons,
Chairperson of the Lebanese Consultative Ethics Committee
for Health and Life Sciences
Presentations by
• Mr Ryuichi Ida (Japan), Professor of International Law, Kyoto
University, Chairperson of the International Bioethics Committee of
UNESCO (IBC)
• Mr Patrick Robinson (Jamaica), Judge at the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

4:45 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Discussion

Tuesday 23 October 2001

Morning
10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. SESSION 4 “Consciousness-raising, Information, Education and
Public Debate”
Moderated by
• Mr Guy de Teramond (Costa Rica), Minister for Science and Technology
Presentations by
• Mr Gilbert Normand (Canada), Secretary of State, Science, Research
and Development
• Mr Gábor Szabo (Hungary), State Secretary of the Ministry
of Education responsible for scientific affairs

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon Discussion

Afternoon
3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Discussion on the Draft Communiqué of the Round Table
Moderated by
• Mr Björn Bjarnason (Iceland), Minister of Education, Science and Culture
4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Break
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Adoption of Communiqué and Closing

- 80 -
 List of Participants
Main Participants of Member States

Albania Brazil
Mr Gramoz PASHKO Mr Ronaldo MOTA SARDENBERG
Vice Minister of Education and Science Minister of Science and Technology

Angola Bulgaria
Mr Pedro TETA Mr Igor DAMJANOV
Vice-Minister of Science and Technology Deputy Minister of Education and Science

Argentina Burkina Faso

Ms Adriana PUIGGROS Mr Laya SAWADOGO
Secretary of State for Science, Technology Minister of Secondary and Higher Education
and Productive Innovation and Scientific Research

Azerbaidjan Burundi
Mr Mahmud KERIMOV Mr Prosper MPAWENAYO
President of the Academy of Science Minister of National Education

Belarus Canada
Mr LESNIKOVITCH Mr Gilbert NORMAND
Chairperson of the State Committee Secretary of State Science, Research
for Science and Technology and Development
Member of the Council of Ministers
China (The People’s Republic of)
Belgium Mr Jinpei CHENG
Mr Yvan YLIEFF Deputy Minister of Science and Technology
Government Commissioner for Political Science
Comoros
Benin Mr Said ABDALLAH CHEIKH SOILIHI
Ms Dorothée SOSSA Minister of National Education
Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research
and Scientific Research
Congo
Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr Pierre NZILA
Mr Emir TURKUSIC Minister of Primary, Secondary
Deputy Minister of Science, Education and Higher Education and Scientific Research
and Culture

- 81 -
Costa Rica India
Mr Guy de TERAMOND Mr Murli MANOHOR JOSHI
Minister of Science and Technology Minister of Human Resource Development

Croatia Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Mr Davor BUTKOVIC Mr Mostafa MOÏN
Vice-Minister of Science and Technology Minister of Science, Research and Technology

Cuba Iraq
Mr Daniel CODORNIU PUJALS Mr Humam Abdel-Khalek ABDEL-GHAFOUR
First Vice-Minister of Science, Technology Minister of Higher Education
and Environment and Scientific Research

Czech Republic Japan

Mr Josef PRUSA Mr Takashi AOYAMA
Deputy Minister of Education, Youth and Sports Senior Vice-Minister of Education, Culture,
responsible for Science Sports, Science and Technology

Estonia Kuwait
Mr Jüri ENGELBRECHT Mr Musaed Rashed AL-HAROUN
President of the Academy of Sciences Minister of Education and Higher Education

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The) Latvia

Mr Nenad NOVKOVSKI Mr Andris SARNOVICS
Minister of Education and Science Secretary of State, Ministry of Education
and Science
Germany
Mr Wolf-Michael CATENHUSEN Lebanon
Parliamentary Secretary of State, Mr Marwan HAMADE
Federal Ministry of Education and Research Minister for Displaced Persons

Ghana Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Mr Christopher AMEMYAW-AKUMFI Mr Ammar EL TAIF
Minister of Education Vice Prime Minister for Education and Health

Hungary Lithuania
Mr Gábor SZABO Mr Rimantas VAITKUS
State Secretary of the Ministry of Education Vice-Minister of Education and Science
responsible for Scientific Affairs
Madagascar
Iceland Mr Victor Henri BOANORO
Mr Björn BJARNASON Minister of Scientific Research
Minister of Education, Science and Culture

- 82 -
Malawi Rwanda
Mr George NGA MTAFU Mr Romain MURENZI
Minister of Education, Science and Technology Minister of Education, Science, Technology
and Scientific Research
Morocco
Mr Omar FASSI-FIHRI Slovenia
Secretary of State for Scientific Research Mr Stane PEJOVNIK
Secretary of State of the Ministry of Education,
Mozambique
Sciences and Sports
Mr L.M.R.A. BRITO
Minister of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia
Science and Technology Mr Saleh AL ATHEL
President, King Abdulaziz City for Science
Namibia
and Technology
Mr Nahas ANGULA
Minister for Higher Education, South Africa
Training and Employment Creation Mr B. NGUBANE
Minister of Arts, Culture, Science
Nigeria
and Technology
Mrs P. K. TALLEN
Honourable Minister of State for Science Sudan
and Technology Mr Elzubair BASHIER TAHA
Minister of Science and Technology
Pakistan
Mr ATTA-UR-RAHMAN United Republic of Tanzania
Minister of Science and Technology Mr Pius Y. NG’WANDU
Minister of Science, Technology
Panama
and Higher Education
Mr Gonzalo CORDOBA
National Secretary for Science and Technology Venezuela
of the SENACYT (Secretaria National Mr Carlos GENATIOS
de Cienca, Tecnología, y Innovación) Minister of Science and Technology

Papua New Guinea Vietnam

Mr John WAIKO Mr Chu HAO
Minister for Education, Science and Research Vice Minister of Science, Technology
and Environment
Russian Federation
Mr Mikhail P. KIRPICHNIKOV
Deputy Minister in charge of Industry,
Science and Technology

- 83 -
 Other Participants

Member States

Algeria Austria
Mr Messaoud BACHIRI Mr Raoul KNEUCKER
Study Researcher, Ministry of Higher Education Director-General for Scientific Research
and Scientific Research and International Affairs, Federal Ministry
Ms Fatma-Zohra EL-KEBIR of Education, Science and Culture
Professor-Researcher, Director of the Department
Benin
of Biology, Oran University
Mr Bienvenu Dominique MARCOS
Mr Mohamed GHOUALMI
Director of Cabinet of the Minister of Higher
Ambassador of Algeria in France, Permanent
Education and Scientific Research
Delegate to UNESCO
Mr Olabiyi B. J. YAÏ
Ms Faouzia MEBARKI
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Deputy Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ms Kheïra OUIGUINI Brazil
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Mr Eduardo Moacyr KRIEGER
Mr El-Khider SI-AHMED President of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Higher Mr Manuel MONTENEGRO
Education and Scientific Research General Co-ordination of Special Programmes
of the Ministry of Science and Technology
Angola
Ms Simone SCHOLTZE
Mr A. VENTURO
Assessor, Ministry of Science and Technology
First Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Abdulaziz AL SWAILEM Bulgaria
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Mr Naum YAKIMOV
Research Scientific Secretary of the Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences
Argentina
Mr Marco Polo BERNAL Canada
Under Secretary of Education and Technological Ms Michèle JEAN
Research Adviser in programme development,
Faculty of Higher Education, University
Australia
of Montreal
Mr John Mark WEBB
Chair of the Australian National Commission
for UNESCO Science Network
Mr John ZILLMAN
Chief of the Bureau of Meteorology

