Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

April 1, 2008

Embryology research is controversial...

But would you refuse the treatment?

Colin Blakemore

I have vivid memories of the announcement of the first human heart transplantation in 1967. After an almost unseemly race to be the first doctor to attempt a transplant, it was carried out by Christiaan Barnard. His background research - the justification for undertaking such a dangerous procedure - was thin, to say the least. And his preparation for the operation was almost devoid of an ethical or legal framework. When it came to the decision to proceed, Barnard said “I didn't even inform the hospital authorities that I was going to do the operation”.

How different medical research is today, with its strict legislation, ethics and governance committees and regulatory agencies. This concern with regulation is behind the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. In the light of advances in scientific knowledge, the Bill seeks to update Britain's legal framework for this area of medical research. There is a need to maintain openness and strict control in a field of research that raises sensitivities and which could, without a proper code of practice, be abused.

The part of the Bill that has provoked most concern from some (but not all) religious leaders covers the combination of human and animal material. It is claimed that such research is of “Frankenstein proportion”, touching “on the sacredness of human life, its meaning and purpose” and (from an Anglican Bishop) plays “games with... humanity”.

The image conjured up is of fully formed, half-human, half-animal monsters. Yet the Bill forbids any attempt to make such things. A key technique acknowledged in the Bill, already permitted under existing law, is the formation of “cytoplasmic hybrids”, involving the insertion of the nucleus of a single human cell into the empty egg of, say, a rabbit. The resulting cell, although it does not result from fertilisation and its genetic material is almost entirely derived from the adult donor, has the characteristics of an embryo. It divides and, most significantly, stem cells can be collected from it for research. The Bill would prevent such “human admixed embryos” from being maintained for more than 14 days, when they would be a tiny ball of a few hundred cells no bigger than a pin point. And they could not, of course, be implanted.

One of the advantages is that this technique allows the production of stem cells for research without the use of human eggs or normal human embryos. The study of stem cells that are known to carry disease genes is likely to give valuable insight into terrible diseases, and may be useful in the production and testing of potential new treatments.

Some critics imply that research on adult stem cells (for instance from bone marrow) could substitute for all the use of embryonic stem cells. My research colleagues strongly deny this, but see the possibility that knowledge from stem-cell research might increase the potential for the therapeutic use of adult stem cells. Some point to the recent development of methods to transform ordinary adult cells into cells with the characteristics of embryonic stem cells. But these techniques involve viral infection and genetic modification, which makes many nervous about the utility of such cells. However, research on embryonic stem cells will undoubtedly help us to do more with adult cells.

Transgenic mice that carry human genes are another form of human-animal combination (although not covered by this Bill). Such animals, carrying genes that produce such conditions as Huntington's disease and Down's syndrome, are already playing a vital role in research. I don't think that most people would see such strains of mice, whose cells carry a fragment of human DNA, as offensive monsters.

Last week I wrote a letter to The Times suggesting that a discussion between religious leaders, concerned MPs and representatives of the scientific community could provide a way forward. I do not think that scientists should challenge the spiritual leadership of the clergy, but they can provide authoritative information that should play a part in underpinning ethical judgments. Jim Devine, a Catholic Labour MP, independently made a similar proposal. I am delighted that several leading scientists have already volunteered and officials from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales have offered to help to organise such discussions.

What should not be forgotten is that many people see a strong moral argument for this area of science, and the dedication and motivation of the British stem-cell researchers that I know is beyond question. There can be no guarantees, but stem-cell research does offer a radical new approach to the understanding of dreadful, currently incurable diseases, such as diabetes, Parkinson's, and motor neurone disease. And it could lead to new treatments as revolutionary as heart transplantation was in 1967. This is why the Association of Medical Research Charities and the Genetic Interest Group, representing more than 220 medical charities and patient groups, have asked MPs to support the Bill.

I suspect that some people who were originally shocked by Barnard's work are among the 4,000 who are now saved every year by heart transplantation. I would ask those religious leaders who are nervous about the Bill to consider whether they would instruct their congregations to refuse any new treatments for horrific diseases that flow from the kind of research that it will regulate.

