Action Research Yueh-kuei Hsu National Taiwan Normal University.
Risk Governance of Biobank Deliberation of Glocalizational Risk Governance ~ How is social trust of...
-
Upload
baldwin-davis -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Risk Governance of Biobank Deliberation of Glocalizational Risk Governance ~ How is social trust of...
Risk Governance of Biobank
Deliberation of Glocalizational Risk Governance~ How is social trust of Biobank possible? ~
Chou Kuei-TienNational Taiwan University
August 8th 2005
I. Structure of analysis Risk thesis of high-tech disputes and its governance Biobank as globalizational risk in terms of global ethical
concerns by UNESCO/WHO/EU Globalizational risk governance in terms of discussions
by UNESCO/WHO/EU Discussion of interactive feedback and influence of
globalizational and glocalizational risk governance Comparison of Glocalizational risk governance of UK
GMO and UK Biobank Comparison of Glocalizational risk governance of
Taiwan GMO and Taiwan Biobank
I. Structure of analysis Glocalizational structure of risk governance: According to three years empirical studies of interviews to NGOs,
Scientists and analysis of mass media 2003-2005 Survey of risk communication and public trust about GMO Combining the two ways empirical studies we figure out the structure
of risk governance and culture in Taiwan as Delayed high-tech risk society as well as hidden risk culture and structure.
The delayed hidden risk structure will influence the trust building of Taiwan Biobank.
Biobank risk governance: policy-making process and its problem 2005 Survey of public trust in Biobank The main point: how is social trust of Biobank possible?
Understanding of Science Privacy Confidentiality Access by Users Social discrimination
Basic Risks of Biobank
Biobank as globalizational risk
Universal Declaration of the Human Genome and Human Right
…..announced by UNESCO (1997), it
promulgated ethical worries with respect to sample collection and information preservation development of genetic databases globally.
Biobank as globalizational risk
International Declaration on Human Genetic Data
……issued by UNESCO (2003) which explicated that the particularity of human genetic information lies in the value-related considerations of privacy, confidentiality, access to information, and discrimination in the process of collection, handling, utilization, and preservation of samples.
Biobank as globalizational risk
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine” (from Council of Europe)
Genetic Databases – Assessing the Benefits and the Impact on Human & Patient Rights (from WHO)
……from perspectives of common human rights such as rights of privacy, confidentiality, access and control, and being free from discrimination, these reports also probed into possible impacts and worries large-scale biological samples collection might cause and indicate problems of social and ethical uncertainty within global dimension.
Biobank as globalizational risk Deregulation tendency of technological risk in
terms of global competitions Low institution of risk governance in developing
countries The huge risk is potential international links or
exchanges of biobanks with household system and medical records via global electronic information networks for commercial benefits
Global risks of ethnic, culture and ethic
Risk Governance of Biobank
UNESCO (2003) Declaration §6
….“along with large-scale genetic researches, each country should promote the society to extendedly participate in policy decision.
Risk Governance of Biobank UNESCO(2003): UNESCO(2003): International
Declaration on Human Genetic Data
§ 24 – Ethics education, training and information
In order to promote the principles set out in this Declaration, States should endeavour to foster all forms of ethics education and training at all levels as well as to encourage information and knowledge dissemination programmes about human genetic data.
Risk Governance of Biobank Reports of WHO & EU value Participation and Debate
In WHO report §3.4, it indicated “ethical reflection and scrutiny should be valued”, thus recognized debates on ethics and philosophy of biotechnology and public health are crucial.
Under such context, §3.5 directly cited Article 28 of the Council of Europe” Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine” to present the importance of public debate.
Risk Governance of Biobank Reports of WHO & EU value Participation
and Debate
Further, in §8.1, it is approved that in order to achieve public trust and confidence, it is essential to build transparency in genetic databases and public debate and to provide procedures to form public awareness and foster trust.
It is because as long as the public involve in the process of participation, they can be more aware of problem existence and learn and judge further.
