Pigs, society and opacity

URL: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v407/n6804/full/407545b0_fs.html

Nature 407, 545 (2000) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

October 6, 2000

International agencies need to learn the lessons of the past about ill-advised secrecy.

The ethics and safety of xenotransplantation will be debated by experts, representatives of

governments and international organizations at a three-day meeting in Paris this week. One

likely outcome is a joint position paper and recommendation by the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Health Organization

(WHO). Pre-meeting information points out that, although clinical trials of xenotransplantation

are already happening (notably, of fetal pig neural cells and pig liver cells), the issues, and in

particular the risks of infectious disease spreading to humans, "have yet to be fully addressed

internationally". The issue is contentious, with huge private investment fuelling a rush to clinical

trials while others want a moratorium on trials.

But journalists will be denied access to the meeting, and must make do with a press

conference at the end. One lesson from the BSE crisis and the controversy over genetically

modified organisms is that transparency is the key to obtaining public confidence in the

process of drafting recommendations on areas where risks exist alongside scientific

uncertainty. Like it or not, the media (not all of which are mischievous or incompetent) remain

the principal channel for transmitting information to an increasingly concerned public, and for

analysis of the complex issues involved.

Moreover, in the public interest, journalists must be aware, at first hand, of the differences in

the views aired. International organizations have often published the proceedings of such

meetings only after considerable delays, and when the texts have been stripped of the more

controversial issues as national governments have been given the right to censor them.

An opportunity to remedy this has been squandered by the organizers of the Paris meeting.

Media participation at such meetings should be encouraged, and organizers should invest in

providing comprehensive background material in comprehensible language to help journalists

get up to speed. Openness carries risks: complex issues may be misunderstood or

misrepresented. But in the long run it is preferable to closed debate.

A request by a Nature journalist to attend the meeting met with the explanation that it was

originally to have been open to the media, but that this was vetoed by WHO and

governments, some of whom argued — incorrectly — that "journalists weren't interested in

spending hours and hours in meetings".

OECD staff appear dismayed by their partners' decision, and admit that this raises an issue:

the need for international organizations to develop clear and mutually acceptable policies

vis-à-vis media participation. Indeed, and not a moment too soon. Meetings of committees

that offer advice to the US government are required to be open under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. In fact, there is no reason that meetings of international agencies should not be

broadcast live on the web for all to judge. Both OECD and WHO have the technical capacity.

What is stopping them? Inertia, perhaps. But it is surely an obsolete notion that risk is best

handled in the closed corridors of selected 'experts' and government agencies, far from the

public eye.