Introduction
Now that the dust of Crewe and Nantwich has settled, it might be worth revisiting some of the parliamentary divisions of last week. The figures for the abortion debate have already been picked over a little, and a few eyebrows have been raised at the voting patterns of various Liberal Democrat MPs. However, while it is only natural that abortion should grab all the attention, there is not too much cause for concern in those figures. I am avowedly pro-choice, but there is necessarily something arbitrary about the cut-off point for abortion, otherwise it would not be measured in multiples of a fortnight for a start. It is greatly to be welcomed that the status quo was maintained, but equally a reduction to 22 weeks would not have heralded the end of women’s rights as we know it.
So it is the debates and divisions of Monday 19 May pertaining to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on which I now wish to focus the attention for a moment. Broadly speaking, the day’s events split into two parts: measures to do with hybrid embryo research (with three divisions), and then measures concerned with saviour siblings (with three divisions). So as not to cast the net too widely, let us concentrate only upon the first half of the debate and its subsequent divisions which it will be useful to characterise as follows (technically, MPs were voting against opposition amendments rather than in favour of these measures):
- Vote A – to permit the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos
- Vote B – to permit the creation of true hybrid embryos
- Vote C – to permit the creation of genetically modified hybrid embryos
The debate
Many emotive and specious arguments were made in opposition to these new genetic techniques, and a surprising number of them were to be found in the speech delivered by Sir Gerald Kaufman. The most popular of the afternoon was the assertion that there is no guarantee that embryo research will produce any medical cures in the foreseeable future. Well, that’s true I suppose! In this regard, Sir Gerald compared scientists to Shakespeare’s King Lear when he exclaimed, “I will do such things – what they are yet, I know not.”
The analogy was meant unkindly, but is in fact a near perfect description of how the frontier of science progresses – an accidental discovery here, a chance meeting at a scientific conference there and, many blind alleys later, a delicate thread of knowledge and understanding emerges. It should go without saying that if we had the whole project mapped out now, then we would have all the answers now. What they are yet, we know not indeed; and may not yet know for some time to come.
Bill Cash doesn’t get any better either. His chief concern appeared to be that treatments arising out of embryo research might be subject to commercial exploitation and would therefore not be universally available to all regardless of need – bless his little conservative heart! Though why his argument could not equally well apply to all manner of human enterprise was not clear. Cash also rambled on a great deal about the “avowed eugenicists” in our midst, causing visible embarrassment on his own benches. In fact no fewer than three Conservatives intervened against him in a bid to limit the damage.
Young David Burrowes went on at tedious length about how alternatives such as umbilical cord blood were proving so much more effective at providing remedies than embryo research – forgetting maybe that it is the role of Parliament to provide a regulatory framework for the granting of research licences, not to adjudicate on the most promising lines of inquiry based upon a layman’s grasp of the subject. As with so many of his comrades, one could not help feeling that Burrowes’s argument drew far more inspiration from Christian theology than from hard scientific evidence.
The star of the show was our very own Evan Harris. Displaying a complete mastery of both the scientific and legal technicalities of the Bill, Harris swatted away interventions with consummate ease. In a wide-ranging speech, he dealt with the numerous canards raised during the course of the debate. In particular, he dismissed the idea that we should abandon embryo research due to a paucity of cures as, “the worst argument that I have heard from opponents of the research,” pointing out that embryonic stem-cell research is all of five years old in the UK, while adult stem-cell trials have been ongoing for at least fifty years worldwide.
The results
Well that’s just a rough survey of the debate, inevitably skating over many contributions. But how did the results turn out? All of the above measures were carried easily – in each case with a majority of Labour and Lib Dem MPs in favour of the gentle path of human progress, whilst a majority of Conservative MPs voted in line with their bizarre theological objections which stood up to scrutiny not at all during the course of a three hour debate. So pats on the back all round, and three cheers for Evan! Well . . . not quite so fast. The unhappy truth is that a closer inspection of the voting figures leaves much to be desired from a Liberal Democrat point of view.
Only 28 Lib Dem MPs – a mere 44% of the parliamentary party – were capable on the night of following Harris’s lead by ticking all three boxes A, B & C. Indeed fifteen MPs were apparently not capable of ticking any of the boxes at all, and voted against all three measures. Remember that no embryo may be kept beyond fourteen days. Remember that no embryo may be implanted. Remember that no research may be performed without a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Remember too that, according to legal advice received by the HFEA, cytoplasmic hybrid research is already permitted under the HFE Act of 1990.
