Mothers Supporting Embryo Research

At the moment, an incredibly important bill is going through Parliament. The Human Embryology And Fertilisation Bill, if passed, will keep Britain at the forefront of stem cell research. Stem cell research is by far our best chance of curing dozens and dozens of diseases - something reflected in the fact that 223 separate patient charities have signed an open letter supporting the bill. They explained that stem cell research is currently being hampered by a shortage of donated human eggs, and that scientists propose using hollowed-out animal eggs, with an introduced human nucleus, as a source of stem cells. The resulting ball of cells would not be allowed to develop beyond a maximum of fourteen days.
The great majority of the British public - between 70% and 79% - support the use of human embryos for medical research. Alas, public support and the potential to save or transform millions of lives are essentially nugatory concerns to the Church - particularly the Catholic Church. Whilst Rowan Williams has done his usual, waffly C of E thing - "it [all] requires some argument" - the Catholic Church have come out all guns blazing, with Cardinal Keith O'Brien using his Easter Sunday sermon to call the bill "monstrous." “It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which more comprehensively attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular bill," he said. “ In some other European countries, one could be jailed for doing what we intend to make legal.”
I'm not usually a controversially-minded creature - I like being part of the pack, albeit a part of the pack mucking about at the back, trying to secretly smoke a cigarette - but honestly, when people and organisations start saying these kind of essentially meaningless things, it drives me nuts. You're just wasting society's time with these kinds of concerns. You're indulging in semi-hysterical thought processes that are embarrassing. Anyone claiming that their faith is being offended by these kinds of things is essentially being attention-seeking. A real offence to humanity is a parent coping, every day, with the unimaginable pain of a terminally ill or seriously disabled child. I have a friend who had twins, one of whom died, and the other who now lives in a wheelchair, and regularly has to be ambulanced to hospital with simple colds and infections. She simply doesn't know when he will die. She was in tears recently when she realised that all his heroes - Spider-Man, the Hulk - are human beings who, through some kind of medical accident or experiment, turn into something else, and become stronger. Even at the age of eight, he has some grasp of what his best chance for the future is. The idea that the outrage to her peace of mind - being able to offer no treatment to her child - is somehow less than that of a Catholic campaigning against stem cell research is, frankly, distasteful. The humans who have these diseases are real people, with thoughts and feelings and parents and children and jobs and lives, and a million memories that tie them to the Earth. The effect of their death is palpable. The effect of fourteen day embryos not subsequently being implanted, gestated and born is not.
I don't know what these campaigners are imagining is happening in these research laboratories, but I rather suspect that they might be envisioning a tiny baby in a petri dish, wearing a bonnet and screaming "Help me!" The reality, of course, is a clusters of cells, barely visible to the naked eye, and still at such a rudimentary stage of development that they could fuse and merge back into any twin in the womb.
Mothers know the difference between an embryo at fourteen days, and a fully-grown, solid, heavy, flesh, thinking, reasoning, loving child. Mothers know what life really is.

You can sign the petition supporting the bill here.

Comments

[Annamac]

Delilah, thank you for the info and the links.

[j]

delilah, thank you for this. There are things that I have not read, and I will check them out and also ask my friends in the research commnity whose professional lives are dedicated to research into the relevant diseases. It may take a week before I can do this.

That said, I suspect you and I will still draw the line at different places, but I think you recognise that we both agree that there is a line to be drawn, and that being in favour of this does not mean that people have no standards, despite what this discussion has sometimes implied.

[Delilah]

J, I have a degree in zoology, so I know my way around an article in genetics or embryology. I'm not just bullshitting this stuff and am pained by your suggestion that I might be. I'm also concerned that you might be misinformed yourself.

It's hard to read pure science articles without a subscription to the relevant journals - that's why I was hoping for a link to something meaty on this blog - but I did manage to find some reasonable stuff (and have already given some nice links in my previous posts - even Emily liked them). I did notice, though, that the Net is jammed with articles containing very little science but regurgitating bland statements from the HFEA/ MRC about "there being no question of the implantation of these human-animal chimaeras", "growing like cancer cells on bunny-bits" and so on.

Here are two excellent links setting out the science and the law on the subject, if you (or any lurkers) would care to read them:

"Stem cells - a clinical update" from Australian Family Physician Vol. 35
http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys/2006issues/afp200609/20060906tuch.pdf

"What is a human admixed embryo?"
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/views/biolines/

To sum up, in a level of scientific detail which is just not being reported:

1. To harvest embryonic stem cells, you have to create an embryo and allow it to become a blastocyst.
You then remove the stem cells from the blastocysts and grow them in a petri dish, as you describe. This of course destroys the embryo. The blastocyst would not survive long anyway without a womb of some sort.

2. The removed embryonic stem cells can continue dividing forever in a petri dish and may, after an estimated 10-20 years more research, be persuaded to grow into cells that can be injected into bodies that for some reason have stopped producing a particular type of cell. (Adult stem cells are already being used to provide these therapies and it is expected that within the next 10 years researchers will find ways of getting them to produce more types of cell).

3. Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are currently not expected to be related to person receiving the stem cells. The recipient's immune system is therefore liable to destroy the cells. The ultimate solution to this if you want to persist with embryonic stem cells is to produce bespoke embryos for each patient by cloning their skin cells and turning them into embryos by injecting them into a denucleated egg (which becomes a blastocyst, from which the stem cells are extracted).

4. Embryonic stem cells offer the chance of producing cells which it is currently hard to produce from adult stem cells. However, unlike adult stem cells it is important not to use embryonic stem cells therapeutically until they have been successfully "matured" into the kind of cell you want because if they revert to embryonic type they will probably become cancer cells. The medical article above lists the problems which arise when trying to get embryonic stem cells to grow into the particular kinds of cells you want in a petri dish. One solution is to surround it with the same sorts of cells it would be surrounded by in the developing fetus ("harvested", presumably, from a developing fetus). It's not hard to spot that it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) and probably a lot more successful just to grow a fetus and "harvest" the cells - or even a new organ - when they are "mature" enough not to revert to embryonic/cancer mode. The only additional procedure required would be the implantation of the blastocyst into some sort of womb. The legislation does not allow this: but after 10 years of fruitless messing around with petri dishes, it may start to look very attractive. In any case, by then the difference between what is happening in the petri dish (or saline tank) may not be so very different to what happens in a uterus.

5. A blastocyst is designed to be able to implant into a genetically foreign uterus, otherwise mothers would only be able to give birth to clones and you could not implant embryos into surrogate mothers. So there is a lot of scope scientifically for implantation of these blastocysts, whatever the HFEA may say. The use of animal eggs must make the implantation options wider. Obviously you wouldn't get anywhere implanting the extracted stem cells in a uterus - but as I hope the above makes clear, that's irrelevant.

6. Finally, despite the HFEA's bland statements about "minor primitive DNA in the cytoplasm" the scientific community knows quite well that the denucleated animal cell is not just an "empty cell", to the extent that the new nucleus and unrelated cytoplasm often can't divide or regulate themselves properly. All the daughter cells from that human-nucleus-injected cell (including blastocysts, stem cells, anything else that is generated from that cell) will have animal cytoplasms, which makes them substantially different to human egg-derived embryos. (Several million years' worth of evolution different).

In fact, certain posters like Eluned aside, I'm rather shocked at the uncritical acceptance of these bland HFEA statements by the supposedly educated. Whether it's scientific ignorance or wishful thinking, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's the end result of ten years of "educational reform". The end result anyway will as you say be that British society is the first to "benefit" from this research. Good luck. In the meantime, my pension money will be in adult stem cell research.

[Annamac]

Eluned, I rather resent you making assumptions about "my assumption". :) Your original words that I quoted in my post - well, I found it hard to understand where you were coming from. OK, now you have explained yourself and I understand, although I do not necessarily agree. I would like to point out that I did not in my original post advocate dedicating anything much to researching the prevention of illnesses in the very elderly. I believe that once you've had your three-score years and ten, that's pretty much it and any healthy time you have after that is a bonus. When we get old, our bodies are used up and we will succumb to something eventually. I personally see no virtue in ploughing immense amounts of resources into trying to help the old cheat death. However, trying to help the young and middle-aged cheat death - or at least to have a decent quality of life, well, that to me is different. As far as infant mortality is concerned, I would say that vaccinations and antibiotics have gone quite some way to helping more children stay alive than in previous eras. And in the case of genetic problems, sanitation, good nutrition and fresh air are rather by the by, aren't they? And I thought that this was what the original post that started this discussion was about: how do parents of children with life-threatening conditions feel about some pretty unsavoury medical research that may or may not give them and their children some hope.

[Eluned]

No, your assumption was that opinions like mine can only be held by people who haven't lost a child to a disease that (scientists claim) will be more fully understood through embryo research. You quoted me and said "Hmm, and would you still be saying that if you had a child with a severely life-limiting condition?" That was an assumption and I've seen it thrown around all over this site.

And no again.. I sometimes give my children flu medicine and I'm all for antibiotics but as we all know the best treatment for i.e. prevention of infant mortality and, well, the majority of sicknesses is good nutrition, sanitation and fresh air. So I reckon we're best off using our resources getting everyone those three basic things rather than spending them on dodgy research that, if recent history is anything to go by, wont yield any cures anyway and even if it did would only be made available to a small minority of the first world.

We've long understood the mechanics of malaria and yet it kills more people worldwide than anything else. Is this because most victims of malaria are too poor to afford even the cheapest effective drugs? Mad world isn't it? We'll go to great, complex and morally ambiguous lengths to try and save some whilst elsewhere millions die for want of the simplest treatments. It's not that I think curing disease is wrong. God no! It's all about the lengths we're going to treat them. The obsession. The idea that no cost is too high for the likes of us, even our very human uniqueness. That when a parent deteriorates and death becomes imminent that some kind of injustice has occurred(?!) The fact that so many will not accept that their elderly relative will die confused but don't get nearly so worked up about the millions that die needlessly from poverty and pestilence whilst pharmaceutical companies sit on the basic drugs needed.

I believe, personally, that if we can't find treatments for certain things through the three basics or from natural resources or even synthetic chemicals or cognitive therapies or whatever and we find ourselves turning to the frankly bizzare e.g. splicing human dna with animal then maybe these things aren't supposed to be eradicated. I actually very much doubt that there isn't some kind of cure for Alzheimer's just waiting to be discovered and I also believe that when science hits a roadblock (like not being allowed to perform essentially pointless experiments) it does its most creative thinking. So it's all very frustrating really, they're quite obviously wasting their time and our money fannying about with embryos when they could be going down the much more promising adult stem cell research route, amoungst others. It's scandalous.

And I fear that it could bring about something horrific. I mean we're all aware of the theories behind the AIDS virus, aren't we? And if we do eventually crack these degenerative diseases and our old people and ourselves start living longer still, who's going to look after them/us? Because to be honest when I go to any hospital or hospice especially for the elderly I don't see a lot of care going on. I see a lot of sad looking old people with no visitors and no one to talk to or hold their hand. So it's all very well saying we don't want them to have to suffer with a motor neurone disease but they seem to be suffering as much without them.

[j]

"isn't a human or part-human embryo somewhat different ethically to a hamster embryo?"

yes, and there is no question of any such embryo in the present proposals.

D I notice that you cast yourself in the clever role in your scenario, whereas from courtesy, etc, I don't in mine. A small indication perhaps that you simply are not interested in thinking that you might have the science wrong.

We agree on the ethical issues. We disagree on the science. I've read it: you haven't.

This may be a US:UK thing, in which case you can relax as you won't have to live with it in your country: it's only going to apply here.

Anyway, I can see that short of forcing you to read the science I am not going to make any progress here, so I am giving up.

[Annamac]

Eh, well, Eluned, "my kind of assumption" is, in this case, just me trying my best to understand your statement about not understanding "this fixation with trying to overcome death and disease". If it were not for some people's fixation with trying to overcome disease, infant mortality would be far higher than it is, for instance. I just don't quite get what you are saying. What diseases are OK to want to cure/ avoid and what are not OK? Or are you saying that one should just not intervene at all and leave it all to nature? Well, that sounded like what you were saying.

[Delilah]

OK let's run with the blood transfusion example.

Doctor: we've tried blood transfusions in rats and found that it can save lives in immediate life-and-death cases and certain blood-clotting disorders and also make all sorts of life-saving surgeries possible. Here are the reports listing the specific procedures we could do right away and the lives that would be saved tomorrow. We want to try it on people.

Bystander: Gross! My body is a temple! No transfusion for my family - we'd rather die!

You: Gee, that sounds wonderful. My dog ran through a plate glass window last year and bled to death. What if it happened to my toddler? Where do I sign?

Me: Hang on: where will the blood come from? How do you know it's a good match? What if you get blood from someone with malaria or hepatitis or some other as yet unknown blood-borne disease and mix it in thousands of batches, one of which is given to my toddler? isn't there anything else we can use that might be safer?

Doctor: Well, we know that there are at least five different blood types and we can match for those. We can screen for the blood diseases we know. There's still a chance that if your toddler needs the transfusion they could come down with an unknown blood-borne disease, but I think that's pretty unlikely. (Chuckles, eyes twinkle. Becomes serious). If he runs through a plate glass window and and doesn't get the transfusion, though, he WILL die. There is no alternative for a blood transfusion. If he gets the transfusion, he will be as well afterwards as before the accident.

Me: OK. Where do I sign?

(Five years later, thousands of haemophiliacs get AIDS)

Now, that's all very specific. Compare with embryo discourse:

Doctor: we've tried making embryonic stem cells from hamsters and found that they grow really well in a petri dish and we can swap genes around really well and even get them to grow and develop a little bit. Sometimes we can inject them into sick animals with diseases like Altzheimers and Parkinsons and they seem to improve, before getting sick and dying anyway. We want to try it on people.

Bystander: Gross! Making human-animal hybrids! Haven't you read the Island of Dr. Moreau? Get lost, vivisectionist!

You: Gee, that sounds wonderful. My dog died of alzheimers last year and it wasn't pretty. What if it happened to my granny? Where do I sign?

Me: Hang on: isn't a human or part-human embryo somewhat different ethically to a hamster embryo? Won't you need something a bit more than an embryo to really work out if you've got a cure? Isn't there another way of doing this? What if it causes my granny to get cancer - then she'll have Alzheimers AND cancer?

Doctor: Well, we've had some really promising results using human adult stem cells and we think we'd do even better if we could use embryonic stem cells too. Adult stem cells do a lot of the job, but we thing the embryos would be even better. (Chuckles and looks avuncular) Don't worry about a mutant baby - these cells can't survive more than 14 days and legally we won't be allowed to let them anyway. (Looks serious) Yes, there's a chance these therapies could cause cancer but your granny probably wouldn't live that long with Alzheimer's anyway. But we could find a complete cure and then she could live until, I don't know, 80!(Chuckles, eyes twinkle. Becomes serious). You know, of course, that Alzheimers and Parkinsons affect children too? If we don't get to do this research, it will take us a lot longer to find a cure. If we find a cure, these children could live quite long lives, if they don't get cancer.

Me: ????????

Bystander (wearing ALF T-shirt and baseball cap with slogan AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD): Freak! Vivisectionist!

[Gipsy]

>>I really don't understand this fixation with trying to overcome death and disease. As unpleasant as it is, humanity requires it. I'd have thought we would have accepted death as an inevitable by now.<<

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you think that we shouldn't try to find cures and remedies for diseases?

[J]

we all agree that there have to be limits, and we are talking about where we set them. I agree with eluned and with delilah that limits must be set and that human life is precious.

Where we do not agree is on the facts of the legislation in front of us and what it does. I'll try to show you what I mean with an example.

Suppose that we have just invented blood transfusion. Suppose that I say - no, this is revolting. If you take my blood into you, your brain will change to be like mine. That is a future of genetic engineering, manipulation and thought control.

You say- rightly- but it doesnt do that.

I say- but supposing it did? where do we draw the line? I have ethics, I assume you dont care about these things but I do, I cannot support blood transfusion, it will lead to thought control.

You say, no it doesnt, look at the science, and I say, nah, all looks a bit dodgy to me and I cant read science anyway.

The facts are clear. the human material is donated from a living adult, not from an embryo or egg. It is grown for a few days to produce some useful stem cells which all the scientists say will help the existing research on adult stem cells. It could never, at any point, be implanted into anything. It is no more human life than growing a scab off your knee in a petri dish.

It already happens- the bill, ironically, is to set out what is and is not acceptable in the future, and to say, well, we have thought this through and we think this one is OK.

Eluned, I am sorry if you are offended by the assumption that your faith means you can have no experience of suffering. That's clearly not fair at all.

I would like to explain that I am an athiest purely because, having through about it a lot, I cannot reconcile the suffering of innocent children with a loving god. No other reason. I dont for instance want any kind of sinister or decadent moral freedom. Im not up for fornication or drunkenness. I have a very strong ethical system and it would be nice if this debate (not meaning eluned or delilah, but more generally) could also recognise that people in favour of this very limited research also believe that there are limits to what we do, also care about human life, and have just come to a different judgment based on the scientific facts, not least because we have in some cases had no option but to get pretty clued up on genetics and research.

[Eluned]

I've seen your kind of assumption in a few debate sections about this issue on the times website. Because I don't support this research and I think we should accept (natural) death I must have never been affected by the kind of illnesses we're discussing or had a loved one die young? Because anyone who had watched someone close die slowly of a degenerative disease would be in favour of absolutely anything that might help? Give me a break. My dad died in his early 60s of Alzheimer's, my niece has something called spinocerebellar ataxia, my mother has (not too severe) parkinson's and my little brother is currently battling renal cancer that has spread to various parts of his body and is not likely to recover. And that's just the most recent cases. So I've had as much experience of these ugly diseases as your average supporter of embryonic research, I've just chosen to believe that there must be limits on what we can do to treat them.

[Annamac]

Eluned says:"I really don't understand this fixation with trying to overcome death and disease. As unpleasant as it is, humanity requires it. I'd have thought we would have accepted death as an inevitable by now." Hmm, and would you still be saying that if you had a child with a severely life-limiting condition? Or a husband who is diagnosed with a rare and extremely agressive form of early Alzheimers at 47 and given a maximum of 5 years to live (and your daughter is only 6 and has to be put on the at-risk register because of her father's now completely unpredictable behaviour)? The friend of mine in that position is currently struggling to survive, never mind be philosophical about it. Bit different from the way one feels when one's elderly parent pops their clogs at the age of 97 after a long and essentially happy, healthy and productive life.

[Delilah]

Actually, reading the Times article that I referred to in my previous post the most horrifying thing was the three-line whip being used to force the legislation through - "vote for this whatever your ethical reservations or you'll lose your job". So much for reasoned debate.

[Eluned]

Indeed. I think the implantation possibility is a huge thing to consider. The fact that the bill prohibits it obviously means that it could happen, and after all isn't pushing the boundaries to make further discoveries just part and parcel of science? Anyone who finds the prospect ghastly but supports this research, I believe, is being foolish because that would be the natural (for want of a more fitting word) progression.

I really don't understand this fixation with trying to overcome death and disease. As unpleasant as it is, humanity requires it. I'd have thought we would have accepted death as an inevitable by now.

[Delilah]

Not all of us have ready access to scientific journals, so it's a shame that Emily and Blakemore's contributions to this debate were so vague. I've given a link to the NIH website and there is also this article from the Times which I suppose everyone's seen (paste into your browser):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3559306.ece

From what I have seen it's clear that this legislation opens a whole can of worms, and will continue to open can after can as we get into it, none of which are being addressed by scientist (including Blakemore) because frankly they are not interested. But we should be. Even if the cells produced now can't be implanted, the extracts from the Bill which were posted by Lux earlier make it quite clear that the legislation anticipates cells which can.

There is an awful lot to consider, not just the concerns of motor neurone disease sufferers. There is a saying among lawyers "Hard cases make bad law" which basically means that you cannot allow extreme cases of hardship to drive your legislation, you have to look at the whole picture. Perhaps I am allowing hard, hypothetical cases to drive my thinking, or perhaps we are allowing the horrors of certain disorders to push us into doing unthinkable things.

There is a basic question here about humanity and what we are entitled to do with it. If it's immoral for women to sell their eggs for research, why is it OK for someone to create a parentless embryo and sell it? If it's OK for women to sell their eggs to women wanting a baby, why not a whole embryo? Why not a baby? I am back to unalienable rights again - ie, rights that cannot become transferable property. What are they, when do they arise?

