It’s time for a new poll on this site, and this time the question is:
Do you support the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’s proposal to allow animal-human embryos for medical research?
Cast your vote in the Poll section in the column to the right.
The final results to our previous poll were:
Do you think a party political leadership can work as a job-share?
Yes 75 (19%)
No 329 (81%)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A roadmap to Queer Equality (Tara Foster)
A strange but welcome feeling (Jennie Rigg)
Fifteen years ago today…… (Caron Lindsay)
Mathew on Monday: Pluralism Means More Than a Slogan (Mathew Hulbert)
Urgent Call to Action by Lib Dem MPs on Palestine (John Kelly)
Ben Wood 
Ed Sanderson 
Jack 
Matt (Bristol) 
John Grout 
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
37 Comments
Thank goodness for the job-share result. What a mad idea!!!
How can anyone make a fair judgemnet when the question makes no reference to alternatives? In a recent scientific breakthrough adult skin cells have been induced to become pluripotent stem cells. This work is going on in the US and in Japan but we are falling behind. If there are ethical alternatives to using animals in research and crossing the species barrier these alternatives should be prefered.
I would leave a comment but considering the vote bar does not seem to allow me to vote at all I don’t think I will! Can we have an easier to operate poll please?
. Lord Winston, Scientist, Labour Peer and a leading proponent of the Bill, said of Cardinal O’ Brien’s comments ‘His statements are lying, they are misleading and I’m afraid when the Church, for good motives, tells untruths it brings discredit upon itself.’ The untruth is the other way around. Since 1990 when Parliament last decided the law on embryos, experimentation has been allowed for up to 14 days on the human embryo. In that time there has not been a single cure discovered. Lord Alton made this clear in his various speeches during the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords ‘so far all the scientific developments in terms of existing therapies have been achieved through adult stem cells — nearly 80 worldwide, with some 350 clinical trials under way using stem cells. There is not a single therapy, as my noble friend Lord Walton confirmed, anywhere in the world — maybe there will be, but there is not now — that uses embryonic stem cells. One of the reasons for that is often rejection. The beauty of adult stem cells is that they are taken from the patient themselves; that is why many hold that they will be the cells used in therapies in the future rather than for experimental purposes, which is what the Bill permits.’
‘The Bill is therefore utterly wrong to allow licences to be granted to create true hybrids.’
‘To pretend that the creation of hybrid embryos from animal eggs will offer a desperate patient with motor neurone disease their only hope of a cure, as was prominently asserted earlier this year, is perpetrating yet another piece of fiction which does no service to the seriously ill.’
Since 1990 when Parliament last decided the law on embryos, experimentation has been allowed for up to 14 days on the human embryo. In that time there has not been a single cure discovered. Lord Alton made this clear in his various speeches during the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords ‘so far all the scientific developments in terms of existing therapies have been achieved through adult stem cells — nearly 80 worldwide, with some 350 clinical trials under way using stem cells. There is not a single therapy, as my noble friend Lord Walton confirmed, anywhere in the world — maybe there will be, but there is not now — that uses embryonic stem cells. One of the reasons for that is often rejection. The beauty of adult stem cells is that they are taken from the patient themselves; that is why many hold that they will be the cells used in therapies in the future rather than for experimental purposes, which is what the Bill permits.’
‘The Bill is therefore utterly wrong to allow licences to be granted to create true hybrids.’
‘To pretend that the creation of hybrid embryos from animal eggs will offer a desperate patient with motor neurone disease their only hope of a cure, as was prominently asserted earlier this year, is perpetrating yet another piece of fiction which does no service to the seriously ill.’
Since 1990 when Parliament last decided the law on embryos, experimentation has been allowed for up to 14 days on the human embryo. In that time there has not been a single cure discovered. Lord Alton made this clear in his various speeches during the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords ’so far all the scientific developments in terms of existing therapies have been achieved through adult stem cells — nearly 80 worldwide, with some 350 clinical trials under way using stem cells. There is not a single therapy, as my noble friend Lord Walton confirmed, anywhere in the world — maybe there will be, but there is not now — that uses embryonic stem cells. One of the reasons for that is often rejection. The beauty of adult stem cells is that they are taken from the patient themselves; that is why many hold that they will be the cells used in therapies in the future rather than for experimental purposes, which is what the Bill permits.’
‘The Bill is therefore utterly wrong to allow licences to be granted to create true hybrids.’
‘To pretend that the creation of hybrid embryos from animal eggs will offer a desperate patient with motor neurone disease their only hope of a cure, as was prominently asserted earlier this year, is perpetrating yet another piece of fiction which does no service to the seriously ill.’