Yet notwithstanding all of that, fifteen Liberal Democrat MPs clearly felt that the present Bill was a step too far and voted – potentially (it must be stressed) – to prolong the agony of sufferers. Their names are: Baker, Barrett, Breed, Cable, Carmichael, Farron, Hemming, Hunter, Mulholland, Pugh, Rowan, Teather, Thurso, Webb, Younger-Ross. How did these MPs justify their decision to Parliament? Well, they didn’t. Not one of them made a speech, though some of them were clearly present in the chamber. Of course time is always limited; they may have had a speech ready but were not called. They should feel free to post a summary of their objections in the comments below.
But that’s not all. A number of MPs who seemed quite content with the principle of cytoplasmic hybrids, baulked when it came to a consideration of true hybrid embryos. These are the full 50% human/animal hybrids – I know it’s shocking. So in Vote B, a further eleven Liberal Democrat MPs joined the above list in an attempt to block this confounded measure. What were they thinking of exactly? Centaurs maybe? These poor confused souls are: Brooke, Burt, Gidley, Hancock, Reid, Rogerson, Russell, Stunell, Swinson, Williams M, Williams R. So on this particular measure, it came to pass that a total of 26 Lib Dem MPs entered the same lobby as the worst elements of the Conservative party plus Ruth Kelly. Did they think nobody would notice?
Conclusions
Look at the picture at the top of the page. What do you see? Is it a human embryo or a cytoplasmic hybrid? Or maybe it’s a full hybrid? Does it look like it has been genetically modified in any way? Perhaps it’s not a human embryo at all? Maybe it’s a mouse embryo? Or perhaps it’s just some bacteria? It’s kind of hard to tell, don’t you think? Maybe those who insist on drawing clear ethical distinctions between such various entities should consider that they are, to all intents and purposes, identical in nature up to the cut off point of fourteen days. Until then, we’re just talking about an undifferentiated ball of cells. All things considered, we probably ought to manifest greater ethical considerations towards a bumble bee.
But there is also an important strategic consideration to be taken into account here, which is really the point of my article. It is quite clear, following the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, that David Cameron is out of the traps and on course to win the next general election. Much could go wrong for him yet, but a Conservative win must now be the most likely outcome on present trends. In expectation of having our own vote squeezed as it was in Crewe, Liberal Democrats desperately need a distinctive “narrative,” as we keep saying, to distinguish ourselves clearly from the Conservatives in the mind of the electorate.
Yet here is a perfect narrative laid out for us on a plate, and we spurn it. We could be the true inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition, carrying the torch aloft for reason, science, and human progress; while the Conservatives are, as ever, backward, reactionary, disingenuous, their thinking clouded by a medieval theology of the soul – a theology whose logical endpoint must surely be that we commit genocide every time we scratch our chins. Cameron’s own voting pattern speaks volumes – he turned up for the first division before disappearing into the night. Perhaps duty called. Or maybe the prospect of being cast as a rebel within his own party for six divisions on the trot was just too embarrassing for words.
I would love to see Liberal Democrats in a position to exploit this tension between Cameron and the remainder of his party, and to expose the true nature of his backbenchers who, taken as a group, voted against every single one of these progressive measures. The plain truth is that a Conservative government could never have introduced this Bill into Parliament, (and we should pause for a moment to applaud the leadership shown by Gordon Brown on this occasion). But before we may open fire on the Conservatives with a degree of credibility, it would appear that we first need to deal with some deeply conservative attitudes lurking amongst a few of our own MPs. Nearly half of them in fact.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Matt Sanders selected by Lib Dems for South West Hertfordshire
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
51 Comments
Patrongising much ?
The thing about the law and medical ethics is that it can be revisited later when better informed – the abortion vote being a case in point.
There is no evidence of a need for hybrids for any particular branch of research, and all the stuff about “damning sufferers of altzheimers or motor neurone disease” is every bit as emotional and unscientific as the religious zealots on the other side.
So with no evidence of a requirement at all, and as a moral question, it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution.
Great article and I think it speaks for all of us who are involved in science.
