| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Winterton: I think that I have given way enough, and I would like to make progress.
The chief medical officer's advisory group described stem cells as
- unspecialised cells which have not yet differentiated into any specific type of cell and tissue.
- proliferate with almost unlimited potential, maintaining a pool of growing and dividing cells, with the added ability that some of the daughter cells can differentiate into specific cell types.
It must be pointed out that the pathway of differentiation from stem cell to a specific cell type varies according to the cell type required. Without a clear understanding of such differentiation pathways, it would be extremely dangerous to implant undifferentiated stem cells into an adult human. In comparison, however, evidence now suggests that adult stem cells are easier to manage, and if transplanted into their normal environment--for example, brain cells into brain tissue--they will produce only the cell types necessary for the tissue. This information comes from an article by Vogel printed in Science in February.
One of the most serious criticisms of the Donaldson report is that it was already outdated when it was published. For example, it claimed that
- stem cells derived from early embryos have the greatest potential to develop into most types of tissue . . . stem cells can be extracted from some adult tissues but their potential to develop into other kinds of tissue is also likely to be limited.
Why at the press conference to launch the report on 16 August did the Department of Health spokesman--and Professor Donaldson in particular--not admit that advances had been made in the use of adult stem cells? In any event, research is now continually emerging from Scandinavia, Britain, America and elsewhere on the uses of adult stem cells, showing the Donaldson report to have been completely eclipsed.
Why did the Department of Health have to wait until this week, when they organised two emergency briefing sessions for Members--for which we were given totally inadequate notice--before it admitted that the long-term promise of stem cells from adult tissue could equal or surpass that of embryonic stem cells? None the less, it
still justifies its demands with a number of claims, including the assertion that many scientists believe that to understand how adult stem cells work and to reach the point where new treatments are possible, embryonic research into stem cells is vital. On what research do those scientists base their belief? Can the House be given the annotated work on which they base their claims?There are many other points that I would like to pick up in the latest documents that we were sent by the Department of Health this week, but there are many aspects of the work that I must cover. However, I will refer to the fact that its latest document appears to accept, contrary to original assertions, that a majority of research scientists now consider adult stem cells to be "pluripotent"--that is, of almost unlimited potential.
For at least a year, adult stem cells have been used either exclusively or in combination with other treatments to achieve significant health care benefits for sufferers of the following conditions: brain tumours, ovarian cancer, solid tumours, multiple myeloma, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, systematic lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, anaemia, stroke, blindness and immuno-deficiency. A number of papers demonstrating the therapeutic use of stem cells had already been published well before the Donaldson report was presented to the public.
In comparison, the only material published so far on the use of embryonic stem cells has been in the form of promises--the promises of salvation in the future. They have been made by the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the British Medical Association, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority--in fact, uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
The House will forgive me if I appear sceptical about the current efforts. I was a Member in 1990 when we were subjected to an almost identical campaign, which was exploited by many newspapers. The present campaign is little different. For example, despite the evidence regarding adult stem cells, The Times of 8 November this year reported that the Royal Society had produced a report on therapeutic cloning that suggested that
- there is no scientific justification for the rejection--
- and that to do so would send an ominous message about the future of research in Britain.
I hope that Members will learn from the 1990 experience. Fellows of the Royal Society, spokesmen for the Medical Research Council and other bodies seduced parliamentarians with their promises of cures for genetic diseases, degenerative conditions and other tragedies if experimentation on human embryos were made legal. Ten years later, we are still awaiting the realisation of those promises, whereas therapeutic advances have been, and are being made, by the application of ethical methods of research. Yet the empty words of the experts have resulted in the destruction of countless human embryos.
In 1990, at meetings in both Houses, fellows of the Royal Society and others told Members of Parliament that a conceptus was not a human life until the 14th day after fertilisation. Before then, it was only a pre-embryo. That propaganda ploy was used persistently in some newspapers and convinced many parliamentarians. However, once the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 became law, no more was heard of a pre-embryo. The term was dropped completely and many of today's Members of Parliament will be totally unaware of its usage.
As Members, we have to be more realistic in our assessment of scientists and doctors. We have to recognise that they are not above commercial considerations. We also have to recognise that the potential rewards in biotechnology are overwhelming. As already stated, the human embryo initiates, sustains, controls and directs its own developments by virtue of its ability to synthesise a whole range of biochemical products that could be used in other aspects of biotechnology. These can be extracted, refined, purified and sold to the highest bidder in the worldwide biotechnology industry. Such products could be used in many sectors of basic biological research and in the pharmaceutical industry. The Wellcome report, to which I referred earlier, accepted that several aspects of the scientific research would not, in fact, be "therapeutic".
The commercial pressures to give the go-ahead despite ethical concerns are clear. On 10 November this year, The Times reported that ReNeuron, a recently formed company whose shares had just begun trading, had raised £18 million and were likely to raise a further £3 million by an over-allotment option. It is planning to be the first to begin trials using cloned human stem cells derived from aborted foetuses. This is a case of commercial scientists seeking by force majeure to ensure parliamentary and public approval.
