| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hammond: Could the hon. Gentleman help me in respect of recommendation 2? Does he understand the requirement to be that there is absolutely no alternative to the use of embryonic material or merely that it would be efficacious for researchers to use such material? That is the kind of distinction that I would have concerns about leaving in the hands of an agency.
Dr. Brand: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was slightly worried about recommendation 2, which could be used by those who argue that all the answers lie in adult stem cell research or alternative stem cell research coming up with the solutions. That is possible, but it seems silly to deny one the opportunity to get at an answer from a different direction, or much more quickly, if one can use foetal cells that are less differentiated and thus have much more potential to teach us what processes might work best in the more differentiated cells. [Interruption.] It is not convenience, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says from a sedentary position, but a way of furthering knowledge.
I am not a pure scientist; I think that humankind should be as informed as possible, which will, I hope, allow us to lead our lives and create our societies in a better way. However, as a clinician, I am concerned with the ultimate goal. We have had enormous breakthroughs in communicable diseases and sanitation and our next challenge--keeping people fitter, if not necessarily alive, longer, and providing them with a better quality of life--is to tackle some of these very nasty degenerative diseases. This sort of fundamental research is the only help that I can see. If foetal stem cell research helps us reach that goal five or 10 years earlier, it would be irresponsible, amoral and unethical, as well as unscientific, not to take those opportunities.
This issue will, of course, be a matter for a personal vote for members of my party. I know that some will not accept all the arguments, but I shall certainly recommend that they look at them very closely. I have no doubt that to benefit the greatest number and to take life forward, one should take every opportunity. Rather than destroy spare foetal material, which is what we are talking about, we should use it for the benefit of mankind.
11.6 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. However, I give notice that if the debate lasts until the usual time, I will have to leave slightly early to get back in time for surgery in my constituency, for which I apologise to the House.
I welcome the Donaldson report and the Government's intention to extend the currently permitted grounds for embryonic research to include the treatment for a wider range of human diseases. I share the concerns alluded to by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the potential for the deliberate creation of genetically identical individuals--reproductive cloning. It is frankly abhorrent. The idea that society or scientists in particular should be able to determine the features and characteristics of individuals prior to their birth strikes at the very heart of respect for human dignity and diversity. It is an idea whose potential might appeal to the far right or the racial supremacists; it goes against the very notion of equality among human beings.
I welcome the view expressed in the chief medical officer's report that the ban on reproductive cloning should be reinforced. That helps to close the door even more tightly on those who might find reproductive cloning an attractive scenario.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that there is undoubtedly concern among the public at large about cloning in general. I think that there is a fundamental difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Although there is a similarity between the two in terms of the medical techniques used, therapeutic cloning is entirely different in purpose, impact and motivation. It could, as others have said, generate the tissue for bone marrow for leukaemia sufferers, the muscle tissue for repairing a damaged heart or the neural tissue for treating degenerative diseases.
If reproductive cloning is about creating a particular type of human being, therapeutic cloning has the completely different objective of improving the quality of life of those suffering now or who will suffer in the future from a range of serious medical conditions. Although I recognise that there are strongly held opinions, I do not believe that there is any great new ethical issue here. The issue before us is not whether we should conduct research on embryos. As the Minister said, that issue was debated at length during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That legislation already allows research on embryos for certain medical conditions such as congenital disease or genetic abnormality.
At the time of the 1990 Act, no one envisaged the possibility of solutions through therapeutic cloning for, say, Parkinson's--certainly a disease, and certainly abnormal. If research on embryos is acceptable for promoting knowledge about the causes of congenital disease or advances in the treatment of infertility, why should we not widen the rules to include promotion of advances in the understanding of other human diseases and disorders and to allow the possibility of research to develop new cell-based treatments.
I do not believe that the Donaldson recommendations will undermine the sanctity of life, although I recognise that that view is not universally held. The proposals do not alter the special status of the embryo. Embryos of up to 14 days, the current cut-off point for research, are much
smaller than the head of a pin, and the 14-day point is crucial, because that is the earliest point at which the first parts of what will become the central nervous system can appear.We must recognise the importance and value of the embryo. The rules governing research on the human embryo must be tightly drawn, as, thanks to the 1990 Act, they already are. Given the huge potential benefit to health that stem cell research could bring, the value that we attach to the embryo should not prevent carefully regulated and controlled research, but may improve the quality of life of some of our constituents. If we close off opportunities for that research, are we not implying that we do not value existing life highly enough? Existence in itself is surely not enough. If the quality of life of some of our constituents could be massively improved by stem cell research, do we not have a moral obligation not to walk by on the other side--if I may use a Christian analogy--but to ensure that the research is carried out?
