Parliament's most outspoken secularist and humanist, fondly known as Doctor Death, is at it again. Under the guise of compassion for the childless, Dr Evan Harris is heading up an amendment to the HFEA Bill to allow babies to be conceived using artificial human sperm by anyone.
Harris's amendment would mean that when the science can actually deliver artificial sperm in say 10 years' time, no debate in Parliament would be required in order to sanction their use. So not only is he trying to exploit the science before it's out of the test-tube, he's undermining the crucial role of Parliament to debate and assess the impact of a future seismic scientific advance.
IVF has brought joy to many infertile couples. At best, artificial sperm could enable infertile couples to have their own children in the rare cases where infertility has arisen due to treatment for say cancer, and no sperm have been stored prior to treatment. But have we had enough public debate about further artificial conception development? When all the intellectual evidence and existential experience shows us that children do best when brought up by a committed mother and father, why are we investing so much in research that would eliminate even the biological need for a father? How much tax payers money is being spent on this research compared to the father-killer, prostate cancer?
There has been far too little overlap in thinking between science and society and it is in all our interests to change this. No scientific 'advance' is inevitable; it has to be sanctioned and paid for. We need much more discussion about the awesome opportunities that are on the horizon and to balance these with the needs, pressures and common good of society as a whole. This is a crucial role for our politicians and one that no one should let Harris undermine. An impact assessment on the health and well-being of children of research proposals would be a good place to start.