Global Risk Governance of Biobank
Policy transparency is necessary Policy-making process is open to society,
particularly to NGO Recognition of legal protection is
fundamental Trust is fragile without risk communication
and awareness Trust building is fundamental multiple
works
Global Risk Governance of Biobank
To conduct public deliberation (public panel, citizen conference)
To conduct public consultation system (consultation, genetic counseling)
To conduct professional consultation To conduct public survey To conduct risk communication with
NGO, mass media or educational system To conduct acceptable legal protection
Global Risk Governance of Biobank
Knowledge of risk, for example Informed Consent, needs good social understanding of science.
Risk governance bases on local political, cultural context.
Risk governance needs to understand local political, cultural context, i.e. technocrats regime, scientific view of risk, risk discourse, risk perception of public, political culture in terms of NGO.
UK GMO Risk Governance
FSA held activities including : focus groups (2003.3-4) citizen jury (2003.04) qualitative discussions (2003.03) school debate (2003) survey of GMO (2002)
UK GMO Risk Governance
GeneWatch held ”GM Nation?” activities empowered by goverment including:
Six regional meetings Different city council meetings Nationwide grassroots meetings
UK GMO Risk GovernanceFindings of public debate – GM Nation?”1. The public was still suspicious to GM products2. More and more publics were aware of risk of GM
products3. The public disapproved GM plant
commercialization4. Generally, the public were distrust to Government
and transnational enterprises5. The public were supportive and welcomed debates
of technological risks6. The public hoped to know more about GM and its
information7. The public acknowledged that developing countries
possess special interests in GM development.
UK GMO Risk Governance
The risk Governance of UK GMO engaged in a lot of public participation.
There is critic on the representative problem of participants by FSA holding activities.
The deliberative process changes the tradition of centralized policy-making by UK technocrats and also become good model of risk governance.
Risk Governance of UK Biobank
Establishment of UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council in charge of ethical and legal problem
Establishment of People Science & Policy company in charge of conducting public and professional consultations
Risk Governance of UK Biobank
Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples(2000)
Consultation with primary care health professionals (October 2000)
Public Consultation (2000) Ethics workshop (April 2002) Consultation (between January and April 2003) Consultation with industry (April 2003) Public panel (May2003) Public and stakeholder (May2003)
Risk Governance and its critics
It was criticized the representative problem of social groups.
It was criticized the problem of conducting official institutional discourses which is not enough for public to build confidence and trust.
Lack of direct participation of “public debate” according to WHO Declaration/ EU “Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine”
Paradigm of Risk Governance
UK Biobank Risk Governance as learning paradigm by other countries
Regarding to reflection of different local structure of risk governance and culture, the UK Biobank Governance could be revised.
The UK tradition of policy-making by dominating technocrats-scientists network is similar to Taiwan
Thinking Structure of Risk Governance in Taiwan
Historical ground of Authoritative technocrats in terms of Cold War
Legitimacy of technocrats regime with internal scientific networks
Centralized technological Policy-making Process: From Top to bottom model Lack of Risk Governance Process Less scrutiny and political pressure by NGOs
Glocalizatioanl GMO Risk Governance
According to the estimation of agricultural council, Taiwan imports every year
2 millions tons Soybean containing 50% GMO
6 millions tons Maize containing 30% GMO
held activities including
Glocalizatioanl GMO Risk Governance
Public survey of risk perception, communication and trust of GMO in 2003-05
held activities including
Risk Perception
Have knowledge about risks of GM foods
Yes No
Have you ever heard about GM foods?
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
49% 56% 48% 51% 44% 52%
Are you aware of safety issues related to GM foods or products?
66.1% 68.4% 73.4% 33.9% 31.6% 26.5%
Risk Participation
Yes No No idea
Is there any opportunity that the public participate in the decision-making Process?
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
20.5%
22.2%
18.6%
65.7
%67.6%
73.3%
13.9%
10.2%
8.0%
Risk Communication
Propagation and Information
Yes No No idea
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Did the Department of Health explain or state clearly the risk and safety concerns related to GM foods?
5.7%
11.1%
13.0%
80.5%
83.3%
83.8%
13.8%
5.5%
3.2%
Do the public have sufficient information to understand the safety of GM foods?
6.3%
7.1%
9.3%
90.9%
88.9%
88.9%
2.8%
4.1%
1.8%
Risk Trust of GMO
Trust in government
Yes No No idea Refuse to answer
Do you believe the statement declaring that GM foods are no harm to health according to the Department of Health?