- 84 -
China (The People’s Republic of) Denmark
Mr Xiaojun HU Ms Ebba NEXO
Director, General Office, Ministry of Science Chairperson of the Danish Committee on Gene
and Technology Technology
Mr Xin LI Ms Gunvar NIELSEN
Programme Officer, Department of International Ministry of Information Technology and Research
Cooperation, Ministry of Science
Djibouti
and Technology
Mr Anis ABDALLAH
Mr Yu WANG
Director of the Higher Institute of Scientific
Director, Biology Research Center,
and Technical Studies and Research (ISERST)
Ministry of Science and Technology
Ecuador
Colombia
Mr Juan CORDERO IÑIGUEZ
Mr Augusto GALAN
President, National Commision of Ecuador
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
for UNESCO
Côte d’Ivoire
Egypt
Mr Lazare POAME
Mr Mohammed RAAFAT MAHMOUD
Vice-Dean, University of Bouake
President of Assiut University
Ms Denise HOUPHOUET
Director of Higher Education at the National Federal Republic of Yugoslavia*
University of Abidjan Mr Miroslov SPASJEVIC
Ms Yolande TANO Senior Adviser, Federal Secretariat for Science
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO and Development
Croatia Finland
Ms Biserka BELICZA Ms Hiedi KUUSI
University Professor, Croatian Academy Counsellor for Education, Ministry of Education
of Sciences and Arts
Ms Neda RITZ France

Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Ms Noëlle LENOIR

Chairperson of the European Group on Ethics
Cyprus in Science and New Technologies
Mr Petros M. KAREKLAS at the European Commission
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education
and Culture Gabon
Mr Vincent MINTSA
Czech Republic Technical Adviser, Ministry of Higher Education
Mr Frantisek DUSBABEK and Research
Czech Academy of Sciences, Chairperson
of the Subcommittee for Science of the Czech
Commission for UNESCO * Serbia and Montenegro as of 4 February 2003

- 85 -
Germany Mr D. AL-MASHAT
Mr Ali ARSLAN Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Mr Hartmut DEYDA
Head of Division, Federal Ministry of Education Mr Mohamed Reza KASHANI
and Research Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Mr Norbert KLINGLER Mr Reza MAKNOON
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Member of the High Council of the Iranian
Mr Joachim SCHEMEL National Commission for UNESCO
Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affaires Mr Nasrine MOAZAMI
Head, Biotechnology Research Centre,
Greece Iranian Research Organization or Science
Ms MANOLAKOU and Technology
Greek Bioethics Commission Mr Kh. Aref NIA
Mr Takis VIDALIS Iranian National Commission for UNESCO
Scientific Adviser, National Bioethics Commission
Ireland
Hungary Mr Seamus BEIRNE
Mr Gabor SOOS International Section, Ministry of Education
Attaché, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Science

India Israel
Mr T.N. CHATURVEDI Mr Roi AAMIT
Member of Parliament Assistant to the Ambassdor to France
Mr Shamin JAIRAJPURI Mr Aryé SHUMER
Vice-Chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu Director-General at the Ministry of Science
University
Japan
Mr Sadhana RELIA
Director, Department of Science and Technology, Mr Yutaka HISHIYAMA
Ministry of Science and Technology Director, Office of Bioethics and Biosafety,
Mr P.N. TANDON Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
President, National Brain Research Centre Science and Technology
Ms Sachiko ISHIZAKA
Iraq Department of International Affairs, Japan Science
Mr Jamal AL-DOURI and Technology Corporation
Director General of Cultural Relations Mr Masayuki MORI
at the Ministry of Higher Education International Exchange Programs,
and Scientific Research International Science and Technology Affairs
Mr Mouayad AL-HADITHI Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Director General at the Ministry of Higher Science and Technology
Education and Scientific Research

