Sir, As someone who participated in the public consultation on human-animal embryos held between April and July last year, I have not forgotten the result of the voting that took place in London (“‘Frankenstein’ attack smacks of ignorance, scientists tell bishops”, March 24). The meeting, which was hosted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), brought together an impressive crowd of several hundred people, many of whom had some scientific or academic background knowledge on the subject.

After listening to presentations made for and against, a vote was taken. In response to the question “Do the potential benefits outweigh any ethical concerns?”, 34 per cent voted “yes” while 63 per cent said “no”, while in reply to the question “Would you be happy to receive therapies derived from human/animal embryos?”, 48 per cent were against, while 34 per cent were in favour. These and similar results are available on the HFEA website.

With all due respect to Professor Colin Blakemore, there are still serious scientific, as well as religious, doubts about the need for human-animal embryos. Why hold a public consultation, only to ignore its outcome?

Dr André Menache, MRCVS

Scientific Consultant to Antidote Europe

Perpignan, France

Sir, You don’t have to be a Catholic, or even a religious person, to find a number of the proposals in the embryology Bill troubling.

The hybrid embryo issue is only one of these. Others include the proposal to make it a legal requirement to record an unrelated person as a parent on a child’s birth certificate, and a further proposal to write out of account a child’s need for a father. And contrary to what several commentators have said, the Bill does include provision for facilitating the creation of what are sometimes referred to as “saviour siblings”, and it specifically rejects making any attempt to protect the interests of these children, for example by setting some limit to the number of bone-marrow donations they can make, or by preventing them being used for organ or tissue donation.

In many ways it is a pity that so much prominence is being given to the issue of early embryo research, since this is obscuring the need to look to conscience on these other matters which, if passed, will affect the rights and interests of actual children in the immediate future.

Professor Brenda Almond

Lewes, Sussex

Sir, Lord Winston is an expert in human reproduction; the Cardinal is an expert in theology. There lies the problem: Christian theology holds that on conception a human soul comes into being, and that, provided nothing happens to the foetus, a human child will be born in time. And so the Cardinal (I am a Baptist, not a Roman Catholic) is perfectly correct to state his moral view. If Lord Winston holds to a different expert viewpoint then he is entirely free to do so, but allegations of lying should be beneath his dignity.

Explore Letters

• Feedback