The Interchurch Bioethics Council represents the Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches of Aotearoa:New Zealand. We have nine members with a wide range of knowledge and experience, including medical, scientific, ethical, theological, educational and cultural expertise (many members wearing more than one hat!).

You have our submission, and I will not discuss all the points raised. I will make specific comments on these matters, and allow time for questions at the end.
Specific comments:

• We believe the Guidelines should be Interim guidelines.
• More attention needs to be given to cultural and spiritual issues, in addition to ethical issues.
• There are inadequacies in the consent procedures.
• There is an over-emphasis on clinical benefits.
• I will comment on the review process and the use of a register.
• I will point out that more consultation that will be needed when it comes to the matter of creating stem cell lines in New Zealand.

Reasons why we believe these should be Interim Guidelines:

It is unethical and illogical to import embryonic stem cell lines for use in New Zealand if the production of such cell lines in New Zealand is not approved. These guidelines must therefore be seen as an interim measure to allow research to proceed while the matter of producing embryonic stem cell lines is fully and publicly debated. Otherwise there is a danger that the present guidelines will become de facto guidelines for the creation of cell limes in New Zealand and there are reasons, as follow, why the current guidelines are not adequate for this.

The consultation time allowed for these guidelines was far too short, particularly as it came during the summer holiday period, and wider consultation is needed. For example, Te toi Taiao:the Bioethics Council found that the people in their limited focus groups were not happy with the use of embryos which were not required for implantation being used to make stem cells and that the creation of embryos for research purposes was more acceptable. We found that in our ‘constituency’ of church members the creation of embryos for research purposes was not generally acceptable, but there was more approval for the use of embryos which would otherwise be destroyed. Such different opinions from two significant groups support the need for wider consultation in the community.

Under Section 36 in the HART Bill the Advisory Committee is required to provide information and advice on matters relating to research including that on human embryos. This advice would be expected to be very relevant to the guidelines we are currently discussing but cannot be taken into account if the present timeline is adhered to. They could be taken into account in the future if the current guidelines are interim.

Insufficient recognition was given to cultural and spiritual issues.

Cultural and Spiritual Values:

The findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification stated that the choices made by New Zealanders are linked to their spiritual, ethical and cultural values.

In the NOOM Bill (New Organisms and Other Matters) the Minister for the Environment’s call-in powers for applications submitted to ERMA were amended to include ‘significant cultural, ethical and spiritual effects’.

Te toi Taiao:the Bioethics Council appointed by the government following the report of the Royal Commission is an advisory body on cultural, ethical and spiritual issues in biotechnology in New Zealand.

These examples, and there are others, demonstrate that we recognise the importance of cultural and spiritual values. However, in the Guidelines we are discussing, there is a Section on ethical issues but very little on cultural or spiritual issues.

Some definition might be helpful here. There is a well-recognised ethical framework developed with reference particularly to clinical procedures and research. Cultural issues in New Zealand are mostly seen in relation to Maori values. However, in addition to having high regard to the values of our Treaty Partners, we need to recognise that all people have cultural values and New Zealand is a multi-cultural society with diverse values. The more difficult question is what do we mean by spiritual? There is no simple definition of spirituality, and it would take a lot longer than we have this morning to cover this topic. Spirituality is an awareness of the non-material aspects of life. Spirituality is a framework of beliefs and values which inform our living experience and our world view; world view being how we see the world and our place in it, and therefore how we act within the world. Maori spiritual values have added a huge amount to our understanding of spirituality, but we must also recognise that for all of us spirituality is that which gives us meaning to life.

Consent:

Guideline 12 requires the researcher to state how left over embryonic cells will be dealt with. This is a matter that should be addressed in the consent form and opportunity given for appropriates procedures to be used, e.g. a suggestion made to us was that it might be appropriate for Maori to have a karakia said at the time of disposal of cells.

It has to be recognised that it is not possible to predict how cell lines will be used and therefore consent is not fully informed. We favour embryonic stem cell research being limited to serious diseases and their treatment or related to the processes of human development. This would give the person(s) who give consent some control and the domain of research possible would still be very broad.

We raise the question of who will give consent to the use of embryos which are not required for implantation if the embryos have been created for parents who are not the genetic parents, and in fact donor gametes have been used. Such donors do not have any say in the use of embryos for implantation, so what will be the situation here?