There are many many possibilities for stem cell research, and to have so many MP’s who are simply ignorant about science voting on this is staggering.
Thanks for your support Mund. I agree there is widespread ignorance about science, but then the issues were covered pretty well in the Commons debate. It ought to have been a no-brainer really, but sadly it would appear we still have a little way to go. But looking on the bright side, at least all the measures were passed!
There is no evidence of a need for hybrids for any particular branch of research.
That is a quite extraordinary thing to say, Aaron. The need for hybrids is due to a shortage of donor eggs, which are naturally donated first and foremost for the purposes of IVF treatment, and only secondarily for research purposes. The use of hybrids will merely accelerate the possibilities already permissible under the 1990 Act.
Are you in favour of any embryo research at all? And what exactly is the “moral question” to which you refer? Because up to a gestational period of 14 days, I can see none.
I think there is a moral question about about any embryo research about where the line is drawn between “a bunch of cells” and “human life with minimal sentience of some kind”.
Personally I’m pretty happy with 14 days for human embryo’s but less happy about mixed human/animal embryos (even under 14 days).
My issue is that the case was poorly made, the need wasn’t made clear, and that the “I’m a scientist, anyone who didn’t vote my way is a religious loon who believes in fairies” patronising of the original article is barking up the wrong tree.
What’s more likely – the argument showing a clear case of need for this branch of research wasn’t good enough, or that large numbers of otherwise rational and intelligent LD MPs are idiots?
I’m pretty happy with 14 days for human embryos but less happy about mixed human/animal embryos (even under 14 days).
That is truly bizarre. Why would you think a hybrid is deserving of greater protection under the law than a human embryo? Is the hybrid more sacred in some sense?
My issue is that the case was poorly made.
The case has been extensively made. In the Lords, in the Commons, in select committees, in articles. Somehow, I doubt that anything would satisfy you.
The need wasn’t made clear.
The need is abundantly clear. There is a shortage of donor eggs, as you might expect from a difficult and painful procedure whose principle aim is to produce eggs for IVF treatment, not for research.
What’s more likely – the argument showing a clear case of need for this branch of research wasn’t good enough, or that large numbers of otherwise rational and intelligent LD MPs are idiots?
I don’t know. But I do know that I want to hear a detailed explanation from those 15 MPs. If I do not hear it, then I am certainly going to assume they are idiots or worse. Because as far as the debate in the Commons went, it was game set and match to Evan Harris.
You could compare this to those Tory Mp’s who voted against the repeal of the blashpemy law to. You can have your own personal convictions but they should not interfere in the running of our secular (in practice) and (sometimes) rational country.
Come on Lib Dems! Feels like I’m supporting a football team. I just want you to be rational, intelligent and proud of being so.
Good article Lawrence. I agree with you pretty much all the way, and would like to hear some answers from the MPs you mention. Except I suspect I wouldn’t like to hear them, they would probably involve some sort of resort to the Spaghetti monster or other heavenly authority.
Aaron: “So with no evidence of a requirement at all, and as a moral question, it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution.”
Maybe in day to day life, this seems like a sensible thing to say. But think about it for a moment, and ask yourself whether this is at all compatible with a liberal view of the purpose of legislation. If there is an overwhelming moral need to legislate to prevent something, fine. But you need to make a pretty clear case that something is immoral, eg. theft, murder, etc. Don’t try and tell us that legislation based on the precautionary principle in judgments of morality like this one is appropriate to anything but the most paternalistic style of government.
If you want legislation to outlaw something, you have to explain what’s wrong with it. What is the important difference between the use of human embryos and hybrid embryos for research, when neither is ever going to see the light of day as the product of its genetic endowment anyway?
Thanks Andy. See you at the pub tonight maybe. Are exams over yet?
Come on Lib Dems! Feels like I’m supporting a football team. I just want you to be rational, intelligent and proud of being so.
Thanks Mund. The blasphemy vote was a great example. Conservatives voted clearly to retain blasphemy legislation. Lib Dems voted at least 50 to nil to abolish it. (Can’t get the exact figures, Public Whip is down.) Wahey! That’s more like it!
The trouble is that even an ardent secularist like me would have to admit that blasphemy doesn’t matter very much. Nobody was getting prosecuted; it’s just totemic really. One small step along the way, but in itself of little consequence.
But this is more important. And just as blasphemy was a no-brainer for liberals, so should this have been. Rather than MPs dictating from on high which forms of research may be permitted, the HFEA is mandated to award licences on a case by case basis. You would have thought this was just in line with Lib Dem thinking – decisions being taken by the experts at the appropriate level.
The only conceivable justification for such a high level prohibition would be if there was indeed some clear moral principle at stake such as, “life begins at conception – even hybrid life!” But while Conservatives were coming out with that sort of thing in the chamber, no Lib Dem was. I have not as yet heard their arguments.
Here is a summary of the votes on a party by party basis. Note two things. First that we never match Labour, though we fare a good deal better than the Conservatives. But note also how consistent Labour are compared to us. They don’t suddenly take a great emotional dip at the point of considering full hybrids or GM hybrids.
Vote A – to permit the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos
– Con: against (54%)
– Lab: for (78%)
– Lib Dem: for (73%)
Vote B – to permit the creation of true hybrid embryos
– Con: against (80%)
– Lab: for (77%)
– Lib Dem: for (53%)
Vote C – to permit the creation of genetically modified hybrid embryos
– Con: against (62%)
– Lab: for (78%)
– Lib Dem: for (63%)
(thanks to Darren Reynolds for the stats)
Good piece, good points from Mund, excellent point from Mr Hinton.
Laurence – sorry if I’ve missed this, are the names of the Tories who voted to retain the blasphemy legislation viewable anywhere (in a nice, simple list suitable for someone notably lethargic and brain-dead after day at work)?
Thanks Julian. The Blasphemy vote is available here, but it’s down at the moment. Or at least it is for me.
By the way, there was another blasphemy vote in 2005, where even one Lib Dem voted to retain it – Mike Hancock.
I’m pretty ignorant of how the Lib Dems are run (forgive me), do they use whips?
Yes, we do whip, but the HFEB divisions of Monday and Tuesday last week were all free votes. The blasphemy vote was whipped only by Labour. Those blasphemy figures are:
– Conservatives: 49(+2) to 37 to retain blasphemy legislation
– Lib Dems: 57 to 0 to scrap it
Great article, Laurence.
Thanks Jen, I do my best! I’m rather surprised that nobody has told me to lay off because it was a “conscience vote.” Tomorrow maybe . . .
Or maybe you’ll get “even though I agree that the liberal stance is X, I’m glad people voted Y because it’s Liberal to let people vote how they want, even when they vote illiberally!”
Laurence – spot on, particularly the last bit.
I was actually appalled to see how many Libdems MPs were against the hybrid embryos research. And what about the lesbian mothers and IVF vote? About 25% of LD MPs voted against that too, a lower percentage than that of Labour MPs!
So the Labour MPs were more progressive in allowing lesbian mothers to have kids through IVF than LD MPs. Isn’t there something wrong in that equation?
Cheers Laurence, the link’s working now.
DO NOT MOCK THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER ANDREW HINTON OR YOU WILL FEEL HIS NOODLY WRATH, HE WATCHES YOU WITH HIS VERY MEATBALLS YEA INDEED!!!
Ahem, sorry. Just wanted to join in the general praise of the Boyce.
Thanks Sunny, I totally agree. 13 Lib Dems in favour of the “need for a male role model” measure. It’s hardly any of their business really. Yet nobody much seems to be querying any of this on the Lib Dem blogs. I must say last week was a bit of an eye-opener for me. Can see now why you’re not joining us just yet!
Thanks Alix. Respect to the FSM!
Laurence, you suck and I totally disagree with everything you say.
Furthermore, shouldn’t you be delivering some leaflets instead of wasting your time replying to thousands of comments on this utterly trivial matter?
(well, someone’s got to say it!)
But I’m not getting thousands of comments. Can’t think why! I would also like everyone to know that I delivered several sets of leaflets during the local election campaign. We were even promised a post-match party, though that never materialised. Lib Dems, eh?
Maybe you’ve won.
I offered to help in Cardiff by email a couple of times, but no-one got back to me 🙁
Lawrence, the foundations of Liberalism do not rest upon one deeply contentious embyology bill. So calling half the Parliamentary party conservative is not really very fire.
I’ve gotta say (and I have come to the conclusion that the hybrid embryo thing is too important for research to stop) that your approach is much the same as your hero Harris. Mocking, sneering and absolutist,Evan Harris has burnt all his bridges and is disliked and distrusted.