The more I read about it, the more I think this law as drafted is way too permissive. We need more concrete proposals for the research, more disclosure about what is actually going to be done and achieved, and why we NEED to do it this way, and go at it step by step with clear ethical guidelines. If the ethics are not clear, it probably shouldn't be done.

[j]

"Interesting to read Blakemore's comments but I was hoping for something a bit more compelling and less wishful. He basically says that he thinks embryo stem cells research would make adult stem cell research even better, but fails to explain why. "

Delilah, be fair in your arguments or we will get nowhere. You know that this science is available to you in the peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science, and Blakemore's article has been edited to appeal to people with no scientific background. This is not the sole source of the data, is it?

"The only reason he gives that these creations would never become viable embryos is the legal ban on allowing them to live more than 14 days or implant them. I have to assume that they are biologically capable of much more, or the ban wouldn't be necessary,"

- no, you have that wrong, they are *not* capable of any more and the "ban" is actually just a clarification , suposedly to reassure people. If you read the article it makes it fairly clear and if you read the science it makes it entirely clear. The cells are adult cells, growing like cancer cells in a nourishing medium of bunny bits, but not remotely viable as human cells. They produce a small subset of the material needed to make people, but it happens to be useful.

The correct analogy is not frankenstein, it is giving blood. If I donate blood to you, are you a disusting hybrid? of course you are not. This procedure does no more than this.

"I think the fact that his article was published by religious journals is an example of how open-minded the various denominations are being to this issue, rather than the reverse, but may prehaps explain its vagueness. "- no, delilah, it is because the religous leaders got it catastrophically and embarassingly wrong and they are trying to correct it behind the scenes.

"In fact, his history probably gives him a vested interest in promoting in vitro (ie, not developing beyond the test-tube) rather than in vivo (ie using multicellular, sentient organisms, but that doesn't mean his "research colleagues" who are the real beneficiaries of this legislation will have such qualms. "

Dont quite see where you want to take this. Are you saying that he is scared of using mice but others would not be? he is not naming his collagues because you dont do that, in case ALF get them too. But you can check the science any day you like in the journals, if you want to.

D, we have a heavy responsibility in raising issues sch as these. You have the responsibility to assess the science honestly and professionally if you want to make scientific points and challenge the research community. Search your concsience: have you really done that, or are you just having fun picking holes in an article designed for grannies?

And if you are diagnosed tomorrow with motor neurone disease, are you going to refuse all treatment?

[Delilah]

Interesting to read Blakemore's comments but I was hoping for something a bit more compelling and less wishful. He basically says that he thinks embryo stem cells research would make adult stem cell research even better, but fails to explain why. As Eluned so pithily pointed out, why waste money on morally dubious research when existing research already seems to be doing the job. If we are going to use the ends to justify the means, let's be up front about the mechanics and the alternatives.

Nor do the extracts make clear why the legal changes are needed, as the existing law already allows the production of human-animal chimaeras for research. Perhaps because the chimareas would now be (embryonic) humans carrying mouse genes, rather than the other way round? (And if so, why is he so bloody worried about the genetic manipulations and viruses used on adult stem cells?).

The only reason he gives that these creations would never become viable embryos is the legal ban on allowing them to live more than 14 days or implant them. I have to assume that they are biologically capable of much more, or the ban wouldn't be necessary, and as I said before the temptation will become: "we've been growing these blastocysts for 14 days and it looks very promising, could we have a regulation (which can be made with far less trouble than an entire law) allowing us to keep it going just a few more weeks to see what a proto-heart looks like?" Not to mention the nightmare scenario of a maverick who decides to just go ahead and do something illegal (or legal somewhere else, where there is no law against it) with the raw material so legally produced in Britain and produces a creature which most of us would classify as human, with animal characteristics.

I think the fact that his article was published by religious journals is an example of how open-minded the various denominations are being to this issue, rather than the reverse, but may prehaps explain its vagueness.

Finally, while not wishing to attack the messenger rather than the message, a cursory review of Blakemore's biog reveals why he and his family have been targetted by animal rights activists since the early 80's - a slightly naive perception of how much the public will value the end results of his work, compared to the means he used to achieve them. In fact, his history probably gives him a vested interest in promoting in vitro (ie, not developing beyond the test-tube) rather than in vivo (ie using multicellular, sentient organisms, but that doesn't mean his "research colleagues" who are the real beneficiaries of this legislation will have such qualms.