Clinical Benefits:

We recognise that the Guidelines do say that the benefits will not be available for a long time, but still feel that the clinical benefits are over-stated. People hear what they want to hear, and it is common when talking to groups to find people are greatly influenced by what the research will mean for their family member who has an illness which may be researched. The enthusiastic reporting of work which has not yet been validated such as the SCNT work in Korea is likely to lead to false hopes.

Information is not given about alternative possibilities e.g. that the current work on spinal repair, which is admittedly also in very early stages, is being done with adult stem cells from the patient.
Review Process;

We think it is important that the ethical review of the use of human embryonic stem cells is done on a case by case by an ethics committee which has appropriate expertise and recommend that ECART take up this role. We agree it would be appropriate to establish a register so that stem cell lines would not have to be continually approved and re-approved. However we suggest that while transparency and openness is important, it may be unwise to list on a website the institutions which are holding/researching these lines. Such information could be available on request from the Ministry of Health.

Conclusions:

• In summary, these guidelines should be of an interim nature.
• More attention should be given to cultural and spiritual values.
• There are matters to be addressed in the Consent Forms
• Clinical benefits should not be over-emphasised, and more information could be given about some of the options e.g. use of adult stem cells.
• ECART would be the appropriate committee for case-by-case review
• MOH would be the body to maintain a register of approved embryonic stem cell lines

The next step following the publication of these guidelines will presumably be preparation of guidelines for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines in New Zealand. Indeed, as I said at the beginning, it is not ethical to put in place guidelines for the use of imported cell lines if creation of such cell lines are not going to be approved within New Zealand. In the consultation required for these guidelines, there should be more consultation and public debate and inclusion of the points listed above.

Where Do We Stand?

A resource and study guide for church and community groups on the lifting of the moratorium on genetically modified organisms in New Zealand.

Making Good Decisions in Biotechnology

Stem Cell Research, Cloning and Genetic information – a study guide for church groups.

Euthanasia: Unethical Intervention or Death with Dignity?

A study resource prepared by ICBC. Includes study questions and bibliography for further reading.

British scientists have just released the findings from a government-sponsored three-year study on the use of GM crops containing genes for herbicide resistance. The report said that in two out of three studies, “farmland wildlife is harmed much more by the extra- powerful weedkillers used with GM crops than by herbicides used with conventional crops”. Dr Jarvis said that the harm caused was not in the technology of GM itself. The harm lay in the use of GM crops in such a way that virtually all other plants were killed by the herbicides. Therefore in these trials, any benefits claimed for the use of GM crops were more than reversed by the harm done to the environment.

She said that the important lesson for ERMA, which assesses GM applications in New Zealand, is that no application for the release of GMOs should be approved until sufficient data is available to assess risks as well as potential benefits. At present, research is under way to investigate effects on the environment, but this will not be available for some time. If no independent reliable information is available to assess an application, then the application must be deferred. It must also be remembered that data used has to be applicable to the New Zealand situation.

She added that in moving from field trials to conditional or full release ERMA will need to pay more attention to the uncertainties in any proposal than it has done in the past. The lesson from the UK study is that it will be essential to continue monitoring of the effect of any GMOs released, and therefore ERMA should regard conditional release, with monitoring, as the only acceptable release at this time.

The disturbing data from the UK trials shows that similar work will need to be done in other areas, e.g. the effect of insecticide-resistant GMOs on the environment. Research is already under way in NZ, but as each case is assessed on its merits, no release of GMOs should be allowed until there is enough information for a good decision to be made.

Transgenics is the name given to the technology whereby genes from one species are inserted into the genome of another species. In this paper the particular area of transgenics to be discussed will be that involving the transfer of human genes into other organisms. Any area of transgenics is the cause of considerable unease within the community, because it is seen as transcending naturally-occurring species barriers in a way that does not work organically with natural processes and their inherent checks and balances which have been in existence for millions of years. Thus it makes the creation radically subject to the will and limited reasoning of mankind. Therefore for some it is seen as contravening the natural order of things, or going against the wishes of God, or the creative force which rules the universe. When the species from which the genes are derived is the human species, then the concerns within the community are increased dramatically.