You need to allow for more facets of thought, belief and philosophy, you need to accept that our party is an orchestra of opinion, not a drum pounding out one message over and over again.
that should have been, *calling them conservative is not really very fair*
Matt, everyone has their touchstone issues, and I will freely confess that this is one of mine. By the way, I must say I found Evan Harris very polite in the Commons – I’m sure he would want to distance himself from me! But it’s not sufficient merely to dislike or distrust Evan. His opponents have to mount a credible argument against him, and I have not heard any Lib Dem do that. That is what I want to hear, and in the absence of such an explanation, I would not myself vote for any of those 15 MPs.
I thought Evan Harris was magnificent.
Lawrence, the foundations of Liberalism do not rest upon one deeply contentious embyology bill.
They don’t? Women’s rights don’t matter then? They’re only half the population, right.
this article was concerned with hybrid embryo’s.
Secondly, there is a liberal argument that can be made for the pro life debate, based upon the right to life, opportunity and happiness of the unborn child.
To take a pro life stance is not being anti women or illiberal. As I said before, our party and the wider Liberal cause is a multi faceted, diverse movement.
based upon the right to life, opportunity and happiness of the unborn child.
And why exactly would the life of the unborn child take precedence over the mother?
I heartily agree with the sentiments of the article, and the benefits of being a more stridently pro-science party. This is simply a way of making large quantities of high-quality stem cells, nothing more. If a way was found to greatly increase the potency of adult stem cells, so that they could conceivably turn into an embryo, would that be wrong as well?
“They don’t? Women’s rights don’t matter then?”
Allowing scientists to create hybrid embryo’s isn’t really a womans rights issue in the classical sense.
“the benefits of being a more stridently pro-science party”
What does this mean – scientific truth is hardly a fixed standard. Some of the concentration camp experiments were about science (and using the results caused serious ethical dilemmas after WWII) but were hardly justifiable.
I’m glad there are serious divisions in parliament about the use of hybrid human-animal embryos. On balance I would probably have supported many of the proposals – it’s a small step into an ethically unpleasant area but has potentially great benefits. But to portray it as a black and white issue is a grotesque over-simplification.
Since WWII we’ve had Nuremburg, Helsinki and many other ways to address ethics in medicine.
Please do not disregard the works of great people so easily.
This ‘Division’ only goes to show the ignorance of these MP’s of the true nature of modern science and it’s principles.
To take a pro life stance is not being anti women or illiberal.
That’s true Matt; abortion is a tricky issue. But being pro-choice is liberal in at least the sense of allowing women to make a choice rather than dictating to them from on high.
If a way was found to greatly increase the potency of adult stem cells, so that they could conceivably turn into an embryo, would that be wrong as well?
Thanks for your support Anax. The opponents of this research have indeed painted themselves into a very awkward corner.
Allowing scientists to create hybrid embryo’s isn’t really a woman’s rights issue in the classical sense.
I think Sunny knows that but, over the two days, the issues were hybrids, saviour siblings, “role models”, and abortion. And there was some strange voting from Lib Dems on all these.
But to portray it as a black and white issue is a grotesque over-simplification.
I disagree Hywel. Up to fourteen days, it is black and white. It’s a ball of cells – nothing more. To think otherwise is probably to have had one’s mind clouded by religious metaphysics. But I don’t want to prejudge things (!). Let the MPs explain themselves. Still haven’t heard anything . . .
. . . actually, that’s not quite true. There was this from John Hemming: “Yesterday I voted generally against human hybrid embryos on the basis that currently research regulation is not working and I am hence concerned about pushing the boundaries of the law whilst research regulation is inadequate.” Am I alone in finding that explanation deeply inadequate? How exactly is current research regulation not working, John? Are all manner of bizarre mutant life forms wandering around Birmingham Yardley, having escaped the laboratory? I really think we should be told.
On Thursday I drafted an application for judicial review of a decision of the GMC to not investigate research that involved giving babies Carbon Monoxide at a level of 3,000 ppm.
That is why I think the current regulation is not working. A blind eye is turned to unethical research by the GMC. (And the department of health)
Arguing a hypothetical consequentialist argument on the basis of probabilities is not a proper analysis in any event.