2003200
4200
5200
32004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
19.7%
27.9%
21.66%
73.2%
63.6%
74.1%
6.8%
8.5%
4.1%
0.2%
0%
0.1%
Trust in scientists
Do you believe that GM foods are controllable in the aspects of health and ecology?
2003200
4200
5200
32004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
38.3%
35.6%
39.9%
53.7%
52.3%
52.3%
7.8%
11.8%
7.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
Thinking Risk Governance in terms of GMO Research
It shows ignorance of Trust building It shows lack of Risk Communication: Public
Panel, Public Deliberation or Consultation It shows a Delayed risk governance without
social scrutiny and political pressure of NGOs
Hidden Risk Culture: Unawareness of Scientific Risks
Thinking Structure of Risk Governance in Taiwan
The reason of ignoring risk by technocrats is only respected to so called “sound science”in terms of positive scientific assessment, but excluded social opinion and rationality.
Technocrats also ignores public risk perception with regarding public anxiety as irrational, emotional.
Risk hidden culture makes worse ongoing development and becomes one of risk structure that influence the trust building of Taiwan biobank.
Policy-making of Taiwan Biobank
1995, Taiwan Government positively encouraged researches on related biotechnology techniques, genetic medicine
Suggestion of Taiwan Biobank initiation in 2000.
In 2000 July Academia Sinica suggested to establish “population databases”, which imitated Iceland’s experiences
In October 2002, Academia Sinica formerly established “Genetic Database of Chinese in Taiwan”, which also called “super control genomic database”
This database will collect 3,312 samples
Policy-making of Taiwan Biobank
In February 2004, Executive Yuan decided to improve and establish “Taiwan Biobank”
In February 2004, president of Institute or Biomedical Sciences, Academic Sinica proposed to form a practicable assessment of ”Taiwan Biobank”
In December 2004, new councilor of political affairs proposed the concept of “Island Taiwan of Bio-medicine and Biotechnology”
In April 6th 2005, the Executive Yuan announced officially a investment of 15 billions NT to the establishment of “Island Taiwan of Biomedicine and Biotechnology”
Taiwan Biobank estimated to collect genetic information of 3,000 samples in 2005 (called pilot project) and to finish information collection of 200 thousand samples in the future
Problem of Risk Governance Highly centralized policy-making by
technocrats and scientists network Misunderstanding of de-Code/Ice Land
experience There is ignorance of confidentiality
problem Lack of transparency of policy-making Urgently start to collect sample from July
2005 without ELSI works
Reflection of Risk Governance
Social discrimination experience in 2003 SARS event
Risk hidden culture by collecting sample:
case of Hwalien Aboriginal Technocrats and scientists used to lack
understanding of public risk perception, for example in GMO, SARS events
Reflection of Risk Governance Technocrats and scientists misjudged
public concerns as weakness of building Biobank in their SWOT analysis
Technocrats and scientists used to urge official institutional discourse: it is less enough for public to build their trust
Lack of public participation in the policy-making process of Biobank
Lack of public debate in order to create the access of building social trust according to WHO Declaration and EU Convention
Survey on Attitudes towards Genetic Database in 2005 This year’s national-wide telephone survey was
conducted by Center for Survey Research, Academic Sinica from April 18 to June 9, 2005. Total samples collected (calls dailed) were 33,288 cases. Finished cases were 854 cases, with male - 407 cases (47.66% ); female – 447 cases (52.34 % ). Rejected calls were 2,968 cases. All results were based on confidence level of 95% and the standard error was 3.4%.
The methodology of Survey is designed for one condition that interviewee who has heard about GMO (only 48%) can continue to follow those questionnaires of Genetic Database.
