THE Church of Scotland has entered the debate on human genetics, accusing the Westminster government of plans to sanction “murder” by liberalising embryo research laws.

The Kirk said that proposals to allow the harvesting of embryos for stem cells risk turning unborn children into “research objects”.

“For some, the use of and subsequent destruction of embryos to extract stem cells is tantamount to sanctioning the murder of one human person in the hopes of saving the life of another, and therefore ought to be absolutely impermissible,” it states.

The tone of language used by the church — traditionally a moderate voice on social and ethical issues — will give government ministers cause for concern.

The Catholic Church, whose opposition to the medical use of embryos is well known, supported the Kirk’s position, claiming the plans represented “the killing of human beings on a massive scale”.

The report, by the Kirk’s church and society council, was published in response to proposals by the government to update the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

Government ministers, who are conducting a consultation, believe that legislation needs to be modernised to reflect new scientific developments.

Such a change is expected to license the use of embryo stem cells within the lifetime of the current parliament to help cure conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

The government is also considering permitting sex-selection of babies for social reasons. At present sex selection is only allowed to avoid gender-linked diseases such as haemophilia and muscular dystrophy.

“We feel that, particularly with stem cell research, human embryos will become regarded as mere research objects in a catalogue on which it is open season for scientists to research,” says the Kirk report.

“For many in the Church of Scotland, the human embryo has the moral status of a new-born baby, no research is permissible and they object strongly to (laws) which allow such research.”

The report, written by Donald Bruce, the director of the church’s society, religion and technology project, argues that screening embryos for genetic disorders “knowingly sets out to destroy embryos that do not meet the selection criteria”. It said the presence of defects “is not sufficient warrant for other humans to deny them the chance of living”.

The Kirk also condemns the proposed use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which allows embryos to be tested for inherited conditions with a view to producing so-called “spare parts” for an ill sibling.

“Instead of the Christian view of the child as a gift, the child is to be seen in terms of its usefulness against certain criteria,” the report says. “This is an instrumental view of a future child. In the process the couple would be discarding many good embryos. The selection of a future child because of its function or quality is a route we should not begin to go down.”

Scientists including Professor Ian Wilmut, who created Dolly the sheep, want to conduct stem cell experiments as soon as possible, starting with terminally ill volunteers.

But the Scottish Catholic Church said it opposed any embryonic experimentation and that human life should not be created only to be destroyed.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP who chairs the Commons select committee on science and technology, said the potential health benefits of using stem cells were enormous. “The argument about when life begins will go on and on and on and we’ll never agree,” he said.

BAD SCIENCE

The scientist who cloned Britain’s first human embryo has accused his partner of breaching good scientific practice.

Miodrag Stojkovic says the dispute played a “significant part” in his decision to quit Newcastle University to take up a post this month in Spain.

Stojkovic, who was professor of embryology and stem cell biology at Newcastle, has accused Professor Alison Murdoch, his former collaborator, of ignoring good scientific practice by arranging to announce the breakthrough at a press conference.

The Newcastle team breached convention by publicising the work before a full account had been reviewed by experts and published in full in a scientific journal. At that point only a summary of the findings had been submitted to the internet journal Reproductive BioMedicine Online.

Times Recommends

• Time-worn Freddie gives up Test matches
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it's all in the mind