In all the hullabaloo leading up to Bottler Brown's characteristically decisive "They can vote against it and then they must vote for it" compromise (can Ruth Kelly et al really persuade themselves that's a principled solution?), attention has been diverted from the merits of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill, and in particular the science base.
It's all very well to warn opponents of the Bill not to overstate their case, but that must apply to all sides of the argument. Arguably there is an even greater onus on the proponents of change, to justify extending the law, with such serious issues at stake.
It is often asserted that embryo stem cell research, and now animal-human hybrid embyos, could lead to cures for conditions such as MND and Alzheimer's. Those claims undoubtedly raise the hopes of patients and families. But how real are they? Peter Saunders, who opposes the Bill, says the government's focus on embryo stem cell research is a dead end street:
"Human embryonic stem cells are yet to provide a single therapy for any human disease....(whilst) adult stem cells provide therapies for over 80 diseases...The reality is that most scientists worldwide have now abandoned therapeutic cloning and animal-human hybrids and are turning to adult stem cells."
This week's Spectator notes:
"On the question of hybrids, for instance, it is far from clear that this research — exciting, no doubt, to scientists — is as urgently needed as has been claimed. In his evidence to the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Bill, the government’s own Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, said that ‘there was no clear scientific argument as to why you would want to do it, and, secondly, a feeling that this would be a step too far as far as the public are concerned... the scientific arguments for wanting to do it are not particularly strong or convincing, or even existent’."
We can understand why people affected by these conditions might want to lift any and every stone to see if there's a cure underneath. But every research project funded carries an opportunity cost in terms of other (possibly less glamorous?) projects left unfunded. We should consider why Britain is the only nation rushing to legislate to permit this sort of research.
I am not a scientist, and make this post in a spirit of genuine enquiry. What is the evidence that embryos and animal-human hybrids represent our best hope for research? Simply asserting that we must not stand in the way of progress seems to me to be insufficient.