Revolting piece of research to clone a human embryo with that of an animal. Whatever next.
I want to vote against this, but the poll bar won’t let me either!
Dear All,
Just because we can do something, it doesnt mean that we should. As someone who was an active member of the party in my youth at LSE, I am disappointed that Liberal views on this matter are dominated by Evan Harris and the ‘this is one of the few areas we are at the forefront of research’ pressure group. We are at the forefront of this research because we are a rogue state as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It is a sign of our limited literacy as a culture in Philosophical/ Ethical issues that we brush aside any opposition to these procedures as ‘unscientific’ – I am against them not just because compared to adult stem cell research they have produced absolutely nothing but because they abuse and instrumentalize nascent human life – not to mention the pigs and mice! Shameful.
Can we wake up and smell the coffee please? Lord Alton has done some brilliant work on this debate and we need to listen to him.
Alton is a fool.
Alton’s no fool and is speaking a lot of sense right now.
I can’t believe that this poll is currently losing 202-184. The animal-human hybrid proposals are virtually without controversy so far as I can tell. It looks like the lies of the Catholic Church are having an effect.
I’m not a Catholic, but I have looked into this. There are currently over 300 actual clinical trials underway connected to adult stem cell research. Significant papers from the USA and Japan were published in November last year, arguing strongly against embryo research. Why on earth are we heading down a road that other nations are rejecting for good scientific reasons?
Bob, it’s a matter of opinion whether embryo research is the way to go. But if it is not the way to go, then it will naturally fall by the wayside. This legislation merely seeks to free scientists to pursue their research in the most fruitful direction possible. The downside? Ethical considerations which strangely only seem to trouble Catholics.
Just as with abortion, gay marriage, and everything else – if the idea of a human-animal hybrid makes you squeamish, then don’t create one. Nobody is forcing anyone into a lab coat. But the rest of us who appreciate the purely mechanistic nature of life, will gratefully accept whatever cures may be on offer.
In Africa, where I come from, vestiges of barbaric rituals remain in some communities. Some of these rituals involve killing of other human beings to “make money” – literally, a human being is kidnapped, killed, usually by the throat being slit, and vital body parts – usually the head and private parts – are sacrificed to the “god of money”, in my language, known as Esu, which today, is the name also given to the Judaeo-Christian “Satan”. The richer you want to become, the closer the person killed has to be to you, and the younger in age. So the most desperate would use an embryo made from their own cells for the sacrifice. What does this have to do with the Human Embryo Bill? A lot.
You see, Western “Civilisation” has for quite a while been reverting back to the barbarism of the Dark Ages and beyond.
You try to justify embryos being brought to life for the sole purpose of harvesting their body parts to “save” siblings, parents, grandparents and other relations suffering from Parkinsons and other diseases.
So fundamentally, there is no difference between this and the “barbaric” African rituals which are spoken of with such derision (and rightly so) by you “civilised” people?
You bring a living soul, a human being (and a “being” doesn’t start being “human” when it reaches a gestation period of 9 months and is born to take it’s first breath…) to life for the purpose of harvesting its parts for another being, whose life is more valuable to you.
So Western “Civilisation” is not so different from African Barbarism after all – you have just found a way of bringing ancient rituals back to life with more technological sophistication, a lot more “debating” around the issue, and a lot of philosophizing. I dare say that the ancient ritualists are a great deal more honest in their approach.
A “civilisation” that cannibalises its own young, is not a civilisation that will last much longer I say.
When you begin to push the moral lines further and further back, such that nothing seems outrageous anymore, be prepared to face the consequences – You’ve only just started. You will see more and more crimes being committed against children, the disabled, the elderly, and these shouldn’t horrify you in anyway, these people would only be acting consistently with the foundation which has been laid, namely: the end justifies the means, and to save my own life, make my own life comfortable, make myself happy, it is right to take another’s life, so long as this person cannot speak out for himself or herself. I can decide on behalf of that person whether or not their lives are worth living. In fact, since I can bring them to life in a testtube, I can also take that life. Hey, I am God!
So Western “Civilisation” is not so different from African Barbarism after all.
You are right Foluso. There is so much to be ashamed of in the West. But embryo experimentation is not one of those things. Still less when we are talking about a hybrid embryo which could never conceivably develop into anything resembling human life.
Suppose a way is found to vastly increase the potency of adult stem cells, to the extent that they can develop into embryos.
Should that be banned as well?
