6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The UNESCO Bioethics Programme: A Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme was established in 1993. In twenty years it has adopted three international declarations, on the human genome (1997), human genetic data (2003) and bioethics (2005); produced reports on a wide range of bioethics issues; and developed capacity building and public education programmes in bioethics. Yet UNESCO has sometimes struggled to assert its authority in the wider bioethics world. Some bioethicists have criticized the 2005 declaration and suggested that the World Health Organization might be better placed to advance bioethics. In 2011, after four years of debate, UNESCO decided not to draft a convention on human reproductive cloning, because consensus on the issue proved impossible. This article reviews the standard setting and capacity building activities of the UNESCO Bioethics Programme. While the Programme faces challenges common to most intergovernmental organizations, its achievements in expanding international law and building bioethics capacity should not be underestimated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Composition, training needs and independence of ethics review committees across Africa: are the gate-keepers rising to the emerging challenges?

          Background: The high disease burden of Africa, the emergence of new diseases and efforts to address the 10/90 gap have led to an unprecedented increase in health research activities in Africa. Consequently, there is an increase in the volume and complexity of protocols that ethics review committees in Africa have to review. Methods: With a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the African Malaria Network Trust (AMANET) undertook a survey of 31 ethics review committees (ERCs) across sub-Saharan Africa as an initial step to a comprehensive capacity-strengthening programme. The number of members per committee ranged from 3 to 21, with an average of 11. Members of 10 institutional committees were all from the institution where the committees were based, raising prima facie questions as to whether independence and objectivity could be guaranteed in the review work of such committees. Results: The majority of the committees (92%) cited scientific design of clinical trials as the area needing the most attention in terms of training, followed by determination of risks and benefits and monitoring of research. The survey showed that 38% of the ERC members did not receive any form of training. In the light of the increasing complexity and numbers of health research studies being conducted in Africa, this deficit requires immediate attention. Outcome: The survey identified areas of weakness in the operations of ERCs in Africa. Consequently, AMANET is addressing the identified needs and weaknesses through a 4-year capacity-building project.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights

            (2005)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mapping African ethical review committee activity onto capacity needs: the MARC initiative and HRWeb's interactive database of RECs in Africa.

              Health research initiatives worldwide are growing in scope and complexity, particularly as they move into the developing world. Expanding health research activity in low- and middle-income countries has resulted in a commensurate rise in the need for sound ethical review structures and functions in the form of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). Yet these seem to be lagging behind as a result of the enormous challenges facing these countries, including poor resource availability and lack of capacity. There is thus an urgent need for ongoing capacity and resource development in these regions in general, and in Africa in particular. Similarly, there is a need for research and initiatives that can identify existing capacity and funding and indicate the areas where this needs to be developed. This discussion paper argues that the Mapping African Research Ethics Capacity (MARC) project is a timely initiative aimed at identifying existing capacity. MARC provides a platform and tool on the Council on Health Research for Development's (COHRED) Health Research website (HRWeb), which can be used by RECs and key stakeholders in health research in Africa to identify capacity, constraints and development needs. MARC intends to provide the first comprehensive interactive database of RECs in Africa, which will allow for the identification of key relationships and analyses of capacity. The potential of MARC lies in the mapping of current ethical review activity onto capacity needs. This paper serves as a starting point by providing a descriptive illustration of the current state of RECs in Africa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101627814
                42264
                New Bioeth
                New Bioeth
                The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body
                2050-2877
                2050-2885
                28 September 2017
                2014
                04 October 2017
                : 20
                : 1
                : 3-11
                Affiliations
                University of Lincoln, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Adèle Langlois, alanglois@ 123456lincoln.ac.uk
                Article
                EMS74281
                10.1179/2050287714Z.00000000040
                5627704
                24979873
                e3add5d8-53cc-4f7f-baf8-00da05f41fdc

                MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 3.0

                History
                Categories
                Article

                unesco,bioethics,human rights
                unesco, bioethics, human rights

                Comments

                Comment on this article