This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

241420Z May 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 003497 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
PASS HHS WILLIAM STEIGER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TBIO UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UPDATE ON UNESCO ETHICS DIVISION 
 
 
¶1.  Summary and comment-U.S. Mission Health Attache met May 19 with 
Henk Ten Have, director of the Division of Ethics of Science and 
Technology, which is located in UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences 
sector.  Along with Ten Have were two of his staff, Sabina Colombo 
(bioethics) and Simone Scholze (Ethics of Science).  They discussed 
a number of ethics issues currently being worked on at UNESCO, 
especially bioethics and the ethics of science.  The secretariat 
staff insisted throughout that there are no plans for further 
normative instruments and made clear that they understood U.S. 
opposition to new normative instruments in this area.  Given the 
division's historic propensity for normative instruments, this is an 
area that will require continuous monitoring by the Mission.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  IBC SUBGROUPS-The International Bioethics Commission (IBC) 
(Note:  This is a non-governmental group of "experts.") is preparing 
a report on clarification of the Bioethics Declaration passed at the 
General Conference last fall. The subgroup meetings will be closed, 
since members want a chance to discuss things without concern for 
Member State pressure.  There will be another meeting of the Social 
Responsibility subgroup after the June meeting (note:  U.S. experts 
invited to present at this meeting, as well as an individual from 
the U.S. who is on this working group, are not able to make the June 
meeting but will be invited to participate in the second meeting); 
then a meeting of the full IBC (which also will have a report from 
the informed consent subgroup) in November. The IBC report will go 
to the Intergovernmental Bioethics commission (IGBC), where the USG 
will be able to make its views known, and then to the 
Director-General (DG) and finally the General Conference.  (Comment: 
 the danger is that some Member States might use the report at the 
General Conference to urge further action.  A number of other 
delegations make no secret of their approval for UNESCO's work in 
the field of ethics and take an expansive view of the Bioethics 
Declaration and see it as just a first step in making various other 
issues (social, environmental, access to healthcare, knowledge 
transfer, etc.) as matters of ethics.) 
 
¶3. NANOTECHNOLGOY-The division will soon be publishing a brochure on 
ethical issues in nanotechnology.  It will have chapters from people 
in Japan, Brazil, China, et al, but none from the U.S.  Ten Have 
said this is because the U.S. delegation did not think engaging in 
nanotechnology issues was a good idea.  He reports that the brochure 
will just cover concepts and will have no recommendations. 
(Comment:  Ten Have clearly missed our meaning, that UNESCO should 
not pursue this issue period.)  Ten Have also mentioned that Nigel 
Cameron has been appointed (by the USG) to a delegation dealing with 
the EU on nanotechnology issues, and wants to be involved with 
UNESCO on nano medicine issues. 
 
¶4. ETHICS OF SCIENCE-The recent Geneva consultation to guide the 
DG's reflection on the ethics of science (see paragraph 5) was also 
discussed.  Health Attache described U.S. problems with a concept 
paper issued before the meeting by a Professor Song from Korea. 
This poorly written paper also included unfounded references to 
alleged U.S. war crimes during the Korean War.  Though Song was not 
invited to the Geneva meeting because the Secretariat thought his 
paper was weak, he will be preparing the report, based on the 
consultations, for the DG, and then the Executive Board. 
 
¶5.  Ten Have and staff said that SHS was not propounding work on a 
normative instrument in connection with ethics in science.  In fact, 
the result of the Switzerland consultation (as well as an earlier 
one in India) was a recommendation that there should be neither a 
new normative instrument, nor an update to the 1974 Declaration; the 
1974 declaration's requirements are still valid, and the focus 
should be on making sure people know about it and on looking to 
implementation of it rather than on re-writing it.  Ten Have also 
said there should be research on how it applies to new problems.  He 
and his staff thought the U.S. intervention in Switzerland was 
"strong" in light of the fact, as he said, that SHS does not intend 
to do a normative instrument--neither a new one nor a revision of 
the 1974 declaration.  Health attache emphasized the importance of 
not using language or format (i.e., should we amend 1974 
declaration?) that suggests a normative instrument because states 
that want more normative instruments will jump on it. USG will be 
invited to the consultation to be held in Brazil. 
 
¶6.  At the 33rd General Conference last fall, the U.S. Delegation 
successfully obtained a resolution substituting a reflection by the 
DG on ethics in science for a provision that called for a 
feasibility study on preparing a declaration on ethics in science. 
Nevertheless, the agenda for this fall's 175th Executive Board (ExB) 
meeting contains an item that is entitled, "Report by the 
Director-General on the feasibility study on the elaboration of an 
international declaration on science ethics to serve as a basis for 
an ethical code of conduct for scientists."  Secretariat staff 
explained this was necessary because of the direction of an earlier 
Executive Board to prepare a feasibility study.  Their report will 
include a draft resolution to change the title; this has to be done 
or the item will appear at the GC under this title.  The Secretariat 
cannot make this change; the ExB must do it. 
 
¶7.  They are going to be doing three things in science ethics:  a) 
study of existing codes (probably 60 of them); b) consultations in 
the regions; c) study of the 1974 Declaration--is it useful; how 
make it work (they have received no reports on implementation of it 
from member states). 
 
¶8.  GEO DATA BASE-The division is willing to have the Mission's 
health attache join the work group on creating a legal database on 
how countries have responded to the issues in the ethics 
declarations as a health law expert, not as a member of the 
delegation.  The difficulty of finding the applicable laws in a 
place like the U.S. was also discussed.  They are going to prepare a 
database of the laws, etc. in 9 countries (they have 9 experts) 
where the laws are available in English but are not as complicated 
as in the U.S.  Health Attache stressed that the items should be 
listed as topics--not tied to articles in the three 
declarations--because states may do things before or independently 
of the declarations and also because it implies that a state has 
breached some duty if there is no "law" attached to the state's 
name.  It should be a database on issues, not an exercise on how 
states have followed the declarations.  (Comment:  This is going to 
be difficult for them to accept.) 
 
¶9.  EXPANSION OF THE BIOETHICS DECLARATION-Health Attache raised the 
DG's speech to the IBC in Japan (last December) and his November 
letter to IBC members.  The secretariat staff speculated that others 
might have changed the speech without sending it back to them for 
clearance.  They were surprised to hear that the DG was made to say 
that there was not much difference between the Declaration that 
member states agreed on and what the IBC had presented.  Health 
Attache pointed to the discussion in the caption in SHS Newsletter 
11 about access to medicine as an ethical issue like clean water, 
and they discussed whether this implied that it was an ethical 
principle or only said that it was an issue as to whether it was. 
The secretariat staff understood U.S. concerns that the Declaration 
not be expanded and that the U.S. will remain vigilant about 
language that gives comfort to Member States who want to expand it 
and use it to bring in a different agenda. Mission is preparing a 
letter to the DG and explanatory memorandum on this issue, and will 
send it soon to Washington. 
 
KOSS