In order to look at the ethical, spiritual and cultural dimensions of the transfer of human genes into other organisms, it is first necessary to consider the purposes for which transgenic technology is used. The most widely practised transgenics is in medical research and development. By inserting specific human genes or DNA fragments into an animal such as a mouse, medical researchers may obtain information which will be of prime importance in elucidating disease mechanisms and assist in attempts to diagnose and treat human disease. In other examples, drugs such as insulin are obtained by transferring the gene for the desired drug into yeast or bacteria, which are then used to produce large quantities of purified drug. In dialogues that the Interchurch Bioethics Council held throughout New Zealand with church members and the general community, it appeared that the extent to which there are reservations about the spiritual, ethical and cultural issues in transgenic technology involving human genes is influenced by the purpose for which the research or development is being carried out.

Medical benefits of pharmaceuticals produced by transgenic technology e.g. insulin are potentially acceptable to all people including Maori. Research (1) into a gene encoding stomach cancer was undertaken in a joint project between a Bay of Plenty Maori family and the Cancer Genetics Laboratory at the University of Otago. The isolation of a gene which is responsible for pre-disposition to stomach cancer has led to the identification and understanding of the condition which would not have been possible otherwise. In this instance, GM was used in the development of a diagnostic tool and any proceeds from the outcomes of the research will be shared equally between the Maori family and the University of Otago. It is significant to note that there was full consultation between the researchers and those involved, specific health benefits will accrue to Maori and any financial proceeds will be shared.

Ethical dimensions

Out of our beliefs and our cultural context come our ethical values, our understanding of right and wrong. Ethics must reflect both belief and context in order to determine what we as a society deem acceptable on both individual and societal levels.

Barbara Nicholas (2) writes : “We could reduce ethics to utilitarian or pragmatic calculations of risks and benefits, but gene technology pushes us to examine the wider frameworks within which we construct our ethics – what does it mean to be human? how do we create meaning and value? against what “horizon” do we understand the choices that we can now make? Gene technology is requiring that we construct a new ethics, building on what is recognised as of central importance to us, but taking into account the new possibilities that are now with us”.

From the perspective of Christian beliefs we have a role in caring for the creation that God has provided for us. The term stewardship has often been used to describe our role in creation. Several ethical principles therefore can be determined.

1. In looking after the created world we must proceed “To the best of our abilities”. Considerations should be other than economic and should relate to both progress and care.

2. Justice is central to Christian ethics and follows from the command to “love your neighbour as yourself”.

3. The concept of unconditional love is central to the Christian gospel. The Christian message has a particular emphasis on caring for the poor, the helpless and the vulnerable.

4. There is also an understanding that we should “do good without doing harm”, in contrast to a utilitarian approach where harm may be permissible if it is for the greater good.

5. There is also a principle of respect for the integrity of the earth and its creatures and restraint in our use of power to achieve what we think best without regard for traditional safeguards and mysteries (indicated by the Pakeha word “sacred” and the Maori word “tapu”).

The practice of using animals for medical research raises questions about our responsibility to treat all species humanely. The dominion and stewardship we are said to hold over the created order (3) is seen by Christians to include a care for the environment and for all God’s creatures. The development of transgenic technology has allowed the introduction into animals of human genes and in the process of human diseases, which may cause suffering and disease. The extent to which this is permissible in the framework of caring for the whole of both humanity and other living creatures is contentious.

As created beings we have a role of stewardship in caring for the creation that God has provided for us. As part of creation, we also understand that we are connected with the created world so that what affects this world will also affect humanity as well. Maori express this as the importance of protecting the mauri of all things and practicing a holistic system of management, termed kaitiakitanga, meaning the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua. The mauri of any living thing is its essence or fundamental integrity as a fellow creature with us in creation and it is this essence which is locked into the genome of the species and in the individual in a way that protects its integrity.

On the other hand, we have a duty to use our God-given abilities for the good of humankind and “to have compassion on those in need and to help in the healing mission” (4), and medical research is seen as directed at healing and at preventing disease and suffering. If transgenic technology can be used for these purposes, it would seem to be in the realm of Christian activity.

Ethical issues raised by scientific risks:

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the scientific risks of transgenics, except as far as they raise ethical concerns.

However, the possibility of transgenics playing a role in the development of new viruses is against our sense of stewardship in safeguarding the well-being of our planet. Xenotransplantation , which is the transfer of living cells, organs or tissues from a non-human animal source into a human (5), is currently under discussion in the public arena. The ethical, spiritual and cultural issues that are important in the xenotransplantation dialogue are also important in the reverse situation of the transfer of human genes into other organisms. In particular, the risk of xenosis, i.e. a virus from the donor animal being changed as a result of its implantation in a human, raises questions of the risk of new viruses being developed and so creating human pathogens (6). There is a risk of reverse xenosis in transgenics, in that the transfer of human genes into other animals could similarly initiate the development of new viruses. . These scientific concerns raise ethical issues related to our responsibility to care for the creation that God has provided for us. As part of creation, we also understand that we are connected with the created world so that what affects this world will also affect humanity as well.

Cultural dimensions:

Culture can be seen as the contextual expression of beliefs particular to groups of people. Within New Zealand we have a multicultural population and a bicultural commitment through the Treaty of Waitangi and so our context is very diverse. To some extent we are in fact determining a new cultural context that holds together the tension between progress and the diversity of beliefs. Some of those concepts that we have expressed in terms of sanctity and stewardship would in Maoridom be seen as an awareness of mauri and a concern for kitiakitanga. It is the responsibility of the Crown to listen to the traditional views of Maori groups concerning GE issues. The Treaty of Waitangi also protects the rights of non-Maori and the cultural and spiritual values of both parties to the Treaty need to be respected.

In Maoritanga, it is a cultural offence to mix genes of different species, constituting an affront to the mauri inherent to whakapapa. Genetic manipulation, especially interspecies or those involving the use of the human genome, is seen as culturally insensitive. Maori beliefs regarding transgenics are discussed in a paper elsewhere in this publication. Those involved in GM technology have a responsibility to have meaningful discussions with Maori and to work within parameters that take into account their cultural beliefs

In considering cultural and spiritual beliefs of the whole New Zealand community, it is important that recognition be given to the widespread intuitive unease about the transfer of human genes to other organisms, especially to higher animals. The extent of this concern is related to the purpose for which the work is being done, as discussed earlier. The nature of the organism and its position in the animal kingdom are also important factors. Thus it is possible to construct a continuum of organisms, with single-cell organisms such as viruses, bacteria and yeasts at one end, and highly developed organisms with obvious similarities to humankind at the other end. The beliefs of the individual would tend to fix the position at which transfer of human genes is acceptable at differing positions on this continuum. However, for many the point of acceptability might be found somewhere closer to mice and not as far to one extreme as primates. It seems that the closer we get to simple organisms the more applicable are the reductive views according to which scientific reason tends to look at organisms as merely being complex biological mechanisms.

A significant issue here is whether the organism into which human genes are to be transferred is part of the human food chain. In recognition of scientific and cultural concerns the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (7) recommended that wherever possible , non-food animals, or animals less likely to find their way into the food chain, be used as bioreactors rather than animals that are a common source of food. There are important reasons which justify this stance.

Firstly, to many people the possibility of eating an animal into which human genes have been inserted is unacceptable for spiritual and cultural reasons. The term “symbolic cannibalism” can be used to describe these concerns. From the Maori perspective, if human genes are inserted into an animal, that animal has a particular relationship to humans following that event. This is evident in the concern about what happens to discarded animals or animal offal in the Ruakura experiments related to the production in cows’ milk of human proteins which may be useful in multiple sclerosis research. The claim that human genes are not in fact used, and that synthetic copies of human genes are inserted, does not allay the concerns, and while it may be scientifically accurate, is considered by opponents of transgenics to be manipulative claims made by the scientific community. What is at stake is the intermingling of that mauri which is distinctly human and that found in other creatures.

Secondly, there is concern that the human genes transmitted into animals may produce proteins which will be harmful if introduced into the human food chain. The role of prions in variant Jacob-Creutzfeld disease is an example where cannabilism through feeding and rearing practices affected the whole food chain. There is a perceived risk that bioreactors which are part of the food chain may become available for human consumption. This may happen inadvertently or by deliberate intent, perhaps for financial gain, and there is evidence in the literature that the sale of transgenic animals for food has occurred (8).