[Gipsy]

Thanks for posting that J.

[j]

sorry, meant to add this part of his article:

"The image conjured up is of fully formed, half-human, half-animal monsters. Yet the Bill forbids any attempt to make such things. A key technique acknowledged in the Bill, already permitted under existing law, is the formation of “cytoplasmic hybrids”, involving the insertion of the nucleus of a single human cell into the empty egg of, say, a rabbit. The resulting cell, although it does not result from fertilisation and its genetic material is almost entirely derived from the adult donor, has the characteristics of an embryo. It divides and, most significantly, stem cells can be collected from it for research. The Bill would prevent such “human admixed embryos” from being maintained for more than 14 days, when they would be a tiny ball of a few hundred cells no bigger than a pin point. And they could not, of course, be implanted."

[j]

"If there really are viable alternative ways of creating treatment/therapy through (eg) adult stem cells rather than through creating chimera hybrids, that's what we should be doing."

But apparently there are not, according to Colin Blakemore- in fact the opposite is true.

"Some critics imply that research on adult stem cells (for instance from bone marrow) could substitute for all the use of embryonic stem cells. My research colleagues strongly deny this, but see the possibility that knowledge from stem-cell research might increase the potential for the therapeutic use of adult stem cells. Some point to the recent development of methods to transform ordinary adult cells into cells with the characteristics of embryonic stem cells. But these techniques involve viral infection and genetic modification, which makes many nervous about the utility of such cells. However, research on embryonic stem cells will undoubtedly help us to do more with adult cells.

Transgenic mice that carry human genes are another form of human-animal combination (although not covered by this Bill). Such animals, carrying genes that produce such conditions as Huntington's disease and Down's syndrome, are already playing a vital role in research. I don't think that most people would see such strains of mice, whose cells carry a fragment of human DNA, as offensive monsters. ..I suspect that some people who were originally shocked by Barnard's work are among the 4,000 who are now saved every year by heart transplantation. I would ask those religious leaders who are nervous about the Bill to consider whether they would instruct their congregations to refuse any new treatments for horrific diseases that flow from the kind of research that it will regulate."

Colin Blakemore is a professor of neuroscience and a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council. This article first appeared in The Tablet, the Catholic weekly and then in the Times.

So I come back to saying to spiritual leaders, please get the science right before you lay down the ethical law for other people.

[J]

"My understanding is that they could never create human life"

sorry eluned, I can see that was unclear- I meant, these particular experiments could never create human life.

[Lazy Mummy]

Well, I've really kept out of this discussion because it got sort of taken over (went away for a day and came back to over 100 posts to read - couldn't face it). But, having just read the last few comments, I have to say that I agree, largely, with the arguments of Eluned & Delilah.

If there really are viable alternative ways of creating treatment/therapy through (eg) adult stem cells rather than through creating chimera hybrids, that's what we should be doing. Of course, I'm not coming at this from the perspective of someone who is severely disabled or cares for someone who's severely disabled and if I was, I don't know how that would change my opinions.

Creating new species (even through plant gene splicing) just strikes me as playing god in a very dangerous way (morally & ethically as much as physically). And creating them knowing they won't survive doesn't seem like a particularly moral approach to me either. And no, I'm not a Catholic. Guess I'm back to my "slippery slope" argument that I made back at the beginning. And yes, I do think it's a valid argument.

[Eluned]

But this isn't about putting embryos before anyone else. To me it's more about wasting time and tax money on very morally questionable research when there are alternatives that have proved more fruitful e.g. adult stem cell research. Whether or not you choose to believe that an embryo isn't worth the petri dish it's made in, in terms of human dignity, is irrelevant. What it represents is humanity in it's beginnings and therefore, I think, what we do to them is indicitive of how we regard every human being.

Experimenting on embryos is not necessary and crossing the species barrier is not necessary, no matter what they tell us, it just isn't.

"My understanding is that they could never create human life"

But they are. They can create human life in labs without sex and have been doing so for a long time. They can create human life that has three biological parents or just one. It's madness.

