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.

BACKGROUND

• 'We are wrong on embryo Bill'

• Brown compromise over embryo Bill revolt

• Cameron: embryo Bill should not be misrepresented

• Q&A: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Would you refuse the treatment?

Stem-cell research does offer a radical new approach to the understanding of dreadful diseases

BACKGROUND

• Cardinal Keith O’Brien attacks embryo Bill

• Cardinal Keith O'Brien branded a 'liar' by Labour peer

• Catholic ministers to be given embryo 'opt-out'

BACKGROUND

• An embryonic disaster?

• Hope of therapy for Parkinson’s disease

• Matter of Conscience

BACKGROUND

• Q&A: Human-animal embryo research

• Faith and science answer different questions

• Brown compromise over embryo Bill revolt

• 'We are wrong on embryo Bill'

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

Times Recommends

• Care in old age: we won’t pay, the State can’t
• Viewers’ choice: our talentless Everyman
• Memo to the poor: go forth and don’t multiply