We do not know the full implications of these sentiments for public policy. However, the transfer of human genes into higher animals should only be approved where highly focussed benefit is expected and after consultation in depth with the NZ community. Serious consideration should be given to restricting the use of organisms as bioreactors to produce human proteins to organisms which are not part of the food chain, in keeping with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on GM.

Spiritual dimensions:

The term “Spiritual’ relates to a set of beliefs held by an individual or group. In fact, it is extremely difficult to separate cultural and spiritual dimensions in writing about this topic, and some of the comments which might have been made under this heading have already been made as cultural input. In the context of Christian spirituality, the core belief is in the existence of God who has revealed himself in scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Humanity was created “in the image of God”, being both unique and yet part of God’s creation. That we are created in God’s image provides purpose and meaning to our existence. It also creates special responsibilities to attend to the mysteries and symbolism of the faith, knowing that some things can be taken by faith to be important because we are not omniscient.

There is a general belief that the distinctions between species, although not absolute, are very deep-seated and represent major biological divides that define us as beings.

This is supported by biblical references to reproducing of species “according to their various kinds” (9.10). The extent of concern regarding the mixing of genes between human and other species by the transfer of human genes into other organisms is magnified as the extent of the transfer increases. It is reported that “the current trend is to insert more and more human DNA into an animal of another species” (11) The transfer of a single human gene into a non-food-chain animal to produce one particular protein is not as major a concern although still significant, as the transfer of many genes. The transfer of genes which cause phenotypic (observable) changes so that the transgene shows human characteristics is completely unacceptable to many people and is against Christian and Maori spirituality. At the extreme end of the spectrum is the production of hybrid organisms by the fusion of human and non-human gametes . This would be seen as an affront to Maori in terms of their concept of mauri and as problematic in terms of the Christian belief that humans are created in the image of God, which retains a perception of humans as being distinct from other animals. There is a common agreement that spiritual values require that the production of any human-nonhuman hybrid embryo should be made a prohibited action by statute.

There is a sense of awe at the conservative pace of change in nature and the stability of inheritance which is the basis of embryonic development. These dynamics reflect a very delicate balance of many factors and a slight modification may have a profound effect. There is a concern that transgenic studies and the potential modification of our own gene pool by transgenic engineering threaten inter-species boundaries in ways that compromise the distinctiveness on which much of our thought and attitudes are based. Many people believe that roots, origins or lineages have their own integrity and contain the basis of our belonging to families, groups, societies, and our own history. We have a responsibility to keep the treasure/taonga we have been given or inherited intact for future generations.

Our being and all of creation is grounded in God. Traditionally that grounding is seen to be in the fact that we are called into being by God (12), and this is related to the creating and sustaining activity of God through Christ. For Maori the Creator plays an active part in our world, and our spiritual values are acknowledged through our recognition of the many atua (gods) in our realm. Maori perceive the environment in a holistic way and see themselves as an intrinsic element of that environment. The holistic approach can achieve a balance and harmony conducive to abundant life .

The harmful effects of physical wrong doings and spiritual transgressions might cause problems amongst their people now and in future generations. Christians can echo many of these sentiments in respecting the hand of God and the limitations of human knowledge. Within this context we need to consider what types of action and intervention in our world are consistent with the vocation of humanity, and the church in particular, to be faithful stewards of that which we have received in trust.

References

1. Guilford, P., Hopkins, J., Harraway, J., McLeod, M., McLeod, N., Harawira, P., Taite, H., Scoular, R., Miller, A. and Reeve, A.E. (1998) E-cadherin germline mutations in familial gastric cancer. Nature 392: 402-405

2. Nicholas, B. (1997) “Gene Technology and Ethics: New Wine in Old Wineskins . Otago Bioethics Report 6: (3),10-13 .

3. Genesis. 1:26

4. Matthew 9:35

5. Cook, D. Xenotransplantation. . In Cutting-Edge Bioethics 2002, Ed. Kilner, J F, Hook, C C. Uustal, D B. Pub. William B Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK.

6.Jessamine,Stewart.2002. Certain peril?-A risk evaluation of xenotransplantation in New Zealand. New Zealand Risk Management Association Conference, 2002.

7. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Report and Recommendations 2001, recommendation 7.5, page 355.

8. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TransgenicMeat.php

9. Genesis 1:11-12.

10.Genesis 1:21.

11. Jones, N L, and Bevington, L.. Transgenics. In Cutting-Edge Bioethics 2002, Ed. Kilner, J F, Hook, C C. Uustal, D B. Pub. William B Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK.

12. Psalm 149;14

ICBC is concerned about the use of this technology and submitted the following points in a letter to the Minister for the Environment in March 2006:

“With regard to GURT, we note that the technology is not yet commercially available. The benefits of GURT are seen as predominantly applying to production companies as protection of Intellectual Property. There may be some benefits in the future in particular situations, such as possible reduction of volunteer GM plants e.g. pine trees in New Zealand.

“However, should GURT become available, our concerns are as follows:

1. If GM plants are modified so that seeds produced are infertile, farmers in countries where it is the practice to harvest seeds from one year to propagate them the following year, will be greatly disadvantaged. This will create a huge economic problem for such countries, particularly for those that are vulnerable and impoverished.
2. There is a possibility that pollen that carries a trait that will confer seed infertility after the pollination of the flowers could fertilise non-GM plants and in doing so produce infertile seed.
3. Pollen from infertile plants may reduce the production of fertile seeds by diluting fertile pollen with infertile pollen.
4. There are risks that influential financial interests may make it difficult for less powerful communities to choose the seeds which they wish to plant.

“We were very supportive of the government’s decision to ratify the Cartagena Protocol. This enables New Zealand to take part in discussions from a position of strength and to influence decisions for the benefit of the environment and of third world and vulnerable countries.

“We urge the New Zealand government, as a signatory of the Cartagena Protocol, to insist that all countries, particularly third world and poor countries have the freedom of choice enshrined in the Protocol. It is essential that countries have access to the best seed available, while at the same time being able to reject seed which includes technology that would limit their use. This is particularly relevant in situations where ability to propagate crops from seed harvested the previous year is a tradition and a necessary part of the economy.”

Are there circumstances in which it is acceptable to carry out research on human embryos, knowing that in the process the embryo will be destroyed? The purpose of research may be produce stem cells, which can differentiate into any of the different types of cells found in the human body. There are potential benefits in the use of stem cells for future repair of damaged cells or tissue, perhaps even the creation of organs to replace worn out body parts. However we have to realise that these achievements are in the future and have some risks e.g. multiplying stem cells may not be easy to control and may give rise to tumours. Other research may be directed at curing inherited diseases or other illnesses such as cancer, or to understanding and treating infertility.

Where will these embryos come from?

The embryos used for research may have been created during the process of IVF in order to provide a child for an infertile couple, and are seen as ‘surplus to requirements’. Alternatively they could be created from donated eggs and sperm specifically in order to be used for research. Another possibility is that embryos be created by a cloning technique, using a donated egg and DNA from an adult cell.

How shall we decide?

Our responses to these questions will depend on the value we place on human embryos. At one end of the spectrum is the concept that an embryo is created by God within an act of love, and therefore has a particular value due to its relationship with God and God’s purpose for it. Those who hold this belief generally will reject any artificial reproductive technologies and certainly will find research on embryos unacceptable.

The argument for using embryos created specifically for research is that such an embryo is on a different life path. If an embryo is created by IVF for would-be parents, it is intended that it become a child, and so its life story is directed to this end. From conception it is already an object of love from its parents and to destroy it is ending the life of a potential human being. An embryo created for the purpose of research has not been on the path to become a child and so may be considered to have a different value.

There are those who regard an embryo as simply a cluster of cells until it reaches a particular stage, perhaps implantation in the mother, perhaps ‘quickening’ when movement is felt, perhaps at birth when it can exist independently. For these people, research on embryos in the first few days after fertilisation would not be a problem.

Destruction of a potential human being or a source of hope?

In considering the embryo as a potential human being entitled to respect and mana, we are also constrained to remember that compassion is a Christian virtue, and that we need to take into account the possible relief of human pain and suffering which may result from embryonic research.
Where to now?

