Munich

In contrast to their pre-election promise, the Social Democrats (SPD) in the German parliament have declared their opposition to an all-parliamentary commission of inquiry on human rights and bioethics.

They argue that such a ‘commission d'enquête’, on whose creation parliament is due to vote next week, could delay the introduction of rules and legislation in the fields of biomedicine by producing lengthy debate on principles that have already been agreed.

Their position is strongly supported by the Christian Democrat opposition. But the Greens — the SPD's junior coalition partner — complain that refusing to set up the promised commission would be shirking a democratic responsibility.

“Advances in pre-implantation diagnostics and reproductive medicine are likely to shatter our traditional ideas of human nature,” says Monika Knoche, the Green parliamentary group's expert on medical ethics. “A democratic parliament has an obligation to take up such issues.”

Parliamentary commissions d'enquête, intended to provide broad advice to politicians, are set up only on issues with major impact on society, such as climate change, economic globalization or the consequences of demographic changes. They comprise members of all political parties, as well as representatives of relevant social groups.

But their work can be lengthy and time-consuming, and sometimes a final report, as occurred with that on technology assessment (Technikfolgenabschätzung), cannot be reached within a four-year legislation period. The wide range of topics discussed, and the conflicting perspectives of groups and individuals involved, makes compromise difficult to achieve.

Some argue that this makes commissions d'enquête a useful way of postponing political action, such as legislation. Furthermore, given the country's Nazi past, medical ethics issues are already highly sensitive in Germany, and its legislation is the strictest in Europe (Nature 389, 660; 1997 & 384, 5; 1996).

Germany is still hesitating, for example, over whether to sign and ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. It fears that its own laws, although not directly in conflict with the convention, could eventually be watered down by its less restrictive provisions.

For many Germans, the convention's main bone of contention is a clause allowing research on ‘legally incapacitated’ persons where there is no alternative means of doing the research.

Such research is forbidden in Germany under the Nuremberg codex of physicians. However, it is being carried out in what experts describe as a legal ‘grey area’ — for example, clinical research on oxygen supply during birth complications, with the consent of the babies' parents alone.

Ironically, the SPD's refusal to set up a commission d'enquête on bioethics reflects the party's attempt to prevent similar grey areas arising in other areas of biomedicine, such as germline therapy, genetic testing, reproduction medicine, organ transplantation or the cloning of stem cells.

Catenhusen: ‘sign European convention’.

“We should spend our time taking legislative initiatives where they are needed, rather than engaging in a cumbersome debate about principles,” says Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, the SPD's parliamentary state secretary in the Ministry of Research.

Catenhusen favours signing the Council of Europe convention. The convention's supplementary agreements on organ transplantation, embryo research, human genetics and medical research are now being discussed by the council's bioethics steering committee. Germany is involved in the discussions, but Catenhusen is worried about what may come out of these.

So far, the convention, approved by the council in 1997, has been signed by 28 of the council's 40 member states. Five countries — Denmark, Greece, San Marino, Slovakia and Slovenia — have ratified it, and Spain will join them in January.

Germany and Britain are the only large European countries not to have signed. “I feel that Germany should not be the last to sign,” says Catenhusen. “Otherwise we risk being excluded from the discussion process in Europe.”

The Greens, at their last party conference, unanimously voted against the convention. They fear it could undermine German standards, bringing them down to the levels of some neighbouring countries such as Belgium, where, for example, there are no laws on embryo research.

But some members, such as Jens Reich, a bioinformaticist at the Max-Delbrück Centre for Molecular Medicine in Berlin and the Greens' 1994 candidate for federal president, argue more pragmatically that, despite its weaknesses, the convention should be signed as it sets minimal standards throughout Europe.

Ludger Honnefelder, director of the Institute of Science and Ethics at the University of Bonn, is a member of the German delegation in the Council of Europe's steering committee on bioethics. He firmly believes that Germany's accession to the convention would “significantly increase its international influence”.

Despite the dispute about a commission d'enquête, there is general agreement in Germany on the need for continuous bioethical advice and monitoring. Catenhusen suggests that a national ethics commission, similar to Britain's Nuffield Council on Bioethics, should be established.

Werner Lensing, the Christian Democrat spokesman on bioethics in the parliamentary committee on research, agrees that ad hoc expert panels, which are used by the Nuffield council, would be effective. Just such an advisory panel, on the ethical implications of predictive genetic testing and reproductive medicine, was set up last week by the federal health ministry.

But Knoche insists that only a commission d'enquête would have the political weight appropriate to the scope of the issues in question: “Such a body is indispensable. And we would certainly not use it as a blocking tool.”