What a clever chap you are Laurence!

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Mitt, you wouldn’t happen to be a Catholic by any chance?

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Should that be banned as well?