Colin Blakemore is a professor of neuroscience and a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council. This article first appeared in The Tablet, the Catholic weekly

No, dear lady I can tell you that I would not feel differently.

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance (CELLS); and in your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. (14 DAYS)

W. Andrews, Austin, Tx,

We are talking CELLS here.
Perhaps if you had a 32 year old son with Parkinson's Disease you would feel differently.

moira, Peterborough,

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; 16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

W. Andrews, Austin, Tx,

What is never discussed is that not all stem cells are created equal. There are other sources of stem cells that do not have such ethical implications and have given more promising results. That said, why WOULD you destroy embryos to do the research you could do on somatic cells or stem cells from other sources? That's the question, not the emotive and ridiculous one of whether or not one should refuse treatment, bringing this down to a rant against religious people (which is not at all beneficial to anyone).

L. Smith, Cincinnati, USA

A cybrid (cytoplasmic embryo) is a clone of a person using an enucleated animal egg. Have you considered whose progeny this would be?

Michael, Farnham Common,

"A circular from the Vatican telling all Catholics to refuse treatments developed in this way or be excommunicated might give them some 'moral authority'"

Let's be clear. We are not talking about a treatment developed 'in this way', we are talking about creating human life to destroy it for research. There is no moral authority required except the basic human values that human beings have elevated since time immemorial.

Human life is of value. You don't use people. You don't create human life to destroy and abuse it.

It's not a matter of religion. Its a matter of being properly human. To even think that we should create human life for business ends - and it is business - may or may not be immoral, but it is certainly inhuman.

If we can create embyronic life to help sick people, then why not use one baby to help thousands. Why not use mentally disabled people to harvest organs for the sick but mental abled? If we just use maths then anything is possible - but it's inhuman.

Steve, Portsmouth,

I think the key words are that the resulting cell 'does not result from fertilisation' and has the 'characteristics of an embryo' in that it divides. Do the antis feel the same way about someone donating skin cells to be cultured and grown for burns treatments? Do they really not use animal and human-tested shampoo, or refuse medical treatments not mentioned in the holy texts?Too busy living in caves and praying to the sun I suppose. The Earth is only 4,000 years old, it's also flat and the sun goes around it, not the other way around, all diseases can be cured through prayer if you pray hard enough and those of us that survive childbirth and infancy should be grateful if we reach the 'natural' age of 30 before dying of toothache or appendicitis. I vote that we should create some island community for them where they can all go live in the Middle Ages, much like the Taliban are dreaming of. After all it works for the Amish, right?

ash, freetown,

it matters not how many acts of parliment are passed , it wont stop stem cell research being done abroad mainly in third world countries would welcome research labs and facilities bult in their country , any results could be e.mailed to uk in minutes for evaluation and direction. the uk govt has no power to stop it . and we may have to pay to use the results if any medical use is made from the results

MAX BERNSTEIN, london, uk..

A cluster of cells is not a person, only a potential person. Unless you believe it is infused with "the Holy Spirit". As an atheist I don't accept the existence of any such entity. These experiments are morally legitimate & will be done in order to relieve suffering from disease. To those who say we should not "play god", I'd reply that since god has been conspicuous by his absence, we have to take on responsibilty for these matters ourselves, as best we can.

John B, London, UK

I have very grave reservations about the idea that a 14-day embryo constitutes a human being.

Indeed, the idea is utterly ridiculous.

Yes, the embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a human being, given that the pregnancy carries to term.

But at 14-day, when it's a small mass of only a few hundred cells, it most certainly isn't human.

It would be akin to trying to suggest that a kernel of maize is the whole plant. Yes, it can grow to become one, but it simply isn't.

I do so wish that the 'anti' brigade could come away from their over-active emotions and start to think with their heads - given that they have the raw material needed to have cogent thoughts, that is.

Chris Palmer, Winchester,

As a Type 1 Diabetic, I think any avenue of research that could possible, sometime in the future, provide a cure should be persued.
Any objections from healthy clergy of any persuasion should be completely ignored. They are not the ones needing the cure, I AM !!!
I am sure there are many with illnesses that can benefit from this research, and it is utterly unfair to deny the sufferers a possible cure on ethical reasons.
So what if the stem cell comes from a pig, a monkey or a rabbit. if it could cure us I am all for it.

Natasha Andresen, Los Barrios, Spain

As most comments reflect, all the aversions to stem cell treatments are taken from a clean untroubled stance unaffected by personal involvement in it. How often is it that people change their stance when confronted by the spectre of death or disease? Why are people religious in the first place if not to conquer death and the fear of it (of which leading a meaningful life is part)? The reasons for pursuing stem cell treatment are no less valid than the basis for the religions that seek to prevent it. The pope takes penicillin - does he worry about the bacteria it kills?

John, Knutsford, Uk

If this is a forum for debating the ethics of embryo experiments, why is it being regarded (Ross and Brian) as a forum for venting one's prejudices against the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church's position on embryo research appeals to Catholics, other Christians, as well as reasonable people of other faiths or of no faith. It starts with a recognition that the human embryo is a human being with an inherent dignity that should be protected. Human beings - whether they are young or old - should not be experimented upon for the benefit of others and then destroyed.

Of course, it is more convenient to ignore the humanity of the human embryo and to treat it like a commodity. New things are not always a 'development.' The price of treatments developed through the destruction of the youngest members of our species is too high. It is monstrous folly.

In short, I would refuse treatments from embryo (stem cell) research.

Colin, Exeter, England

Th scientists who understand these techniques and their implications for research should have a forum to discuss them with MPs and indeed the public. I don't see the relevence of adding non-elected religious 'leaders' whose only qualification is their ability to believe iron age superstitions.

PJ, Chinnor, Oxon

All the scientists have to do to persuade most of us who have doubts about this kind of research is to texplain how they are going to ensure that can never be used for unethical uses. Because as things stand I don't trust scientsts and I am certain that if they ever are capable of producing animal-human hybrid beings they will.

Tam Earl-Aine, cheltenham,

Rather typically stupid remark 'would you refuse the treatment'. The trouble with Blakemore and other medico-scientists is that the tend to become messianic. They allow the altruistic emotions to take over rather than a cold dispassionate approach. There is as yet no cure, if there were and it was well established of course people would use it. What is of concern to the antis, is the setting out on a path of research which is, qualitatively and ethically in their view, quite distinct from anything so far carried out. The ramifications of thisf research could be very far reaching and possibly quite dangerous if pursued. The philosophical and ethical drift could lead down some very dark paths for the human race. This is always going to be the trouble with the Blakemores of this world with their tunnel vision and egotistical pursuit of research goals.They also need the salaries of course and so the funding has to be drummed up.
Again we see the danger of training without education.

F.Cunctator, lincoln, UK

I'm not going to answer the professor's stupid question (akin to asking "How would you feel about the death penalty if you had watched your family being murdered?") but I'd like to point out that one does not have to be a Catholic, or indeed the follower of any religion, to find the concept of animal-human hybrids repugnant, or to find disingenuous the claims made on behalf of the research by those scientists whose income depends on (public) grants for this very type of research.

Graeme Archer, Hackney, London, UK

Often the true nature of 'controversial' scientific research is lost beneath the wailing scream of tabloid headlines. The stories themselves are often written by journalists who have little or no science training or understanding.

Often research such as this has a very reasonable explainantion when the scientists involved are permitted to explain what is going on properly.

And I wholeheartedly agree that we'd all be better off without these religious nut jobs poking their 1000yr old attitudes in.

Olaf, Dundee,

A circular from the Vatican telling all Catholics to refuse treatments developed in this way or be excommunicated might give them some 'moral authority' (the Jehovahs Witnesses at least put their money where their mouth is on medical issues). I doubt that it will come. All that most religions object to 'on principle' is Science.

E Skelton, cardiff, wales

Colin Blakemore makes the all too common assumption that "curing disease" is worth any price, and that none of those who oppose human embryo research (including the creation of hybrids) have a disabling condition. In this he is wrong.

I run a group called No Less Human (NLH), for disabled people, their families and carers. We unequivocally oppose all research using human embryos. We recognise the scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation, and that from that point on, deliberately experimenting upon human beings (of any size or age) is unethical.

Creating hybrid embryos fails entirely to respect the dignity and worth of the human person. This is not a religious issue, but one of basic human rights.

I have several disabling conditions myself, and am a full-time wheelchair user. Like all the members of NLH, I don't want to be "helped" at the cost of the lives of the youngest of my fellow human beings.

Alison Davis, Blandford Forum, UK

Thanks Ed - I had the same dilema .... Should you say NO to treatment that MIGHT same your child's life because you are against animal testing ? ( this was in the 90')

Worse still .... because the hospital's view of you child is that he is going to die anyway .... why not try new treatment and see if it works ....
This is what happened to me ...

Now the question is .... is it better to test on animals or to test on people who are going to die anyway ?

Ariane, Reading, UK

Creating human life to destroy for others benefit is always immoral. It doesn't matter how many people might possibly - and it is possibly - benefit.

To create human life to destroy it is something repugnant to many people whether or not they hold religious views. Criticism of various religions as out of date or out of touch is without any weight. What is a present concern for many people is that real life is being created to be destroyed to benefit big business and other people with medical needs.

This would be a concern whatever my religious beliefs. I do not object to this research because I have been 'told to', I object because anything that kills human life for the benefit of others is immoral.

Frankly, the idea that the government and the scientific community should not be 'held back' is completely naive. It is clear that those who have bought into the idea that science has all the answers are willing to give up all of our freedoms for a nightmare future.

Peter, Maidstone,

I have the same problem with objectors to this Bill as with animal rights protestors. You are, of course, free to believe what you want and act in accordance with your own consciences in receiving or refusing treatment derived from methods which you don't agree with. What you should never, ever be free to do is to block the development of such advances and prevent other people the ability to choose the treatment if they so wish. Personally, I believe that any treatment derived from stem cell research that can prevent misery for countless patients and their families is worth the wrath of any hypothesised God which many, many people do not even believe exists.

Sophie, Liverpool,

A better question would be: "would your refuse the treatment for your child." Perhaps Andrew from LA can reflect on that. It is easy to say of yourself that you would or would not take the medication, that's your choice. But if if you make a decision for someone dependent on you then refusal is, I my humble opinion, distinctly immoral.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

Having watched my father die from diabetes and renal failure, I guess anything that might have made his last 5 years any better than the hell he lived would be more than welcome.

All too often, it seems, those who object most to bio-research (including pharmaceuticals) are those who don't have the disease in question. Or are so deeply in thrall to some senseless religious belief that they accept their lot as part of their god's test for them. Well, let them suffer if that what they want; but don't le them impose their suffering on others.

Having recently been diagnosed with 'metabolic syndrome' or 'syndrome X', a result of having chosen parents with bad genes, I have to say that if the scientists could develop some sort of treatment that could solve all the factor that have now gone wrong with me, I'D TAKE IT LIKE A SHOT! Especially if it meant that I no longer needed to take the 13 tablets I now condemned to take for the rest of my life.

An I'm sure it'd be much cheaper as well.

Chris, Southampton,

I wouldn't mind getting rid of my type 1 diabetes so bring it on I say, all these ethics based on principles and moralities according to religions which were created by people 2000 years ago ,who didn't even use soap or wash daily, is doing my head in!

Brian, Melbourne,

To put it simply, yes, I would refuse stem cell treatment.

Let them come back with understanding of stem cells, way way before they think they can come up with cures/therapies etc

Andrew, Los Angeles, USA

It is time for the malevolent presence of the catholic church in our society to be removed. In my opinion there is no place in our society for unelected religious figures trying to influence decision making. These religious figures have very little knowledge of the scientific benefits stem cell and other embryological research could hold for those who are not "blessed" with good health. Real progress can only be made when scientists are no longer held back by the views of these ill informed, irrelevent, old men.

Ross, Kilwinning, Scotland