Another argument, made today by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, is that research on adult stem cells probably renders embryonic stem cell research unnecessary. Research on adult stem cells appears to offer exciting possibilities, as suggested in last January's British Medical Journal report. I hope that the potential is fulfilled, and that there will one day be no need for embryonic stem cell research. For now, however, it is far from clear that adult stems cells offer opportunities and possibilities for new treatments equal to those of embryonic stem cells.
Mr. Hammond: Has the hon. Gentleman just said, in effect, that we do not know whether embryonic stem cell research is necessary, but that if we wait and see, we may find that it is not?
Mr. Thomas: Information currently available does not satisfactorily explain what the possibilities are for adult stem cell or embryonic stem cell research. My point is that we should not close off an avenue of research into embryonic stem cell research just because adult stem cell research might be less controversial to the hon. Gentleman and others.
Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but we are not talking about closing anything off. The Government propose to open something up. Unless the hon. Gentleman can deliver an argument that stands up to scrutiny to show that that is absolutely required, what justification is there for suggesting that we open up a new possibility?
Mr. Thomas: The justification for opening up the possibility of embryonic stem cell research is that it, more quickly that adult stem cell research, may provide a solution to diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. To delay taking a decision on that would seem to me to be wrong. Given the expertise available to the chief medical officer and the conclusion drawn by his expert group that embryonic stem cells appear to have the potential to develop into a far greater range of tissues than adult-derived stem cells, we do not have the luxury of not allowing embryonic stem cell research.
The most recent medical study of the potential of adult stem cells by the Milan Institute for Stem Cell Research suggested that they were far more flexible than we had
thought and could give rise to skeletal muscle. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge alluded to that report in his speech. The director of the institute, Dr. Vescovi, thought that the findings were exciting, but added that at this stage his research was far from showing that adult stem cells had growth potential and plasticity equal to that of embryonic stem cells. He said:
- Common sense dictates that it is not possible to decide which approach is more promising until both have been explored.
- The softest route to hell is the gradual one, the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without signposts.
Hell means not knowing from one visit to the next what state the Parkinson's sufferer whom one knows will be in. Will he or she be on, or off? Will he or she be likely to switch on shortly? Will he have the confidence to go out to the rugby match that you know he has always enjoyed? Has he fallen over today? Is he sleeping properly? How is his mood? Hell, too, is worrying about those who care for the Parkinson's sufferer. Are they sleeping? How much are their lives being affected? What is the impact on their finances and morale?
Drug treatments have had some success in alleviating symptoms among some Parkinson's patients and in reducing disability. They can reduce the slope of decline. The most effective drug, levodopa, tends to lose efficacy after between four and seven years, and the decline sets in once again as patients deteriorate and experience unpredictable fluctuations in mobility. Another drug, selegiline, may delay the need for levodopa. Some think that it slows the progression of the disease, but it does not stop it; it just changes the rate of decline.
For those for whom the drugs do not work, or for those for whom the drugs have lost their bite, surgical interventions can make the decline more gradual. Pallidotomy means drilling into someone's brain to use an electrode to destroy the cells that reacted adversely to medication. However, that does not end decline; it just helps to manage it. Deep-brain stimulation involves electrodes implanted in the brain, which the patient can switch on or off as symptoms require.
None of the drug treatments and none of the surgical interventions currently available to us can end the misery for the Parkinson's sufferer. Some 120,000 people in the United Kingdom have Parkinson's. As the Minister said, up to 1 million family members and friends of those people live with Parkinson's too. An estimated 10,000 people are diagnosed with Parkinson's each year. Even the most encouraging analysis of stem cell research suggests that we are at least 10 years from practical application. As a non-scientist, I cannot know whether even that analysis is right. I do not know whether stem cell research--adult or embryonic--will ever deliver a solution to Parkinson's. However, we should allow those who have identified potential in that route the chance to realise the ambition of a solution to the disease.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |