Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Casablanca, this coming Monday

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

March 24, 2008

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: whatever happened to the ‘yuk’ factor?

William Rees-Mogg

It is difficult to track the changes in the political culture of Britain, perhaps particularly difficult from an observation post in the House of Lords.

Twenty years ago, Margaret Thatcher was still in Downing Street and the hereditary peers were still Members of our House. Yet 20 years does not seem a very long time in which to judge the cultural changes of a nation; indeed, one can sometimes feel that little has changed in the forms or attitudes of the British Parliament.

I recently voted in the report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is now causing such a disturbance in the House of Commons, with Cabinet ministers calling for a free vote and threatening to resign.

This was my second Embryology Bill. The first was introduced by a Conservative government, was carried through both Houses on free votes, and became law in 1990. I have some memory of those debates in the House of Lords, in which there was broad agreement that cloning of an animal-human cell would be intolerable. The 1990 Act forbids it.

I listened with attention to the same debate on the 2008 Bill. Lord Alton of Liverpool made a very persuasive speech – at least it persuaded me – introducing a proposed amendment to outlaw animal-human cloning. I will not say that he was overwhelmed by the broadsides of scientific argument, because his own arguments stood up very well under fire, but the majority in the House of Lords was convinced that the scientists should get the Bill they wanted. As the Bill goes to the House of Commons, animal-human cloning is in, and the Alton amendment is out.

I remain unconvinced. It is true that the scientists are asking only for experimentation in the laboratory; there will be no animal-human embryos implanted in a human or animal mother, let alone taken to term. There will be nothing such as Ovid describes in one of the worst lines in Latin poetry: “Semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem.” That means “A man, half ox, an ox, half man.” Yet I reflect on the changes of attitude between the 1990 Act and the 2008 Bill and fear they will not stop here.

One should make an allowance for the impact of removing the hereditary peers, they were the reserve troops of common sense. For some reason, the hereditaries had, in terms of history, bred back to their Tory roots. Hereditary Whigs, with the exception of the historian, Earl Russell, who sat on the Liberal Democrat benches, were few and far between. I suppose one should add the occasional Whig duke, such as the late Duke of Devonshire, the man who had the best manners in England.

The typical hereditary peer had some military experience – now rare in the House of Commons – also some farming experience, and was likely to regard himself or herself as a countryperson, though with a flat in town. They saw themselves not as politicians, though most took the Conservative whip, but as the sort of hereditary jury of the nation. Many of them were Anglican churchgoers.

The removal of some 400 of these undeniably worthy citizens, and their replacement by aspiring millionaires of modernist views, seemed to most people – or at any rate to Baroness Jay – to be a good idea at the time. I’m not sure that it has proved so satisfactory now that the purge of the hereditaries is itself close to its tenth birthday. We have substituted political appointment for the randomness of birth, but still suffer from a perceived democratic deficit.

It is not only the House of Lords where the culture has changed. There is now far more faith put into science than religion, and leading scientists than in leading churchmen, though in my experience the religious are often the more impressive of the two.

I risk offending the Chinese by observing that I have never met a Nobel prize winner one half as wise as the Dalai Lama, or a quarter as courageous as Pope John Paul II.

The British believe in secular science but have ceased to have faith in their religious instincts. In 1990 it was not just the hereditary peers who found the idea of animal-human hybrids simply too disgusting to be tolerated. It was the common response, the “yuk” factor as a test of the limits of scientific experimentation. The House of Commons was at one with the House of Lords. Twenty years later the scientists have almost won – they won in the Lords and are quite likely to win in the Commons. We are, I think, a worse country for the change of view.

The Prime Minister and Chief Whip may have affected this mood, certainly they have thrown the House of Commons and the Labour Party into confusion. They can rescue themselves only by an undignified climbdown. They threatened to impose a three-line whip in support of the Bill which could have meant the possible resignation of ten ministers, three of them from the Cabinet. Gordon Brown has challenged the Roman Catholic Church, always a high-risk policy. He is now faced by the criticisms of two cardinals and a Welsh archbishop. He ought to have realised that the Roman Catholic community, recently reinforced by half a million Polish immigrants, takes its religion from its bishops and not from its ministers.

Yet there still lurks the feeling that the British, perhaps all Europeans, are opting for a secular society. I shall, at least, continue to vote for Lord Alton’s amendments in the House of Lords. But the British have put their faith in the wisdom of the scientists, the miracle-workers of our modern age.

This is not just a matter of "yuk" - it is a matter of human dignity. If we believe in human rights, we have to ask where we get them from, if from our dignity as human beings, then to mess with that dignity by mixing humans and animals, at any level, implanted or not implanted, is unacceptable.

A.C., Carmarthen, Wales

The 'yuk' factor!?

I'll tell you what has the 'yuk' factor for me:
- Watching my 7 month old son die of a genetic condition.
- Watching his twin brother go through years of often humiliating and painful treatment and care because of the limitations posed on his body by the same condition.
- Seeing the misery and heartache caused to millions of families affected by conditions the scientists are trying so desperately to cure.
- Choking on the hypocrisy of the Catholic church that prioritises the so-called 'sanctity' of a bundle of cells over the lives of millions of people condemned by their policies to humiliating and degrading deaths by aids, starvation and over-population.

Children are guided by the 'yuk' factor, I would hope our lawmakers are not. If they were, how many of our modern medical procedures would survive?

Danny Shisler, London,

Mr Morrow,

As such hybrids have no consciousness, asking for their consent would be fruitless.
No-one is hurt, huge progress is possible and the only arguments being offered against is this 'Yuk/Yuck!' factor- which would rule out vaccines ("pus? yuk!") and penicillin ("mould? yuck!")- and some vague subjective religious assertion about human dignity, which isn't founded on reason.
Mr Rees Mogg's article is highly disappointing for spouting such a childish argument- the errors of which Josh of Brisbane rightly mentions.

L Lord, Burton,

Mr Rees-Moggs comments are proof that ti was a good idea to reform the Lords. Just because they were "worthy" citizens in his opinion makes them no more right than anyone else. In fact the fact that they were likely to vote almost the same way to a man shows the problems with hereditary peerages, that they were right wing old men from the country side. Hardly representative of the nation. The idea that "a hereditary jury" consisting of 400 upper class conservatives have more common sense than those who support his bill is not just condescending to the extreme but laughable. Common sense is not defined by agreeing with the columnist.

As for scientists "getting what they want", do you stop to wonder why they want it? Is it perhaps because they believe it will help with scientific research and create breakthroughs for us all? Or do they support this because they like cacklying away whist doing 'yuk' things in labs that wouldn't look out of place in Frankenstein?

Niall, Belfast,

I'm afraid Iain from Glasgow incorrectly attributes statements about the Northern Ireland conflict to me; however his argument and the way he makes it does illustrate some important points.

Irrational dogma, whether religious or secular is both misleading and dangerous. It often leads to the persecution of those at odds with its ideas and values.

Science, contrary to popular belief is not an ideology, itâ€™s a process. It is neither inherently good nor bad. However, many of the benefits that we enjoy today have come about through the hard work and dedication of scientists working to improve our lives (and yes, some of them just want to make us slimmer while many, many others do actually wish to cure serious diseases!).

They have requested the opportunity to carry out the experiments described in this bill because they believe it could improve the lives of millions of people. They deserve our support in this endeavour, not condemnation with emotive, insulting half-truths and lies.

Danny Shisler, London,

Mr Shisler writes "In my lifetime, the two serious terrorist threats to the UK, (Northern Ireland's Catholic-Protestant conflict, and Islamic extremists) have been religiously motivated". Woops there goes another secular argument that seems to have forgotten a little episode known as Communism that grew quite well in Russia with an explicit no-God policy. They may not have sent masked men to hurt us, but they had a huge arsenal pointed at us and our allies. ASo, please lets not rush to the old religion is bad rubbish. Let's remember the one true common denominator; the presence of Humans. Start blaming ourselves and not anything else.

Do not place your trust in science. They know a lot about very little, and are busy getting funding for pills to stop us getting fat rather than shouting "Move more and eat less" Look at the fight between embryonic and adult stem cells. A bitter contest no really won by the latter technology which has obvious advantages but very little against.

Iain, Glasgow,

The scientists that you complain about may potentially find cures for as yet uncurable illnesses. Is it all-right then to leave people with these illnesses alone and not attempt to find a cure? Is it better to leave these people to suffer and die? As a Christian?

I've met many religious people in my life, but I must say, I'm rather underwhelmed. But then, I've never met the Dalai Lama nor the pope, like you have.

Wasminster, bristol, somerset

"Equality is a Judeo-Christian idea, not a secular one" claims a contributor.

What rubbish!

Christianity, like all religions, promises huge rewards (eternal life) for it's members, and either eternal suffering or at best non-existence for members of rival religions.

Hardly equality of treatment.

Europeans are becoming more secular because they have seen with their own eyes the triumph of science, and the worthlessness of empty superstition. The Black Death killed proportionately as many priests as peasants - prayers didn't stop it. Modern medicine would have.

Science and medicine will defeat disease - not fairy stories and prayer. Let the scientists have their hybrids, and we can consign genetic diseases to history. Along with superstition.

Dave Morgan, Portree, UK

In my lifetime, the two serious terrorist threats to the UK, (Northern Ireland's Catholic-Protestant conflict, and Islamic extremists) have been religiously motivated. Yet we are supposed to remain deferential to the "religious" as having some special wisdom in deciding complex ethical matters.

The religious do not have any special rights to dominate debate and we ARE better for this. Of course a Christian or Muslim can offer thier opinion - like the agnostic or atheist. The idea that scientists dominate is ludicrous - when did anyone get into the House of Lords by because of thier scientific acheivements?

I am also sick of the romanticising of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. I am not defending the Chinese action, but prior to Chinese rule, Tibet was a Mediveal like theocratic autocracy with about as much "freedom" as Iran.