BTW although I disagree on much of the argument congratulations on running a well researched item on a parliamentary issue.
Hey thanks John! Met you v. briefly on Parliament Square on 6 May. Have no idea about this carbon monoxide business or how it relates to embryo research. But looking forward to hearing about it in the fullness of time. And thanks for getting back!
. . . 7 May in fact. The day we saw Cleggy boy . . .
“Since WWII we’ve had Nuremburg, Helsinki and many other ways to address ethics in medicine.
Please do not disregard the works of great people so easily.”
I don’t. But none of those are enforceable as the law in the UK unless incorporated into legislation.
Plus the fact that Helsinki has been revised since the original shows how developments need an adaptation in our ethical codes – and laws. I’m not sure whether Helsinki would actually covers hybrid human-animal embryos in any case.
John’s point about CO research is even where we have laws and ethics codes the key point is how well they are policed
“I disagree Hywel. Up to fourteen days, it is black and white. It’s a ball of cells – nothing more.”
Well it’s a ball of hybrid human-animal cells which is something that doesn’t naturally exist so it is something more than a normal embryo – there aren’t many scientists who are gung-ho about accepting that there are no issues about going down that route.
Assuming that we have objections to the creation of viable hybrid life what we are talking about is a matter of degree and setting an appropriate cut off point.
Setting that at the point before cells become differentiated (I think that’s the development of the primitive streak but I might have that wrong) seems not unreasonable.
That means it needs some thought about where we are going and why – not an approach of “it’s science so we should give it the go ahead”
So bioethics has never existed and will never be consulted. All hail the MP’s, the great researchers in the sky, they will give us the guidelines we need to make sure we are a backwards scientific country. (Well at least we do have a majority of rational MP’s)
The problem is that the enforcement of ethical standards is done by people who have an interest in covering up wrongdoing. (the GMC and the Department of Health)
That only leaves the police that are not subject to such a conflict of interest or potentially risky and expensive actions for tort.
Well then campaign to change that, don’t halt genuine research because of flaws in the system.
Scientists are under more scutiny then any other field of work, to an extent they are self policing (with ethical boards and peer review).
I do agree that the enforcement of ethics need to be reviewed.
>self policing
Nuff sed.
Is that an MP I spy complaining about someone being self policing? Irony means “sort of like ferrous metal” in Westminster, clearly. Oh I’m going to have to go and find the needle and thread to sew my sides back up now…
There is, however, an important point about Article IX of the 1688 Bill of Rights. Given the rows I am having with various senior judges I think I want parliament to be accountable to the people not the judges.
The opinions of Evan Harris should not be identified with those of the Party, especially on this issue. The opinion poll carried out for the Times (10 April) showed that LibDim voters were more sceptical than Labour or Tory voters about the value of this research (less than 50% supporting it). This is unncessary and unethical research pushed through by hype and I am glad that many MPs, including my own LibDem MP had the courage to see that.
“The opinions of Evan Harris should not be identified with those of the Party, especially on this issue.”
Dr Evan Harris MP has appeared on Newsnight to defend Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Dr David Southall. Like Plato, he believes that laypersons (including judges and elected politicians) must not be allowed to question “experts” or hold them to account in any way.
The opinion poll carried out for the Times (10 April) showed that LibDim [sic] voters were more sceptical than Labour or Tory voters about the value of this research.
Thanks for pointing this out this poll David – I was unaware of it. (See here (pdf) for a summary of findings.) Leaving out the “don’t knows,” we may arrive at the following comparison between MPs and the public on the question of whether hybrid embryo research should be permitted:
MPs
– Con: 46%
– Lab: 78%
– Lib Dem: 73%
Public
– Con: 69%
– Lab: 70%
– Lib Dem: 64%
So among the public, Lib Dems are indeed the most sceptical. Interesting though to note how out of step Conservative MPs are with their base. Labour and Lib Dem MPs are 8 and 9 percentage points ahead of public opinion. Conservative MPs lag 23 percentage points behind. (Interesting also to note the substantial difference between men and women on this issue. Can anyone explain that?)
This is unnecessary and unethical research pushed through by hype.
Hybrids are plainly necessary due to the shortage of donor eggs. Are you against the 1990 act? And why is it unethical? You can’t just assert that without giving any reason. Why is using a hybrid embryo more or less ethical than using a full human embryo?