- 86 -
Mr Keisuke OTANI Mali
First Secretary, Permanent Delegation Mr Ario Issoufa MAIGA
to UNESCO Cultural Adviser to the Prime Minister
Mr Tetsuhisa SHIRAKAWA Mr Adama SAMASSEKOU
Director-General for International Affairs, Former Minister of Basic Education,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science President of the African Academy of Languages
and Technology
Mauritania (Islamic Republic of)
Mr Minemasa SUEHIRO
Mr Saleh OULD MOULAYE AHMED
Secretary of the Senior Vice Minister
Technical adviser of the Prime Minister
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and the Minister of Education
and Technology
Mexico
Jordan
Mr Marco Polo BERNAL YARAHUAN
Mr Nabil BASHIR
Vice-Secretary for Education and Technological
Professor, Representative of the Ministry
Research
of Education
Moldova
Kenya
Mr Petr GAUGAS
Mr J. IRINA
Former Minister of Education, Vice-Rector
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
of the State University of Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Monaco
Mr R. OZOROV
Mr J. PASTORELLI
Director, State Agency of Science
Minister Plenipotentiary, Permanent Delegate
and Intellectual Property
to UNESCO
Latvia
New Zealand
Ms Vija KLUSA
Ms Margaret AUSTIN
Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Latvia University
President of the New Zealand National
Mr N. SAKSS
Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Education and Science
The Netherlands
Lebanon
Mr Bart WIJNBERG
Ms Salza Saniora BAASSIRI
Director at the Ministry of Health
Secretary-General of the Lebanese National
Commission for UNESCO Nigeria
Ms Samia MOUKARZEL Mr W.T. ODOFIN
Cultural Attaché, Permanent Delegation Deputy Director, Planning Research and Statistics,
to UNESCO Federal Ministry of Science and Technology
Ms Dima RIFAÏ
Chargé de mission, Permanent Delegation
to UNESCO

- 87 -
Norway Qatar
Ms Grete GJERTSEN Mr Abdulla Hussain AL-KUBAISI
Adviser, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Rector of Science Faculty, University of Qatar
Ms Wenche TOLLEFSEN
Romania
Senior Adviser, Norwegian Ministry
Mr Radu PALADE
of Education, Research and Church Affairs
Chairperson of the National Bioethics
Oman Commission
Mr Saoud Bin Nasser AL RIYAMI
Russian Federation
President, Sultan Qaboos University
Mr Gregory ORDJONIKIDZE
Panama Adviser, Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
Ms Denise DELVALLE Mr Rem PETROV
In charge of Scientific Research and Technology Vice-President, Russian Federation Academy
of the Secretaria National de Cienca, Tecnología, of Sciences
y Innovación (SENACYT) Mr Andrey SKATCHKOV
First Secretary, Permanent Delegation
Peru
to UNESCO
Mr Alfredo PICASSO de OYAGUE
Ms Natalia STEPANOVA
Scientific Adviser to the Permanent Delegation
Director of Division, Ministry of Industry,
to UNESCO
Science and Technology
Mr Carlos VASQUEZ CORRALES
Adviser, Permanent Delegation to UNESCO San Marino
Ms Edith TAMAGNINI
Philippines
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Ms Ester OGENA
Director of the Science Education Institute Saudi Arabia
Mr Fida F. AL-ADEL
Poland
Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Mr Jerzy KLOCZOWSKI
Chairperson of the Polish National Commission Senegal
for UNESCO Mr Moustapha BA
Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Portugal
Mr Modou GUEYE
Mr Marcello MATHIAS
Adviser, Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Ms Fernanda SOUTO SEPULVEDA Slovakia
Director of the Division of Multilateral and Bilateral Mr D. HOVORKA
Relations of the Institute for International Scientific Professor at Comenius University
and Technological Cooperation of the Ministry Mr Jan SLEZAK
of Science and Technology Vice-President of the Science Academy of Slovak
Ms Ana ZACARIAS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO

- 88 -
Mr Dusan VALACHOVIC Thailand
Director of the Department of International Mr Yongyuth YUTHAVONG
Scientific and Technical Cooperation Director, Thailand Graduate Institute of Science
of the Ministry of Education and Technology Development Agency