As part of the current debate concerning the use of human embryos for research, the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART) will release a discussion document early in December inviting responses from the general public, in preparation to their advising the Minister of Health regarding this issue. Whether or not we as Christians contribute to the debate, decisions must and will be made, and you are urged to think about the issues, and make submissions if you feel you are able to do this. Further information may be obtained from the following sources:

• Toi Te Taiao:The Bioethics Council at www.bioethics.org.nz
• Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology at www.newhealth.govt.nz/acart
• You are also invited to communicate your ideas and concerns to the Interchurch Bioethics Council at jarvis.ab@xtra.co.nz

Dr Helen Bichan

Dr Stephen Garner

Prof. Grant Gillett
Grant is a neurosurgeon at Dunedin hospital, Professor of Biomedical Ethics at the Bioethics Research Centre, University of Otago, Executive member of the Australian Bioethics Association, and on the Ethics Committees of the Royal Australasian College of surgeons and the NZ Medical Association. Prof Gillett has published extensively on ethics and is on the editorial board of a number journals, including the Journal of Clinical and Neuroscience, Medical humanities Review and NZ Bioethics Journal. His church affiliation is Anglican.

Dr Joy McIntosh
Joy is a reproductive biologist at Victoria University of Wellington. Her research interests currently focus on ovarian biology, together with a wider aim of understanding reproductive health and fertility issues for both women and men. Joy is part of the congregation and an elder at Knox Presbyterian Church in Lower Hutt.

Bella Ngaha

Rev Dr Graham O’Brien
Graham has a Ph.D. in Cellular and Molecular Biology (Canterbury University), 3 years post-doctoral experience in molecular virology (Auckland University) and a Masters degree in Theology from Laidlaw College (Thesis Title: Christian Spirituality and Bioethics: A Narrative Approach based on the Metaphor of Journey). Graham spent 4 years at St John’s Theological College (Auckland), was ordained in 2007, and is currently the Vicar of the Picton Anglican Parish, Diocese of Nelson.

Dr Briar Peat
Dr Briar Peat is a Senior Lecturer in Medicine and Specialist Physician, Auckland University Clinical School and Middlemore hospital. She is a member of the Auckland University Human subjects Research Ethics Committee, which reviews all research, from Auckland University which involves the use of human subjects. Dr Peat is a member of the congregation, lay preacher and Synod representative of the Whitford Beachlands Mission District Diocese of Auckland.

Mrs Deborah Stevens
Mrs Deborah Stevens holds the following qualifications; M Bioethics, BSc (psychology) and Dip Teaching. She is currently Head of Dept of Religion and Ethics at the Marsden School in Wellington and is also the licensed Bioethics Adviser to Anglican Bishop Tom Brown. Mrs Stevens is editor of Dialogue, Australia, a religious values magazine distributed in UK, Australia and New Zealand and has presented a papers on Ethics in the School Curriculum in New Zealand and Australian conferences.

Dr Alan Stewart
Alan has a PhD in Plant Breeding (Lincoln University) and has been plant breeding with PGG Wrightson Seeds (formerly with PGG) for 30 years. He now leads the international breeding research team on plant breeding using traditional and molecular techniques within the company. Alan is married to Susanne Spindler and attends the Durham Street Methodist Church in Christchurch.

1. To provide opportunities for consultation and dialogue with church members and the community generally on the ethical, theological, spiritual and cultural issues in the use of biotechnology.
2. To take an educational role for the Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches on the ethical, theological, spiritual and cultural issues in the use of biotechnology
3. To advise the participating churches on the above issues, and
4. To make submissions and comments to Government, to the New Zealand Bioethics Council and other relevant bodies on the above issues.

The establishment of the Interchurch Bioethics Council has enabled the churches to call on this specialist working group for comment, education and resourcing. The Council arose from the work of the InterChurch Commission on Genetic Engineering which was set up to make submissions to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

The ICBC was appointed by the Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Our role is to raise issues relevant to the ethical, theological, spiritual and cultural issues in the use of biotechnology in New Zealand. We also are charged with providing opportunities for consultation and dialogue with church members and the community generally on these issues.

There are currently nine members: Anglican (4) Methodist (3) and Presbyterian (2). We should point out that while we maintain good representation from all three churches, priority is given when appointing new members to selecting the person most suited for the position, bearing in mind the balance of expertise needed in different areas. The current membership includes expertise in science, ethics, theology, medicine, education and cultural issues. The appointment of new members is approved by the appropriate people in the three churches.

