In the fiercely controversial uproar over the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill, particularly over the issue of embryonic research, the argument has sometimes been distorted into one between science and religion when in fact what is at issue is the ethical basis of profoundly important scientific research - a matter on which many of all faiths and none have deeply held convictions.

In the years since human embryo research was first legalised in 1990, we have become conditioned to accept it as a normal part of scientific research. And yet for many people - including some scientists – there remain profound questions which are anything but settled.

Biologically an embryo is a discrete organism, with its own genetic identity established from the beginning with an active disposition to grow to the next stage of development if placed in the right environment. It is simply because it is in reality a new human life from this point - not a potential human life, but a human life with potential - that I believe it must be treated with dignity and respect, and not simply created and destroyed for research purposes.

The argument about embryo research does not depend solely on an appeal to religious faith in God, but embraces philosophical, ethical and sociological perspectives. It goes to the root of the question of what constitutes our humanity, the degree of protection and respect we give to human life from its beginning to its natural end, and consequently how we decide to treat one another as human beings.

This Bill offers Parliament a vital opportunity to reconsider these fundamental issues. But it also raises new and perplexing questions, which so far have hardly been debated at all.

In creating cybrid and hybrid embryos, what sort of entity would we be creating? Will they be human, animal or something in between?

These are two of the questions which society needs time to address and debate, and Professor Colin Blakemore and I are co-sponsoring a conversation between scientists, religious leaders and ethicists to begin to explore together both the science and the ethics these questions raise.

Although much attention has rightly focussed on embryo research, there is much else in this proposed legislation which causes serious unease and sharp controversy. For example, should the creation of so-called ‘saviour siblings’ be allowed? If we have an ounce of compassion, our hearts go out to those parents desperate for a cure for their child dying of a condition that could be cured through a matching donor.

But we have to ask about the ethical and social consequences of a law which deliberately sanctions bringing children into the world who may be loved, but who have been born in order to be donors.

This seems to me to cross a dangerous line, and treat one human life as a means to an end, almost a “commodity”. I think society needs time to address these new questions, and try and find the right answers before legislating, not afterwards.

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'