I can’t believe this is losing either, Laurence. Still, nice handbasket we’re in…
The reason for the hybrid embryos is so that human embryos don’t have to be used. Essentially a cow embryo is used as a shell, all the cow genetic material is removed and human DNA inserted. The nature of the embryo is such that it will trigger the formation of stem cells built from the human DNA, allowing us to study human stem cells, and possibly finding a way to create them from existing human cells instead of embryos. So by opposing this bill you’re actually perpetuating the “barbarism” you seem to be objecting to by forcing scientists to use full human embryos. Another case of people having no idea what the issue is about.
A developing featus is not human until it can survive outside the womb. At any time before that it’s simply a parasite feeding off it’s host, a biological entity that cannot survive without the entity it is living off. Children born at 24 weeks only have the slimmest chances of survival and there is considerable evidence to show that the more premature a child is born the greater it’s chances of long term health issues, disability and learning/developmental problems.
Humans weren’t meant to be born that early, they are supposed to die if they cannot survive on their own. That doesn’t mean I think they should. I think it’s great that we can help so many premature babies to survive. We just need to be realistic and realise the we don’t have a special relationship with nature, we are bound by the same rules and the same constraints; our ingenuity just allows us to stack the deck in our favour, allowing us to manipulate and bend those rules; allowing babies to live that should have died.
If the people opposed to this bill would actually examine the evidence and what this research really means; That we get to understand human development better which can lead to fewer babies needing to die, fewer of them suffering for being born early, that we can grow replacement organs from our own tissues instead of having to cannibalise relatives or breed donors and that we can cure cancer, and masses of other diseases.
Instead, because you’ve failed to inform yourself, you are actually opposing a bill that can bring about an end to the “barbarism” you oppose. You are your own enemy; a defender of the traders with Esu.
“Bob, it’s a matter of opinion whether embryo research is the way to go. But if it is not the way to go, then it will naturally fall by the wayside. This legislation merely seeks to free scientists to pursue their research in the most fruitful direction possible. The downside? Ethical considerations which strangely only seem to trouble Catholics.”
Laurence, with all due respect, this isn’t just about ethical considerations that trouble Catholics.
There is strong scientific evidence that this is NOT the most fruitful direction possible. Why are we raising the hopes for disease cures and spending millions of Pounds on embryo research, when the science is already pointing strongly in another direction?
Laurence, with all due respect, this isn’t just about ethical considerations that trouble Catholics.
On the specific question of whether it is ethical to create and destroy a hybrid embryo, it does only appear to be Catholics who are troubled.
There is strong scientific evidence that this is NOT the most fruitful direction possible.
No there isn’t. The truth is that nobody can be sure how things are going to pan out in the long run.
Why are we raising the hopes for disease cures and spending millions of Pounds on embryo research, when the science is already pointing strongly in another direction?
Well by all means argue that the money could be better spent elsewhere, if you wish. In the mean time, those who wish to carry out embryo experimentation can do so more easily, more cheaply, and more ethically by virtue of the proposed bill.
“On the specific question of whether it is ethical to create and destroy a hybrid embryo, it does only appear to be Catholics who are troubled.”
I think it only appears that way, because that’s how the media are reporting things. The evangelical christian community would certainly have similar concerns. Even so, don’t the concerns of Catholic people carry any weight?
There is strong scientific evidence that this is NOT the most fruitful direction possible.
“No there isn’t. The truth is that nobody can be sure how things are going to pan out in the long run.”
Depends how you define evidence. There are over 350 actual trials in progress related to adult stem cell research. That’s way ahead of embryo research and is in line with major scientific papers from the USA and Japan, published in November last year, which clearly back adult stem cell research.
Even so, don’t the concerns of Catholic people carry any weight?
No, they don’t – not when they are based upon dogma. Recently, we have been treated to the dishonest spectacle of Catholics attempting to mount a scientific argument against this line of research. The problem is that even if the research had come to full fruition, and the miracle cures were pouring in, the Catholic Church would still be against it on spurious moral grounds. This automatically renders their opinion on the science completely useless.
Imagine I want to know which fork in a road I should take to lead me home. So I ask you, “should I take the left or right turning?” And you say, “you should go left.” But now somebody else informs me that (for some bizarre reason) whatever question I had asked you, you would always have replied, “you should go left.” Now the information is worthless. The information could even be correct (indeed in this case there is a 50% chance of it being correct), but it’s still worthless.
So no, I am not going to listen to any Catholic views on embryo research, when I know that they have already got their answer written down in advance in a sealed envelope. It’s just a complete waste of time.
Hey – – is it at all helpful that one person, i.e. Laurence Boyce- should be permitted to peddle his inaccurate and often dubious views so often and so regularly on this site? Could I recommend the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority’s own website, http://www.hfea.gov.uk, where accurate and full details of their full consultation can be found. Unsurpisingly they do not support our Laurie’s slightly(?) warped views. This Bill does not have great support among very many groups, and opposition to it seems widespread. I am happy to subscribe to that opposition.
