Lawyers push for new agency to keep up with science

The Australian Law Reform Commission may recommend the Howard government create an Australian equivalent of the UK Human Genetics Commission.

The ALRC's current inquiry is weighing the benefits of access to genetic information against community concerns about ethical uses of such information, plus questions of privacy protection and unfair discrimination.

It is not scheduled to finalise its recommendations to the Attorney-General until next March.

But the usefulness of an advisory body to keep policy-makers up to date with the pace of advances in life sciences has already emerged clearly, says law reform commissioner Brian Opeskin.

"What we have heard from many quarters is that science is changing so rapidly, the challenge is to find [policy-making] processes that aren't outdated before the ink is dry," Opeskin said.

"We are looking favourably at the idea of a permanent advisory body that could inform government about issues related to genetics on an ongoing basis as they happen.

"It is necessary for government to find a flexible mechanism by which it can stay abreast of issues so its policy responses are appropriate and timely."

The inquiry has not given detailed thought to the composition and structure of the permanent advisory body, but is leaning toward an interdisciplinary body modelled on the Human Genetics Commission created in the UK in 1999.

The HGC has between 16 to 20 members on its main committee, drawn from medicine, bioscience, law, social work, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

It is an independent body designed to advise government ministers wrestling with the implications of current and potential developments in human genetics.

If the law commission inquiry does recommend such a body, it does not envisage it will clash with existing agencies such as the Office of the Gene Regulator.

The OTGR's mandate concerns genetically modified organisms, whereas the new group would deal specifically with human genetics.

Rather than conflicting with the existing framework, it would run on a parallel but separate course, Opeskin suggested.

It would need to be constituted with a broad membership capable of dispensing advice across a range of matters from scientific questions to insurance and actuarial issues, he said.