Moreover, although the Government assert that they are completely opposed to reproductive cloning--I imagine that everyone in the House must take that view--Lord Winston, among other fertility experts, has affirmed that
- therapeutic cloning will lead to reproductive cloning within twenty years.
In 1990, several hon. Members suspected that possible commercial interests might dominate some sections of the medical and scientific community. As a result, we tabled a series of amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 so that research on human embryos would be confined to the development of cures and treatments for genetic diseases and other problems for which scientists claimed that embryo research was vital. I know that many Members will not be surprised to learn that every amendment was bitterly opposed by the scientific community and failed to reach the statute book. We have no doubt that the same tactics would be used today if the House had the opportunity--which it does not--to table such amendments.
It is important to ask why Donaldson did not refer to the possible commercial stakes in cloning. They are well documented--and it was United States commercial scientists who first established a technique to keep embryo stem cells alive in a culture. To what extent was the motive for their work dominated by commercial considerations? Nobody seems to have posed the question, but the reply must be obvious to one and all.
When it is claimed by the Donaldson committee and others that our scientists will lose out if we do not give the go-ahead, we need to ask: if their sole interest is therapeutic, to whom will we lose out? As things stands, Britain is totally out of step with the rest of Europe in the matter of cloning. Cloning is completely outlawed in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia. In the last three years--between March 1997 and 7 September 2000--the European Parliament has voted for a ban on human cloning, and it was not just a north-south divide; Germany is the greatest opponent in Europe of cloning. The latest resolution called on the United Kingdom Government to review their position on human embryo cloning, and called on Members of Parliament to
- exercise their votes of conscience to reject the proposal to permit research using human embryos.
The Donaldson committee was preceded by a joint working party of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetic Advisory Commission. Its four members had all expressed pro-cloning views before joining the committee, and two had pecuniary interests connected with the pharmaceutical industry. The 14 members of the Donaldson committee also appear to be totally biased in favour of cloning, and their constant reference to the expertise of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the strict controls that it maintains is quite ludicrous.
The history of that organisation--or quango--demonstrates utter incompetence. Five years after the Act came into operation, the authority was forced to admit that it had lost all track of thousands of parents of frozen embryos. Since then, there have been many reports of inefficiency and neglect. Only last weekend, The Sunday Times carried a story that
- At least 100 women have been mistakenly implanted with another couple's embryos because of incompetence by infertility clinics.
- The HFEA denied that there were widespread problems in infertility clinics and said any errors were a tiny fraction of the total number of IVF treatments.
A number of members of the authority are also involved in the IVF industry, and for many years parliamentarians have complained of the fact that the poacher is playing gamekeeper. The history of the authority shows it to be incapable of policing cloning, which could have sinister connotations. Yet in its naivety, the Donaldson expert group promises us the "same stringent controls" on cloning as the authority has exercised over IVF and embryo research.
Finally, it is important to question the way in which legislation and changes to regulations are presented to Parliament. The change in regulations under the Act to allow human cloning for so-called therapeutic purposes
will be presented as an affirmative instrument. In principle, both Houses of Parliament will be able to debate the issue, but with a straight yes or no vote. There will be no opportunity to amend the details.It is outrageous that such an instrument should be used to make a major change to the Act on a matter that was not fully debated during the Bill's passage through Parliament in 1990. Surely that is an abuse of Parliament. I took part in the debates, and no one seriously considered the possibility of cloning. The Government, however, claim that the Act makes it legal to carry out cell nuclear replacement, one of the techniques of cloning. If the Minister cannot say today what section permits that, perhaps she will write to me.
In contrast to the manner in which so-called therapeutic cloning is being introduced through the back door, the Government's handling of reproductive cloning is altogether different. The move to strengthen our laws against that, as the Government claim to be doing, will be presented to Parliament as specific legislation. That will be fully debated and voted on, with Members given the opportunity to table amendments.
The whole exercise is futile, because reproductive cloning is already illegal--but that approach gives a positive spin to the Government's activities. It is obviously intended to make it appear as if they are taking action to strengthen respect for human life. Happily, many Members of all parties have become alert to that. I suspect that that is why this week we were offered two Department of Health briefing sessions, with only 24 hours' notice, which was probably a sign of panic. The Government have become concerned about the overwhelming defeat--by more than two votes to one--of the Stem Cell Research Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, and are aware that many Members are seriously worried about cloning.
Hon. Members recognise--just as the Wellcome report tells us that members of the public do--that a clone is a genetic extension of a living individual, and that aspects of the scientific research would not be therapeutic. Like their constituents, hon. Members are becoming increasingly concerned. I hope that they will stand firm and join us in opposing the Government's plan to thrust human cloning on the nation by means of an affirmative resolution. I urge hon. Members not to give way on this vital issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |