The embryo predicament & dilemma

… The key in the ethical stand-off is by having an informed debate

THE possibility of mixing together genetic material from human beings with animals sends deep shockwaves of unease. Such an unease, that appears universal, should make people question rigorously the proposals laid within the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which contains controversial measures that would permit the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for the purposes of medical research.

The parliamentary disquiet was brought to public boiling point after Cardinal Keith O’Brien – the leader of Scotland’s Catholics – took the opportunity in his Easter sermon in attacking the Bill. It is stoic, perhaps, in certain instances that religious leaders argue a moral standpoint – core values are often looked for during ethical debates which affect all people when advances in science move the boundaries of possibility. However, rather than a measured approach, the clergyman has polarised the debate by condemning outright the proposals to allow human cells to be injected into eggs taken from animals as a: “monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life” that would enable scientific experiments of “Frankenstein proportion”.

Deliberately suggesting that ‘hybrid creatures’ would be created is misleading. The Bill, however, proposes taking eggs from animals – most probably cows – from which the cow nuclei is removed and cells from humans injected. The resultant effect would be embryos that are more than 99% human – would not be allowed to develop beyond the 14-days currently proscribed by law as the limit for research using entirely human embryos.

The scientists who wish to carry out this research argue that it will allow them to discover how certain genetic mutations are linked in causing neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s. For many people, such research, if successful, would not only enhance lives for those affected, but life affirming. The British government argues that the country is at the forefront of medical research, but if further plans are jeopardised or outlawed, such research would be carried out elsewhere, possibly even by British scientists working overseas.

Cardinal O’Brien believes that the potential for embryo based research has been overstated by scientists. He argues that research using adult stem cells has already produced effective treatments and should, as a matter of principle, be the focus of any future research.

The second reading of the Bill is not due until May (2008) when it will come before the House of Commons. However, in pre-empting that reading in parliament, what is urgently required is a properly informed debate involving scientists and ethicists. Advances in medical science has always raised ethical dilemmas, public acceptability of future scientific advances is an integral factor within this debate. It could, arguably, apply the brake if the public-consensus was strong enough to either deter or cancel future provisions outright. Acceptance can only come about through correctly sourced information, otherwise differences become polarised through inflammatory confrontation.

Sticking too rigidly to parliamentary procedures, as has been shown with this current row, can undermine rather than enhance democracy. It is entirely principled for MPs of any party and of any religion (or none) to have certain misgivings or objections to aspects of the Bill.

Allowing the free vote respects the conscience of every Member of Parliament. It would, also, separate the political from the ethical considerations.


Copyright © MarKat (Scotland) 2007-2008: all rights protected