Abolishing (and Replacing) the UK HFEA

Posted by Pete Shanks October 28, 2010
Biopolitical Times

The UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is to be abolished. Since the HFEA is not only the body that regulates assisted reproduction, and much else, but has frequently been held up as a model for the US and elsewhere, this announcement sounds very dramatic, but its full effects are not yet certain. It's part of a massive governmental reorganization, which is scheduled to be completed by 2013 or 2014.

The HFEA (and related bodies) have officially been on the chopping block since July. At that time the Department of Health proposed to "retain it ... for the time being, with the aim of transferring its functions by the end of the current Parliament. In the meantime, we will examine the practicalities (and legal implications) of how to divide its functions between a new research regulator, the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Social Care Information Centre."

British terminology is somewhat opaque to many of us. The initial review covered "Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs)" while the October announcement concerned "Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies (ANDPBs)" -- both are defined here (scroll down). More generally, they are examples of Quangos (QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) or NDPBs (Non-Departmental Public Bodies). The review is intended to streamline government, and its announcement has therefore been called "The Bonfire of the Quangos." The term "Quango" was not originally pejorative, though Quangos are frequently criticized, and has over the last quarter-century become part of common British discourse.

The current proposals are controversial. Baroness Deech, chairman of the HFEA from 1994 to 2002, said:

"The HFEA is internationally respected, performs a vital function and only costs £2m a year. The cost of redistributing staff and moving computers around means it's just not worth it. This is a huge distraction."

Other critics of dismantling the agency included the former Bishop of Oxford (an HFEA member until recently), the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. To which the minister responsible replied:

"20 years ago it may have made sense to look at a single body for carrying out the functions undertaken by the HFEA. Times have moved on and we think that there is a more logical way to parcel out those functions which does not dilute in the slightest the efficacy or the efficiency of the regulatory action."

The BioIndustry Association (BIA), a trade group, agreed that the changes, which include abolishing the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), would be "a step in the right direction towards streamlining the regulatory review processes and creating a more coherent and robust framework with clarity of responsibilities for research regulation and governance." Pharma Times, in perhaps the most useful summary to hand, also notes that the Human Genetics Commission would be reconstituted as a Department of Health Committee of Experts, while the Commission on Human Medicines would be retained on grounds of impartiality.

The PHG Foundation, an NGO that promotes public health genomics, has a less rosy view:

The effect of these changes is likely to hinge significantly on the nature and remit of regulatory functions as devolved between existing and new regulators. It is not clear that financial savings will be made in the short term, though the Government says the moves will increase transparency and accountability. However, the capacity of public bodies to examine issues relating to genetics and medicine will certainly be reduced.

For the moment, the HFEA continues to go about its business. For instance, a public consultation on gamete donation and compensation policies will begin in January, with results scheduled to be available in May 2011. Chair Lisa Jardine was quoted in July as insisting that "the success story that is regulated assisted reproduction in the UK will continue."

Previously on Biopolitical Times: