This dissertation compares bioethics committees in the private and public sectors of the United States to better understand the similarities and differences between their recommendations and impact on scientific practice. Although individuals may assume private sector ethics boards are less effective or strident than public sector ethics committees, there is little empirical evaluation of this assumption. This project studies the missions, personnel, and activities of two private sector ethics committees, SmithKline Beecham's Ethics and Public Policy Board and Advanced Cell Technology's Ethics Advisory Board, and of two government ethics committees, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and the President's Council on Bioethics. The goal is to compare experiences and tensions across public and private sector bioethics committees (in terms of mandate, membership, legitimacy, and advice), and the impact (if any) bioethics committees can have on their particular intended audiences.
Investigating how ethics committees function in corporate laboratories and government agencies (and the cross-over of ethicists between the two sectors) will contribute to a broader understanding of how these boards work in practice. Through literature review, qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews, and theory-building, this project will contribute empirically grounded policy guidance about the constitution and mandate of future bioethics committees. Moreover, an analysis of ethics boards' contributions in both the public and private sectors will provide knowledge about their strengths and weaknesses, thereby potentially aiding organizations that wish to create more effective ethics advisory committees. In turn, more effective ethics boards may enhance the societal benefits derived from science and technology research and development.