Items:(1)Extremely trust [35] 4.10% (2)Trust [284] 33.26% (3)No opinion [6] 0.70% (4)Distrust (Half and half) [346] 40.52% (5)Extremely distrust [161] 18.85% (7)No idea [22] 2.58% (8)Refuse to answer [0] 0.00%
1. Generally speaking, do you trust that medical staffs ro research personnel
will keep your examining records confidential?(1)Extremely trust [35]
(2)Trust [284]
(3)No opinion [6]
(4)Distrust (Half and half [346]
(5)Extremely distrust [161]
(7)No idea [22]
(8)Refusr to answer [0]
Items:(1)Extremely agree [75] 8.78% (2)Agree [310] 36.30% (3)No opinion [12] 1.41% (4)Disagree [306] 35.83% (5)Extremely disagree [131] 15.34% (7)No idea [20] 2.34% (8)Refuse to answer [0] 0.00%
2. Would you agree to provide 15 c.c. of your blood for establishment of genetic database?
(1)Extremely agree [75] (2)Agree [310] (3)No opinion [12] (4)Disagree [306]
(5)Extremely disagree [131] (7)No idea [20]
(8)Refuse to answer [0]
Items:(1)Extremely worry about [369] 43.21% (2)Worry about [293] 34.31% (3)No opinion [7] 0.82% (4)Not worry about [137] 16.04% (5)Not worry about it at all [37] 4.33% (7)No idea [10] 1.17% (8)Refuse to answer [1] 0.12%
3. Are you worrying about that genetic information may be disclosed for commercial purposes?
(1)Extremely worry about [369](2)Worry about [293] (3)No opinion [7]
(4)Not worry about [137] (5)Not worry about it at all [37]
(7)No idea [10] (8)Refuse to answer [1]
Item:(1)Extremely agree [101] 11.83% (2)Agree [321] 37.59% (3)No opinion [12] 1.41% (4)Disagree [247] 28.92% (5)Extremely disagree [159] 18.62% (7)No idea [14] 1.64% (8)Refuse to answer [0] 0.00%
4. If there are laws to protect personal information in genetic database from disclosure, would you agree to provide 15 c.c. of your blood?
(1)Extremely agree [101] (2)Agree [321] 37.59% (3)No opinion [12] (4)Disagree [247]
(5)Extremely disagree [159] (7)No idea [14]
(8)Refuse to answer [0]
Items:(1)Yes [739] 86.53% (2)No [107] 12.53% (8)Refuse to answer [8] 0.94%
5. Even though there are laws to regulated release of genetic information, do you still agree that genetic sampling information can possibly be disclosed?
(1)Yes [739]
(2)No 〈跳至第 33 題〉 [107]
(8)Refuse to answer [8]
Items:(1)Extremely agree [27] 3.61% (2)Agree [204] 27.31% (3)No opinion [5] 0.67% (4)Disagree [303] 40.56% (5)Extremely disagree [193] 25.84% (7)No idea [14] 1.87% (8)Refuse to answer [1] 0.13%
6. Under this circumstance, do you agree to provide 15 c.c. of your blood for establishment of genetic database?
(1)Extremely agree [27] (2)Agree [204] (3)No opinion [5] (4)Disagree [303]
(5)Extremely disagree [193] (7)No idea [14]
(8)Refuse to answer [1]
Analysis of Public Survey of Biobank Comparison with the result of academic sinica
survey which was conducted in 2004: 75.2% of interviewees were willing to participate the establishment of Taiwan Biobank.
The result of my Survey which was conduct in 2005: 45.1% interviewees agreed providing 15 c.c. blood to take part in the establishment of Taiwan Biobank; but 51.2% interviewees disagreed doing it.
Possible reasons: it happens a lot of events of personal data disclosure which lead to many criminal events of cheating money in this year. It might influence public losing their confidence and trust in participating Taiwan Biobank.
Analysis of Public Survey of Biobank
Public lacks trust of donating blood sample.
Public distrust in confidentiality by medical researchers.
Public highly concerns that personal genetic data will be disclosed in terms of commercial reasons.
Analysis of Public Survey of Biobank
Even if there is legal protection, most of public highly believes that genetic data will be disclosed in current local social context.
Lack of interactive communicative platform between scientists and public.
Conclusion and Suggestion
A need to build a global Biobank risk governance structure.
A need to broaden public participation and deliberation in policy decision-making process for enhancing public trust.
A need to conduct risk communication between scientist and public.
Conclusion and Suggestion Overcome limits of the technocrats’
dominated regime, and Overcome limits of the delay hidden risk
culture, if people want to build the confident social trust of Taiwan biobank.