South Africa Tunisia

Ms Louise GRAHAM Ms Zeïneb BEN AHMED
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Director-General of the Renovation of Universities
Ms Renah LUSIBA Mr Abdelaziz GHACHEM
Private Secretary of the Minister of Arts, Culture, President of the National Committee
Science and Technology for Evaluation of Scientific Research Activities
Mr Andile XABA
Turkey
Director of Communication,
Mr Namik Kemal PAK
Ministry of Arts, Culture,
Chairperson of the Scientific and Technical
Science and Technology
Research Council
Spain
Ukraine
Mr Eladio MONTOYA
Mr Alexander PLEVAKO
Vice-Rector, University of Alcalá de Henares
Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Ms Maria Dolores VILA-CORO
Mr Anatoli P. SHPAK
Chairperson of the Spanish Bioethics Committee
First Vice-President, Chief Scientific Secretary,
Sweden National Academy of Sciences
Mr Anders FALK Mr Oleg YATSENKIVSDKY
Secretary-General, Swedish National Commission National Commission of Ukraine for UNESCO
for UNESCO
United Kingdom
Syrian Arab Republic Ms Elaine GADD
Mr Abdul Jabbar AL DAHAK Senior Medical Officer, Department of Health
Faculty of Science, University of Damascus
Vietnam
Mr Mohammad Walid ASWAD
Mr PHAM SANH CHAU
Professor at the Faculty of Agriculture,
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Alep University
Mr Thai VAN TAN
Mr Mohammad Yaseen KASSAB
Scientist
Professor of Biology, Techrin University
Yemen
Tajikistan
Mr Abdul Basset MOHAMED SAAD
Ms YAKUBOVA
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Research Fellow of the Academy of Sciences

- 89 -
Zambia Zimbabwe
Mr G. MWALE Mr N. MAMBO
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher
Education and Technology

Permanent Missions of Observation

Holy See United States of America
Mgr Elio SGRECCIA Mr Norman NEUREITER
Vice-President of the Pontifical Academy for Life Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary
of State, in charge of the coordination with
Palestinian Authority
the White House
Mr Munther SALAH
Minister of Higher Education and Scientific
Research
Mr Abdel RAZEK
Permanent Observer to UNESCO

Guest Speakers

Mr Leonardo DE CASTRO (Philippines) Mr Alexander MCCALL SMITH

Professor of Philosophy, University
of the Philippines
Director of the Bioethics Society of the Philippines
Member of the International Bioethics Committee
of UNESCO (IBC)
Mr Ryuichi IDA (Japan)
Professor of International Law, Kyoto University
Chairperson of the International Bioethics
Committee of UNESCO (IBC)
(United Kingdom)
Professor of Medical Law, University
of Edinburgh
Vice-Chairperson of the Human Genetics
Commission of the United Kingdom
Member of the International Bioethics Committee
of UNESCO (IBC)
Mr Patrick ROBINSON (Jamaica)
Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia
Member of the International Bioethics Committee
of UNESCO (IBC)

- 90 -
 Representatives of Organizations of the United Nations and Observers from
International Intergovernmental and Non-governmental Organizations
World Health Organization (WHO) B’nai B’rith
Mr Tikki E. PANGESTU Ms Irène ORES
Director, Research Policy and Cooperation Catholic International Eucation Office (CIEC)
Mr Dan WIKLER Mr Andres Delgado HERNANDEZ
Adviser to the Ethics in Health Initiative Secretary-General

Arab Educational, Cultural and International Catholic Centre

Scientific Organization (ALECSO) for UNESCO (ICCU)
Ms Dhouha BOUKHRIS Mr Gilles DELLIANCE
In charge of External Relations Director

Organization for Economic Co-operation International Federation of Catholic

and Development (OECD) Universities (IFCU)
Ms Elettra RONCHI Ms MOREAU
Coordinator, Biotechnology and Health International Federation of Scientific Workers
(IFSW)
Mr André JAEGLE
Secretary-General

UNESCO

Mr Koïchiro MATSUURA
Director-General

Ms Françoise RIVIÈRE Ms Sabina COLOMBO

Assistant Director-General
Executive Director of the Executive Office
Mr Pierre SANÉ
Assistant Director-General for Social
and Human Sciences
Mr Georges B. KUTUKDJIAN
Secretary of the Round Table
Director, Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology
Assistant Programme Specialist
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology
Mr Gens SEITI
Executive Officer
Office of the Director-General
Ms Orio IKEBE
Associate Expert
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology

- 91 -
Ms Jeannette BLOM
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology
Ms Valentina MILANO
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology
- 92 -
Ms Léonie TREGUER
Documentation
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology
Ms Aïssata BOUNDY
Administration
Division of Human Sciences, Philosophy
and the Ethics of Science and Technology