The ends don't justify the means. If the deliberate destruction of a human embryo is wrong then it makes no difference if it helps us find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Also, it doesn't matter if millions of embryos are destroyed naturally as part of the normal reproductive process. Nature gets us all in the end but that doesn't make deliberate killing acceptable.

Martin Green, Shepton Mallet, UK

I am pleasantly surprised by the findings of this survey, given the great publicity the emotive language used by Cardinal O'Brien has received. This embryo research involves a small clump of cells and, as the image accompanying this article shows, is certainly not of "Frankenstein proportion". The scientists who will conduct this research are ultimately interested in finding treatments for serious conditions, and must adhere to strict legal requirements. The embryos they create cannot be kept alive in an unfrozen state for more than 14 days, and anyone who sees a human being in the image above must be wearing very thick lensed dogma spectacles!

Des, Edinburgh,

Not even a significant percentage of the population took part in the survey the result are flawed and not valid. This is a none newsworthy story.

steve tea, manchester, cheshire

Talk about loading a poll in favour of one side. Why were the words "mostly human" and "a little animal material" used in the statement used prior to asking the question?. This is incorrect and purposefully misleading. There is nothing in the Bill which describes the quantity of material used. The results are not surprising due to the leading statement used.
sean mackey

sean mackey, kirkby lonsdale , lancs, uk

Did the God of Creation give scientists their knowledge and abilities so that they can play god with His creation? No of course not! It is not for man to play at being God! God is the architect of all things, and if He wanted these human embryos to be mixed with animals then He would have done this from the start.

I am going to give you scientists a warning here. By pursuing this disgusting practice, which is ungodly and evil, then God will punish you with His wrath. You must stop this filthy practice immediately for the sake of your souls, and your eternity.

I urge all people to consider the implications of what is being done here. When life comes into existence, there is only the human egg and sperm present. Can we accept this infusion of animal embryos into the human embryo as morally, if not spiritually acceptable? The time has come to draw a line under this abominable practice, and restore the will of God into not only this, but into all aspects of society.

Alan Brewster, Leicester, UK

What? Where are all the messages from Americans saying we're all doomed and should read the bible?

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

This is a totally misguided and disingenuous headline - shame on you for effectively trivialising such an important issue.

Before making such sweeping claims the questions and the way they were posed need to be seen. Additionally details of how the Bill was explained to the sample need to be known along with which parts of the Bill were actually supported and which were not. None of these crucial details are given in the piece which reads like an advertisement for the pollsters.

I for example disagree with the use of animal egg cases with with human contents, I disagree with the prospective creation of saviour/sacrificial siblings and I would certainly like consideration to be given to a childs need for a father before providing children to same sex partners.

Apart from those particular issues I support the Bill.

M Jeffs, Bucks, UK

There may be too many of us, not only in this country but on our planet. But that is the way things are. We surely have an overriding moral obligation to do what we can to reduce suffering and enhance the quality of life. So far it is science based research that has lead to improved therapies and even cures for a wide range of ailments, many life threatening. The fact that we now live longer and generally with a higher quality of life than even one generation ago, is surely very largely science driven. Let's give them every encouragement!

Gordon Stewart, High Wycombe, UK

Jewish leaders support the bill, with a spectrum of rabbis from Liberal to Orthodox in an edition of the Jewish Chronicle last month criticising the Cardinal for both his "Frankenstein" analogy and his opposition. Jews see the starting point of life differently to Catholics, and se no problem with the research. In fact, they fully support it.

So whose "religious conscience" should we take most heed of?

Alistair, Edinburgh, Scotland

i'm in,my full support to search with embryo,several peoples are waiting for recorver about dieses,embryonaries cells comes to make a revolution in health.

Hilson M.Breckenfeld Filho, recife, brasil/pernambuco

50% is not a clear win. Most people don't vote and many don't have access to have their say. We are slowly losing our knowledge of what is right or wrong - we live in an amoral society - most don't know the difference anymore. How sad to live is these times of change - we have gained much but I believe we have lost more than we have gained in values etc. I believe in the sanctity of life and that begins at conception - what more can I say !!

Celia Lewis, Coventry, West Midlands

50% support isn't broad public approval. It isn't even a majority.

Martin Green, Shepton Mallet, Somerset

media never contact more deaf people views, very important Deaf community more richest information, hearing people are excluide deaf people, why , for example newspapers never contact to organisation deaf people , not fair , i felt discrimination very strong

betty, london, england