| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can the hon. Lady say whether patients who have either Parkinson's or Alzheimer's--to give two examples--and their relatives, have been consulted about the Government's proposals? It is my understanding that the societies have not consulted their members.
Yvette Cooper: We have received correspondence from many people throughout the country, including those suffering from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and from different societies involved. As the issues have been debated over the past few years by the HFEA when it produced its report and by the expert group that produced the Donaldson report, it has been open for all organisations to come forward with recommendations and proposals. The hon. Lady should put her questions to the Parkinson's Disease Society and to the Alzheimer's Disease Society. The question for the House is whether, recognising the impact on those who are suffering from those diseases, accepting the proposal is the right thing to do.
Many people who recognise the huge benefits that stem cell research could bring ask whether it could be done in another way, avoiding the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that, surely, research on embryos should be avoided if the same research could be done on adult cells. I agree that the research should be done in other ways, where possible. In fact, that is enshrined in law under the 1990 Act. The HFEA needs to assess every research proposal presented to it before licensing it to ensure that the use of embryos is essential to the research.
We asked the Donaldson committee to examine that issue in considerable detail. It did so and concluded that, yes, stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, but none of them have the potential of embryonic stem cells.
Stem cells are available from a number of sources, including umbilical cord blood, some foetal tissue, and some adult tissue. Stem cells from bone marrow, brain, skin and blood have been used in treatment for many years--for example, for leukaemia. The view of the chief medical officer's expert group was that the long-term promise of stem cells from adult tissue could equal or surpass that of embryonic stem cells. However, to understand how adult stem cells work and to reach the point where new treatments may be possible, many scientists believe that research into embryonic stem cells is vital.
Embryonic stem cells appear to have the potential to develop into a far wider range of tissues than adult-derived stem cells. That makes them far more valuable in research and in developing understanding about cellular development. So there is far greater potential to lead to breakthroughs in a far wider range of diseases, and those breakthroughs could be achieved much more quickly.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Lady began that argument with the assumption--she stated it clearly--that if the research
could be done in any other way, it should be. Does not that very assumption imply an acceptance that there is something unsavoury or unnatural about such research?
Yvette Cooper: The 1990 Act endorsed the principle in the Warnock report that a measure of respect should be accorded to embryos and that research involving embryos should be subject to particular moral constraints and regulation. That is absolutely right. However, it did not state that any form of research using embryos was therefore wrong and immoral in principle. That was the conclusion in the 1990 Act, and it is the position that I take today.
The 1990 Act embodies the principle that, in every research proposal involving embryos, their use must be necessary to carry out the research, otherwise the HFEA will not grant a licence. That principle is embodied in the current legislation, but the Donaldson committee concluded that much of that extremely valuable research would not be possible without using embryonic stem cells. That is the crux of the matter, which hon. Members need to consider before deciding how to vote.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Lady saying that, had such research been possible, it would probably have been included in the limited number of uses made legal under the 1990 Act? Is she is saying that, once the research has been done, therapeutic treatments are likely to use not embryonic cells but those from adults?
Yvette Cooper: Clearly, not having been a Member in 1990, it is hard for me to comment on what the House might have thought then. However, the fact that, under the 1990 Act, the regulations could be extended to cover new, developing research shows that the House anticipated the possibility of new forms of research, for which there might be a strong case for extending the purposes of research. Had such research been available then, the House would certainly have considered it.
The hon. Gentleman's second question involves two elements. It would not be legal to use embryonic stem cells in treatment. The regulations purely allow the possibility of research using embryonic stem cells. Treatment is a separate matter that the House would need to consider separately. Many scientists and researchers believe that the purpose of carrying out embryonic stem cell research is to discover techniques and treatments that could be applied using adult stem cells, and that could be the holy grail that could allow huge breakthroughs in the treatment of degenerative diseases.
Many people have raised the extremely important issue of whether the regulations would give the go-ahead to cloning. It is absolutely untrue that the regulations would give the go-ahead to reproductive cloning. I want to make it clear that reproductive cloning is illegal. It will stay illegal. The HFEA will not license the implantation of a cloned embryo. We also believe, and have stated in the Donaldson report, that we want to embed the ban on reproductive cloning in primary legislation as well, because people across the country clearly find it unacceptable that we should contemplate reproductive cloning.
The creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement--so-called therapeutic cloning--is a separate issue. The 1990 Act already allows research using embryos created
by cell nuclear replacement, but only under the regulation of the HFEA. The cells must be used for research and not implantation. The research can be carried out only up to 14 days and must be for one of the same five purposes, such as infertility or contraception. The HFEA must be satisfied that such replacement is necessary to the research.The 1990 Act does not distinguish between embryos created through cell nuclear replacement and those created through IVF--the same regulations and constraints apply to both. Likewise, no such distinction is drawn in the regulations. They therefore do not make therapeutic cloning legal, because--strictly speaking--it is already legal, but only under the strict conditions of the 1990 Act. The regulations would simply change the purposes of research for which cell nuclear replacement could be used.
The regulations covering the use of embryos in research in this country--whether through IVF or cell nuclear replacement--are extremely clear and strict, and rightly so. Many people are understandably concerned that science should not simply march on unfettered by ethical debate. I agree with that and believe very strongly that such advances in research should be permitted only within a very clear and enforceable ethical framework. It is right, too, that Parliament pauses to reflect deeply on the changes we are proposing. There should be moral reflection as well as scientific argument. There should also be proper regulation in such a sensitive sphere.
I want to make it clear that the 1990 Act and the regulations will keep in place exactly that kind of moral restraint and regulatory framework. The existing controls operated by the HFEA will apply. In addition, in the case of cell nuclear replacement, the HFEA would need to take particular steps to satisfy itself that there are no other means of meeting the objectives of a research proposal. Couples donating embryos would need to give specific consent to their embryos being used for stem cell research, not just general consent to their use in research.
Mr. Bottomley: Can the hon. Lady tell us when the regulations will be laid before the House? Is that likely to happen during this Parliament or this calendar year?
Yvette Cooper: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer on the timing of the regulations, as that is still to be discussed by business managers, but the intention is certainly to do so during the current Parliament. The House will be given that information as soon as possible.
Finally, I ask the House not to regard this issue as an argument between ethics and science, because it is not. The ethical arguments cut both ways. On one hand, some argue that it is always wrong to carry out research with embryos because it involves human life. I respect those views. On the other, there are ethical arguments about the potential to end the suffering of people who are already alive by the use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. There are ethical arguments in both directions. We should consider for a moment the very real suffering that it could be in our power to end by carrying out possible ground-breaking research.
Among the many letters that we have received on this subject is one from a woman with young children who is suffering from Parkinson's disease. She writes that those considering their votes on this issue
- ought to have a word with my little girl and ask her about the value of life. All she wants is that I am freed from this awful disease so that she has a mother able to care for her throughout her young life, rather than one who is increasingly disabled by a disease for which there may be a cure if this research is allowed to proceed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |