| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend may be right, but let me put a point to him. Recommendation 2 of the Donaldson report says that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the body that would have to license the research, would have to consider whether there were other means of achieving its objectives. It is not just a case of the House deciding, when the regulations come into force, to add one more category of permitted research; it will be up to the HFEA, if recommendation 2 is adopted in the regulations, to decide whether there is a practical alternative for the purposes to which the research is to be put.
I do not expect my hon. Friend to go into this today unless he wants to, but I should like to know the House's attitude to recommendation 3, which concerns informed consent. The Minister may want to tell us--but perhaps not during this debate--what is the Government's developing view.
To many of us, the most important question is whether the public understand what we are proposing. If I thought that they did, I would find it far easier to support the regulations. Until now, I have not thought so, and I expressed that view at the time of the ten-minute Bill. I thought that the public did not have a clue about what was being considered--that only the experts knew. The experts may not necessarily be right, but what they have to say should be known by the public before we cast our votes.
Mr. Hammond: I suspect that other Members will have something to say about informed consent. It will, of course, involve issues of concern. My understanding is that it is proposed that all the embryonic material that we are discussing should come from the so-called surplus embryos created during the in vitro fertilisation process. That process has financial implications: many people have to pay. The issue of informed consent would clearly become mixed up with the question of availability of IVF for people who were willing to give their consent to making available their surplus embryos.
My hon. Friend seems to be saying that, in approving the recommendations, the House would abdicate its responsibility for deciding whether embryonic stem cell research is necessary, and would delegate that power to the HFEA. I am not confident that we would want to rely on an agency to make the decision. The evidence I have seen suggests that it can be argued that alternative methods of proceeding already exist. No doubt such arguments will be aired this morning, but I think that the House should decide for itself on the basis of the available evidence.
Dr. Harris: In deciding whether there is a reasonable alternative ready to be used now that does not require the use of embryonic stem cells as an intermediate research step, is the hon. Gentleman swayed to any extent by the view of the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Medical Research Council and the British Medical Association? All those scientific bodies think it important to allow the research to continue, albeit perhaps as an intermediate step, if the benefits of adult stem cell therapy are to be reaped.
Mr. Hammond: I am aware of the views of all those bodies, and have considered carefully what they have to say. Recommendation 2, however, states that
- the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should satisfy itself that there are no other means of meeting the objectives of the research.
The question in the mind of the uncommitted Member will be whether there really is no other way--whether the benefit to be derived is great enough, certain enough, and clearly unachievable by other means. We must be certain, because there is no turning back.
I have sought to set out some of the issues as I see them. At a personal level, I would like to place on the record the fact that I approached the debate with an open mind, and with no predisposition to believe that the issue should be determined one way or the other. I have considered carefully the arguments on both sides, and I do not believe that a case has been made with a standard of proof that is adequate to overcome my real moral concerns and fears about where this road will lead us. My current intention is to vote against the regulations, on the basis of the evidence and arguments available to me.
10.36 am
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): I think we are having a good debate this morning, and may continue to do so for the rest of the current Parliament.
I welcome the fact that new research and potential technologies are subject to debate here, and open to scrutiny, before being put to use. I think that the debate will precipitate a wide-ranging discussion to which the public will contribute vehemently, understanding the issues before forming a view one way or the other. Scientific and medical groups are agonising over these questions, and--as was suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)--deciding how best to engage the public in such detailed and technological debates. I assure the hon. Gentleman that
people are trying very hard to find out how members of the public can form opinions, discussing the possibility of consensus conferences and even focus groups. There is a great deal of activity going on, and no one has a brilliant solution, but the problem of getting the issues across to the public is clearly recognised.The public are not duped by technological language or, indeed, arrogance from politicians--as well as scientists and others--who purport to say what is best for them. They are quite up to understanding that.
It is essential that issues such as stem cell research and its potential development are judged on the basis of straightforward information, and not coloured by scare stories involving human cloning and the creation of Hitlers, David Beckhams and so on--stories that we often see in the popular press. Incidentally, I do not know that David Beckham is worth cloning after this week--or any Scottish footballer.
Mr. Swayne: Are not cases brought to our attention ad terroram, in order to persuade us that terrible consequences will follow unless we act, and that people will continue to be afflicted by terrible diseases? What we need is a clear estimate of the real probabilities of cures being achieved through the adoption of new research, as against the probabilities of their being achieved in other ways.
Dr. Gibson: I do not think that any scientist or medical expert would be arrogant enough to say that the issues are ever black and white. I do not think they operate in an environment in which it is possible to say that. What they can say is that there is a consensus that one thing is happening and another is not. We would not be able to turn the lights on if scientists had not discovered electrons and so forth and predicted that we might be able to illuminate our lives. One can never be sure, and the final decisions should be made not just by scientists and medically trained people, but by the public, politicians and others. Such consensual debate is the only way we can make progress during this century.
The language in this debate bothers me somewhat, as we hear references to such things as neo-cannibalism and the trivialisation of life, which do not help the debate. Such views have not been enjoined today but are discussed in newspapers and so on, and do not assist with the rational and reasonable debate which, I believe my hon. Friend the Minister agrees, we need to have.
Since May 1997, the Government have approached scientific and medical advances with careful analysis through inquiries, consensus reports, public opinion surveys and so on, and have adopted the precautionary principles in relation to, for example, mobile phones, as a mechanism for deciding to ban something or allowing it to operate under certain restrictions. In the past three years, the Government have specifically addressed the issue of trying to get a basis for making decisions. There has been a sea change in our analysis of and approach to science, whether that involves genetically modified food, telecommunication masts or other matters. We have been honest in saying what we know, what we do not know and what we need to find out. Science and medicine operate in that spirit at the moment. We need a cold interpretation of the data so that we can move forward.
On the issue of stem cell research, I make a plea to all the groups who influence our debate from outside. Will they please get their act together and give us one
document, as we do not want 50 documents all saying the same thing? There have been more diagrams of nuclear transplants into cytoplasm in the past week than nuclear transplants done in scientific labs in the past five years. I am fed up with seeing that diagram and want those groups to get their act together. I am sure that goes for those on the other side of the debate as well. It would be helpful for Members of Parliament to have one document instead of 100. We could take a leaf from the book of Congressmen and Senators who are lobbied not by pairs of people, but by groups of 300. It helps to focus their minds when everyone is joined together. That is a plea to the lobbyists who, no doubt, are listening to our debate.The terminology in this field is dire. As soon as one mentions therapeutic cloning, a series of David Beckhams, Hitlers and so on comes to mind. Cloning is a difficult term to define. One can clone cells, organisms, organs and so on, and it is important to know what we are defining when we discuss this issue. There is also confusion about the terms "embryo" and "egg", which are often used interchangeably although, scientifically, they are different. The literature that we get does not help us to understand that difference. If we are confused, the public will find it difficult to understand the difference.
Human cloning, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, is illegal and will remain so. There will be no more David Beckhams or Hitlers, even if such cloning was ever possible. The environment has a strong effect on the expression of genes. Genes are not everything, as one is brought up in an environment that helps to develop one's brain, organs and so on, and physical training also has an effect. It is therefore difficult to say that the same genes make different people the same type of person, and we should put that idea to bed immediately.
As has often been said and, I am sure, will be said again, stem cells can be developed into specialised cells that make up organs and tissues such as kidneys, skin, liver and brain. We have a lot to learn in that field, as there is much that we do not understand about growth factors and how we can use them interchangeably to stimulate cells to move in a certain direction. There is much to be done in relation to both adult and embryonic cells. There is not an either/or situation, as there is serious research into adult cells and embryonic cells, which will move us towards the ends that Members on both sides of the House are trying to meet. I shall explain later why I think that, at this stage, the embryonic cell usage argument is much more productive and more likely to lead to an understanding which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, will we hope in turn lead to the holy grail of using someone's own adult cells to replace his or her defunct tissue.
Research at the Johns Hopkins university in Baltimore, Maryland has produced interesting results with immature stem cells that were injected into the spinal fluid of rats and mice that were unable to walk because of neuro-cell degeneration. In humans, that condition is called spinal muscular atrophy. Fifty per cent. of the mice and rats recovered the ability to walk. Research into Parkinson's disease and so on has dealt with locating specific cells in a brain or organ that one wants to repair but, in this case, the whole spinal cord showed effects that operated in a normal manner, so there was a spread-out effect. We do not understand that mechanism but clearly it is an exciting development.
Anita McCaulay, the executive director of the Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, said of the research:
- This is exciting news and will be well received by families of people with the condition.
- it could make the day when SMA is a thing of the past that much closer.
Why not use adult stem cells? That argument keeps coming up. Apart from the fact that it is difficult to obtain them, as there are not as many in the human body as other cells, it is difficult to show good results with them. I have never seen any explanation for that in the literature, but shall put one forward. When a stem cell develops into an adult organism it is affected by ageing, which many hon. Members will recognise in their own bodies. Stem cells age, and part of that ageing process will be mutations and chromosomal changes. If one tries to use an adult stem cell, one is running up against nature, as changes have taken place in it. That probably explains why such cells do not work as well as fresh, young, embryonic cells. Work is going on in that field which I have discussed with eminent scientists. Indeed, they are looking at the changes that occur in adult cells, as that will contribute to understanding how the holy grail of using them will come about. We are a long way from doing that and, at this stage, the most exciting results will certainly come from embryonic cells.
Finally, I shall say a few words about the IVF eggs used to obtain the immature stem cells before the 14-day cut-off point, which will still remain. It is rarely pointed out that we are not talking about the small ball of cells growing in a uterus, for example, which are subject to hormonal influences and so on. People often think that a ball of cells growing in vitro in a petri dish or a test tube is the same as one growing in the uterus. I know that the ball of cells growing in the uterus has a potential to develop into a human being, but I also know that the uterus is a hostile environment and that many of the egg cells do not survive the vicissitudes of the uterus and all the biochemical events that go on there. That process is not often recognised, but it is a natural process that has been talked about for some years.
We are discussing IVF involving ex-utero cells in culture in test tubes which will be obtained by IVF technology and used with the donor's permission in experiments. Scientists will need a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to produce and carry out research on those embryos and cells. That will not be given for trivial research as firm regulation is in place, which will still operate in this process.
From past experience and arguments in this field, I know that some people think that that in vitro ball of cells has the potential for life like the cells in utero. I respect that point of view, but I cannot convince those who hold it that the word "potential" means just that, as they equate it with human life, humanity and so on. I think that potential means potential, and many problems can arise before that ball of cells develops into a natural human being, as many biological hurdles have to be jumped.
On one side of the argument, potential is associated with life and humanity. I cannot agree with people who believe that, as I think that potential means just that and
there is no guarantee that there will be a human being. There has to be a cut-off point and, in previous Parliaments and the country at large, the 14-day limit was argued for as the point at which one could make such a decision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |