Hinxton Group on Stem Cell Research

Summary of the Hinxton Group Proclamation

The Hinxton Group comprised 60 scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, clinicians and other relevant professionals who met at Hinxton in England during February 2006.  They discussed the moral challenges facing collaborators in human embryonic stem cell research across international boundaries, where there are different regulations on permissible research.  The focus of their proclamation is on international collaboration, fair regulation and openness in discussion between scientists and the rest of society.  They came to a consensus statement comprising 19 points, of which 15 are points of agreement and recommendations and 4 are areas requiring further work.  To follow is a brief summary of these points and implications for New Zealand.

Working abroad

International collaboration and information sharing is fundamental to scientific progress, and yet international co-workers can come under fire when undertaking research that is contrary to laws of another country.  The Group concluded a challenging statement that: assuming local regulations are followed, researchers should be free to do work abroad that is banned in their home country, without censure, as long as that work is done with scientific and ethical integrity.

International Regulations

Restrictions on research by regulators should be few, well-justified and flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies.   Among the areas for further action, the Hinxton Group advocated for increased discussion between scientists, philosophers, bioethicists, lawyers, clinicians, journal editors and regulators involved in this field, in collaboration and consultation with the public regarding ethical standards accepted internationally. 
Over time, it is hoped that an internationally agreed code of practise be publicised so that it can be seen as a workable, ethical and valued system, and a useful default regulatory system in jurisdictions with poor legal or regulatory regimes.  During this process of discussion and consensus, it is important that scientists honestly engage with the public about the promises and limitations of embryonic stem cell research.

Publishing

There are some technical findings that relate to regulation and publishing.  For example, donors for embryonic stem cell research should be treated under existing regulations for human research subjects.  Also, journal editors and funding authorities should satisfy themselves that work is undertaken ethically and complies with local legal approval and oversight requirements.  Further recommendations include that journal editors request information on embryonic stem cell sources and that authors specify under which jurisdiction each portion of work was undertaken, and which authors were involved at which locations.  Such details become a record showing adherence to relevant laws, and provide some transparency of to promote researcher integrity.

So What for New Zealand?

As New Zealand's academy of sciences, the Royal Society of New Zealand has a responsibility to consider and to advise against barriers to just, ethical research, and to promote regulations that safeguard science and the public.  Where there are no current guidelines, we have a responsibility to ensure that scientists act within the spirit of legislation relating to ethical conduct of research.  As a member of the international union of academies of sciences, we can contribute to the international discussion on ethics in research. 
Human embryonic stem cell research is not largely conducted in New Zealand in contrast to, say, the United Kingdom, and so our voice may be thought to lack authority on the international stage.  Yet, we have an international reputation for public engagement and dialogue, following the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering.  New Zealanders value the benefits of research to human health and wellbeing, the transparency of science, and the inclusion of public perceptions in the science system via strong communication links between research conductors, beneficiaries and bystanders.  We can contribute to the international discussion using the locally tried and tested, and world-class dialogue systems that others, abroad, have emulated.







Please address comments and suggestions to Dr Kathleen Logan at the RSNZ:  kathleen.logan at rsnz.org