Seven meetings of the ICBC and one teleconference were held during 2004 and 2005. A large amount of work is carried out by e-mail communication. We have invited a number of people from outside the Council to take part in our meetings from time to time, including Dr Stewart Jessamine from Medsafe to talk on xenotransplantation; Dr Mere Roberts, who made an exciting contribution to our understanding of Maori perspectives on biotechnology; Libby Harrison, Group Manager of the New Organisms Group of ERMA and Dr Helen Bichan from Te Toi Taiao: the Bioethics Council.

Submissions on Government Legislation and Related Activities
* March 2004: Attended Bioethics Council Focus Group on the Transfer of Human Genes into Other Animals
* March 2004: Presented paper at Foundation for Research, Science and Technology on Impact of New Technologies.
* May 2004: Submission on Discussion Document on Use of Human Genes in Other Animals
* May 2004: Submission on Law Commission Discussion Paper on New Issues in Legal Parenthood
* June 2004: Submission on Discussion Paper on Review of Regulation of Human Tissues and Tissue-based Therapies
* June 2004: Submission on Nat. Ethics. Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction (NECAHR) Discussion Paper on Embryo Donation for Reproductive Purposes
* July 2004: Submission to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
* November 2004: Submission to NECAHR on Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis
* May 2005: submission on Xenotransplantation to Bioethics Council
* February 2006: Attendance at ‘Making People Better’ Bioethics Conference in Dunedin, with two members making presentations.
* November — December 2005: Participation in ‘Talking Biotechnology’ Conference in Wellington.
* March 2006: Submission to Ministry of Health re Guidelines on Using Established Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines for Research.
* March 2006: Letter to Hon David Benson-Pope, Minister for the Environment regarding Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (popularly known as Terminator Technology).
* April 2006: Member Chris Downs contributed as a ‘Scanner’ to the first round of reports of the Navigator Network News , sponsored by MORST.
* April 2006: Letter to Hon David Parker, Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues in support and in addition to letter from Anglican bishops on Climate Change
* May 2006: Oral submission to Ministry of Health on Guidelines on Using Cells from Established Human Stem Cell Lines for Research.

Talks and Publications
It is impossible and unnecessary to list all the talks which have been given by all members of the ICBC, both within the churches and to the general community. Talks have been given to church annual meetings and synods, at seminars, in church services and at lunch hour and evening meetings. Articles have been published in the local and national press and talks have been given on National Radio and Radio Rhema. We have endeavoured to reach church members by writing in church papers e.g. an article on the new Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill were submitted to Touchstone, Taonga and SPANZ.

Members have attended and frequently given talks at numerous conferences, including the NZ Bioethics Conference in Dunedin, the International Bioethics Conference in Sydney, Bioethics Conference in Adelaide and most recently Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Conference sponsored the attendance of the chairperson at the Talking Biotechnology Conference in Wellington. Most of these activities have been financed by members themselves or by sources of funding outside the ICBC.

In June 2004 we published our third study book, Euthanasia: Unethical Intervention or Death with Dignity?

Relationship of ICBC with the three churches
The ICBC relates to the Methodist and Presbyterian churches through CASI and to the Anglican church through Rev Dr Anthony Dancer, Anglican Commissioner for Social Justice. We have appreciated the assistance of CASI, particularly Julia Stuart, in the publication of our studies, and we were pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Paul Thompson, at most our recent meeting. The money required for operating the ICBC is provided by all three churches and managed by the Methodist Administration Office in Christchurch.

Conclusion
We are mindful that our brief is to consider biotechnology from the point of view of spiritual, ethical and cultural dimensions. Currently we are particularly devoting time and effort to research and consideration of spirituality and how it impinges on biotechnology. Graham O’Brien, who is an Anglican member of ICBC, is to do an Honours Dissertation on Christian Spirituality in Biotechnology, and will work with the ICBC on this.

ICBC study guides and submissions may be downloaded free from the CASI website, www.casi.org.nz or obtained by emailing Audrey Jarvis.

Please contact me if you wish to have further information on any of the matters raised in the report.

(Dr) Audrey Jarvis
Chairperson