1, Laurence is as free to comment here as anyone else: if you don’t like what he says you are free to rebut it.
2, Laurence’s opinions are not that far different from several other people’s. I don’t always agree with him, but when I do (as in this case) I often don’t bother commenting myself because I know Laurence will do it for me, and often more cogently than I can manage myself.
@ Laurence: if you want to feel conflicted, you can read a Catholic person defending the use of cybrids in stem cell research here: http://thetablet.co.uk/articles/11258/
Thanks Jennie, but what do you mean you don’t always agree with me? 🙂
Mitt, you wouldn’t happen to be a Catholic by any chance?
Exactly what it says on the tin, Blondey Bear. I don’t always agree with you.
Even so, don’t the concerns of Catholic people carry any weight?
No, they don’t – not when they are based upon dogma. Recently, we have been treated to the dishonest spectacle of Catholics attempting to mount a scientific argument against this line of research. The problem is that even if the research had come to full fruition, and the miracle cures were pouring in, the Catholic Church would still be against it on spurious moral grounds. This automatically renders their opinion on the science completely useless.”
I don’t think any of us afree from dogma. It just depends whether it’s religious or scientific.
While there is some truth that people can be, and are, dogmatic, the big difference is that science (through the scientific method) is specifically designed to overcome that.
Religion cannot do that. Religion is reactive, as opposed to active. Religious dogma only changes once it becomes untenable. Science continually challenges the established order and people are swayed by facts. There are no facts in religion merely revelations and opinion.
If we’d listened to the opinion of the religious then surgery and all our knowledge of human anatomy would not exist today. The church opposed surgery, cutting up bodies, because it was against God, “defiling His creation”.
How many millions would have died over the last couple of centuries if the church had had its way?
This research might not lead anywhere, it might take ages to get results, but we’d never find out if we didn’t try. The catholic church at least is determined to make sure we never try.
Once again, the church is determined to get as many people needlessly dead as possible by standing in the way of increasing our medical and scientific knowledge, or even common sense (c.f. contraception).
I don’t think any of us are free from dogma. It just depends whether it’s religious or scientific.
That’s right Bob. I believe in Darwinian evolution, in medical science, in information technology, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And I’m very dogmatic about it.
BSE was propogated in cattle by feeding sheep brains to cows. It can also be passed vertically (cow to calf) though the mechanism is unclear. If prions (the carriers) were present in a cow ovum, and this was used to create human stem cells, there is a significant chance of CJD for anyone treated with these cells. There are biohazards here and also broader animal welfare issues.
Stem cells from animal-human hybrids would mean more animal experimentation, more GM (animal and human), more danger from cross over diseases. It is not a question of for or against medical and scientific progress, it is a question of what kinds of technologies we choose to develop, it is like nuclear power and GM food. We should look to a cleaner and more ethical future.
I voted early on animal-human embryos but the results have not been posted and now there is a vote about our second candidate for Mayor (mine will be Sian Bery – Green and I am cannot believe that more people want Boris as second choice) If the animal-human vote is closed can we see the results please? – Thank you.
David, are you saying that you think that the Human & Embryology bill is suggesting creating therepeutic cell lines from hybrid embryos? It looks to me rather as though it is permitting the use of such embryos for the development of model systems for lab experiments. A rather different proposition, I hope you’ll agree (and not one with much risk of vPrP transfer to humans either!).
Mind you, if you are so confused about this, maybe it is no wonder you fail to appreciate the qualities of Boris that will make him such a stonkingly good mayor 🙂
As far at the bill goes, our seemingly resident tory is right. The bill’s intent is to allow scientists to learn and gain knowledge. Once we have that knowledge we can apply it to human stem cells, ideally the actual cells of the person you are trying to treat.
As to boris… he’ll be a disaster as a mayor. Just slightly less of a disaster than Ken. Bit like comparing a force 8 earthquake to a force 9. Both are things you don’t want happening; but if it can’t be avoided, we’ll take the lesser of two evils.
To passing Tory – there is nothing in the Bill as far as I can see which restricts cell lines from cybrids from being used therapeutically. Initially of course this is not the intention but hybrid cell lines, if they are developed, still pose a hazard from contamination if not carefully managed. I recall that the foot and mouth outbreak of 2007 was traced to a vaccine centre. But happily this disease was confined to cattle.
“That’s right Bob. I believe in Darwinian evolution, in medical science, in information technology, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And I’m very dogmatic about it.”
What a clever chap you are Laurence!