Printed from: https://archive.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/submissions/?id=56
Published: 28th October 2008
On Wednesday 29th October the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has its final stage in the House of Lords. The House of Lords is only able to consider changes to the Bill that have been made in the House of Commons.
During the Public Bill Committee Stage in the Commons in June, Evan Harris MP inserted an amendment to the Bill (Commons amendment 92) which allows the use of 'anonymised tissue' from children, mentally incapacitated people, and people who have died to be used without explicit consent to make animal-human hybrids for stem cell research using cloning technology.
The effect will be the production of thousands of animal-human embryos that are 99.9% identical genetically to the people from whom the DNA was derived, produced by nuclear transfer (the same technique used to produce Dolly the sheep). These embryos once formed will be grown for up to 14 days and then destroyed in order to produce lines of embryonic stem cells for research.
This research has been justified on the basis that it is necessary to develop treatments for people with degenerative diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis.
The production of animal-human hybrids (euphemistically renamed "human admixed embryos"), according to the Prime Minister writing in the Observer in May, is "an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time millions of people".
The idea of using tissue without explicit consent was not part of the original draft bill and was first raised by Lord Patel during the passage of the bill through the House of Lords, and then later in a letter from research scientists to the Times on 21st January.
When Health Minister Lord Darzi introduced the possibility of using tissue without consent in a letter to Peers on 31 January he talked only about "a limited exception to the requirement to obtain express consent for existing stocks of cells and cell lines". He added that "it will be particularly important that the exception should only apply where there would be a significant adverse impact on scientific research in the public interest, if existing cells could not be used".
However the provisions which have been grafted into the bill by Harris in amendment 92 are much more lax. They allow the use of new tissue in addition to "existing stocks" and require, in the case of children and mentally incapacitated adults, only "that there were reasonable grounds for believing research of comparable effectiveness could not be carried out using the human cells of a person who could consent themselves".
Given the HFEA's past flexibility in granting research licences this effectively provides a blank cheque for research scientists and the biotechnology industry to produce thousands of animal-human hybrid clones of children, mentally incapacitated adults and even people who have died, without their explicit consent.
These proposals have understandably generated considerable opposition comment in the media from both right and left wing commentators, including a Daily Telegraph article and letter, a Guardian article and a Spectator blog by Melanie Phillips.
The Christian Medical Fellowship is strongly opposed to these measures for the following reasons:
These measures were not part of the original bill and have been smuggled in, largely under the media radar, at a very late stage in the parliamentary process.
Amendment 92 has never been debated on the floor of the House of Commons and although amendments were placed to neutralise it at Report stage (57-66 and 82) these were never reached either for debate or division. Parliament has therefore not yet had an opportunity to debate these measures and the public is largely unaware of them.
The use of 'anonymised tissue' in this way breaches historic medical principles of informed consent, that in research involving human beings the interests of the patient take precedence over the interests of science or society. Although some of those whose tissue is to be used will have given general consent for the use of their tissue for research purposes, most will not be happy that their tissue was being used without their explicit consent to make animal-human hybrids, using cloning technology, and containing 99.9% of their DNA.
The generation of stem cell lines from trans-species embryos should have been carried out first in animals before human research began. The requisite prior research in this area has not been carried out. If animal-human hybrids are to be used for research, it should not be done until research using animal-animal hybrids can be shown both to generate embryonic stem cell lines and for their use in research and treatment.
The potential vested interests of the biotechnology industry and of research scientists mean that such measures, even if they are to be considered, require robust safeguards to be in place to prevent the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people, and to ensure that public confidence in both Parliament and research scientists is maintained. This measure, introduced without proper consultation, will seriously undermine public confidence in both Parliament and research.
There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that this research avenue is likely to provide useful information about disease or new therapies. With the huge difficulties already encountered in animal-human hybrid research the Prime Minister's claims in May now look extravagant at best. Science has moved on, and worldwide thousands of people have been treated using alternative ethical therapies involving adult and cord blood stem cells, with thousands more clinical trials currently ongoing. In addition, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) – reprogrammed body cells – which were discovered separately in Japan and the US after the parliamentary debate was underway, appear to provide embryo-like stem cells without any need to destroy human embryos in the process.
We need to beware of the influence that enthusiastic research scientists and the biotechnology industry can have on these important parliamentary debates. The measures in this bill have been whipped through on the back of a highly effective propaganda campaign led mainly by two politicians (Evan Harris MP and Lord Patel), the Times newspaper and, playing on the gullibility of vulnerable patient interest groups, an uneducated public and scientifically illiterate politicians.
There has been insufficient consultation with the medical profession. The British Medical Association, the General Medical Council and the Royal Colleges have apparently not been asked for their views on these controversial measures and have not produced statements on them.
With reports of leading stem cell scientists leaving Britain this week because of inadequate investment in research using adult and cord blood stem cells, and with science changing so rapidly, there should be more caution, in uncertain economic times, about embarking on expensive unproven research that may well not yield any useful information.
These new provisions may well be open to a successful challenge in the courts under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That would be both costly and embarrassing for the government which has not yet given these provisions adequate pre-legislative scrutiny.
Many people already find the production of animal-human hybrids for research morally repugnant, for both religious and ideological reasons. In a multi-faith society we should not be hurriedly embracing technologies about which a significant proportion of the population has severe moral misgivings.
We urge the House of Lords to reject amendment 92 and to remove it from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Steven Fouch (CMF Head of Communications) 020 7234 9668
Alistair Thompson on 07970 162 225
Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) was founded in 1949 and is an interdenominational organisation with over 5,000 doctors, 900medical and nursing students and 300 nurses and midwives as members in all branches of medicine, nursing and midwifery. A registered charity, it is linked to over 100 similar bodies in other countries throughout the world.
CMF exists to unite Christian healthcare professionals to pursue the highest ethical standards in Christian and professional life and to increase faith in Christ and acceptance of his ethical teaching.