Nick, France,

The 'yuk' factor!?

I'll tell you what has the 'yuk' factor for me:
- Watching my 7 month old son die of a genetic condition
- Watching his twin brother go through years of often humiliating and painful treatment and care because of the limitations posed on his body by the same condition.
- Seeing the misery and heartache caused to millions of families affected by conditions the scientists are trying so desperately to cure.
- Choking on the hypocrisy of the Catholic church that prioritises the so-called 'sanctity' of a bundle of cells over the lives of millions of people condemned by their policies to humiliating and degrading deaths by aids, starvation and over-population.

Children are guided by the 'yuk' factor, I would hope our lawmakers are not. If they were, how many of our modern medical procedures would survive?

Danny Shisler, London,

Shouldn't that be 'yuck', or have I inadvertently landed on the Beano website? A sensible article though. Morality and the 'greater good' have suddenly become very old-fashioned concepts in political circles; more's the pity.

Adam Neilson, Birmingham,

"Please either enumerate a moral reason why human hybrids ought never to exist."...

Let's begin then with a personal moral argument. When all those in favour of the human-animal hybrid bill are the first to sign up their bodies for experimentation then maybe we'll listen to your point. As it is, your view amounts to little more than a willingness to experiment on 'others'. Christians however believe in human dignity for all. Something about doing onto others as you would do onto yourself. Equality is a Judeo-Christian idea, not a secular one.

Peter Morrow, Tandragee, Northern Ireland

Fatuous nonsense. A lot of hot air and moral indignation over geneticists messing around with a few cells. Not a word of complaint over the NHS' refusal to treat cancer patients who have the temerity to pay for drugs a PCT won't.
But then the Catholic church has always put a few cells ahead of an actual living human being.
You cannot trust a morality that has a wrong sense of priority.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

Gordon Brown is a son of the presbyterian manse in Scotland and is unlikely to be unphased by any arguments from the Roman Catholic hierarchy on this moral issue. It seems to me that unlike his Scottish compatriot, David Hume, Brown, like most parliamentarians, has moved from the "ought" to the "is" which modern science invites us to do. In such a postmodern context there is little moral argument that will sound persuasive, particularly in politics. There is no doubt that one can be moral without being religious but the current round of disputation proves conclusively that moral argument without religious grounding has little persuasive power. England, like most of Europe, has gone secular with the result that "ought" is deconstructed to an "is". China IS all-powerful therefore we ought NOT to interfere to save the Tibetans from softglove genocide nor boycott the Olympics in Peking. The West has lost its moral compass: a compass which was designed and made by Judaeo-Christian hands.

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

I'm with Josh from Brisbane, it's time our political leaders stopped letting 'yuk' decided and let their brains do the thinking for them. If the majority of the people have decided they want a secular country then that's what the politians should give them. When I vote in an election I don't consider the candidates religious affiliation but maybe I will in future.

Susan, Barry, S Wales

But there are many religious scientists-it is not a case of one or the other
Larry

L Homshaw, Durham City, durham

Should UK legislations and Law be designed so that scientists, as you say, can "get what they want"? As a common citizen I view this animal/human concoction as tantamount to a triumph of marketing over content. If all this is an effect of the "executive power" of scientific opinion one wonders where it will end? Probably in the justice system itself, considering the effect some of these so-called expert witnesses have on the decision making ability of our UK jury members. Remember the late Sally Clark?
There will always be people who believe in particular kinds of research and people who simply do not. Thatâ€™s liberty for you! People need to be fully informed about research, it processes and especially its costs and outcomes and be actually able to say "no thank you" and â€œCan we find an alternative please?". Governments should make sure of this in the interests of competition and to safeguard the public purse.
P.S I'll send this to the BBC if you don't get it.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley, Bacup, UK

Considering the 'yuk' reactions that have in the past been expressed (and still are) about homosexuality, miscegenation and women's rights, I think it is sensible for people to prefer rational argument over moral intuition.

Josh, Brisbane, Australia

"Yuk" is a grunt, not an argument. Please either enumerate a moral reason why human hybrids ought never to exist - or surrender for lack of one. If we assume that the changes only augment or decorate and do not reduce human capabilities, how could they be wrong? (Don't bother waving nature at me. Nature is an accident of happenstance. It has all the moral force of a dice roll.)

Julian Morrison, Reading, Berkshire

There are many people who admire the Dalai Lama immensely and still feel that, in worldly and political matters, he has not been exceptionally wise.

If you would like to know a wise Nobel Prize winner, perhaps you should meet Eric Kandel. There are certainly many others.

Tallulah, Paris, France

Also in William Rees-Mogg

In deepest Somerset something stirred

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

William Rees-Mogg

William Rees-Mogg has had a distinguished career with The Times and The Sunday Times. He was Deputy Editor of The Sunday Times before becoming Editor of The Times in 1967, a position he held until 1981. He was made a life peer in 1988. Since 1992 he has been a columnist for The Times, writing on a variety of issues. He has also been chairman of the Broadcast Standards Council and British Arts Council