[Lisa]

"Really seems like, as a society, we have replaced trust in the priesthood with trust in scientists and I can't see how this new situation is much better" I totally agree. People now tend to put such blind faith in science, but it is not perfect, scientific theories are disproved and scientists are only human. The Chief Rabbi (Jonathan Sacks) gives a very interesting analysis of this in his book "The Dignity of Difference", showing how over the last couple of millenia people have gone from having religious doctrine as the source of all truth, to science (post-Enlightenment) and now there seems to be a move to putting blind faith in commercialism.

[J]

Could we clarify one thing?

Eluned's very interesting post- on the same wavelength as Delilah- does what many of us have done.

It argues against two separate things.

Now *either* this is an embryo in the earliest possible stages of human life, in which case the arguments about termination and killing apply;
*or* it is a chimera, an unnatural hybrid of human and animal life, in which case the arguments about creating new species apply.

Now we could agree that both raise difficult issues and both need discussing, but they are not *both* raised by the same experiment. One or the other.

My understanding is that they could never create human life and also that there is no merging, just incubation.

Which is not to say that Eluned is wrong to make us think further ahead, just that we should be fair on each thing that we are discussing and not load it with all our more general fears of future abuse of science.

I share all the fears. I am in favour of this limited procedure for the reasons I gave in my earlier posts. Eluned, it would be lovely to forget the disabled five year old for a minute and worry about theoretical harm from experiments that nobody has even thought about doing yet, but some of us dont have that luxury.

[Eluned]

It's all a bit sketchy imo. It's questionable science at best. There's also more to the bill than the whole human-animal hybrid malarky . It removes the legal requirement for doctors to consider the 'need for a father' and permits the use of artificial sperm and eggs aswell. Very clever how a lot of people are isolating a minority like the Catholics (I am one btw) and pretending we're the only ones opposing this 'research'. Plenty of people I know who are not Catholic or even at all religious or sprititual are against crossing the species barrier and mixing the DNA of humans with animal's and creating children who have no parents or three (!)

Embryo research has been going on for nearly twenty years and has produced no cures. Cells from embryos, by their very nature, tend to spiral out of control when they are poked and prodded and experimented on and have proved pretty useless in coming up with the goods but still they cling on to it as if it's the bloody holy grail of progressive medicine. Adult stem cell research on the other hand has produced something like seventy cures and treatments for things like parkinsons, leukaemia, diabetes etc but you hardly hear about it. If they really gave two shits about the sick and the senile they would put more funds into the stem cell research that actually delivers.

Rees-Mogg made some very good points the other day. Twenty years ago this issue of smudging the line between humans and other species was unthinkable but a couple of decades later people aren't so appalled. So the things we all would regard today as morally depraved and unacceptable, say, implanting one of these hybrids into someone's or something's womb even for a short time might not be so sickening twenty years from now when a group of scientists claim it might help your mother with her parkinsons.

I think we all need to start thinking long term about this and let go of the 'they're just more concerned about a week old embryo than a five year old disabled child'. How do you think, long term, this is going to affect us? How are we, in the future, going to view our own humanity? Don't think in terms of whether or not an embryo is a person deserving of any rights but rather what the embryo represents in being the earliest stage of humanity. It's gone from something we didn't have much knowledge about to a disposable commodity we can deep freeze for years and are hoping to make medicine out of.

Really seems like, as a society, we have replaced trust in the priesthood with trust in scientists and I can't see how this new situation is much better. Remember it was scientists who created the a-bomb, said thalidomide and x-rays during pregnancy were safe and were wrong about BSE. Even when they have our best interests at heart they can be gobsmackingly ignorant and wrong. It's not so bad when they're just getting things wrong with chemicals and vegetables but when we're talking about our very humanity that they want to play with we need to start asking some big and serious questions.

[J]

well I am interested to read today's Times where the head of the medical research council, also a catholic, says why he supports the bill.

He pretty much sums up my position, and that is interesting too because we agree even though I am not trying to reconcile my view with a Catholic faith, I am trying to reconcile it with my own morality and ethics. I suspect that I hold many of the same ethical views as Catholics or other religious people, though they come from another source entirely.

[J]

well I am interested to read today's Times where the head of the medical research council, also a catholic, says why he supports the bill.

He pretty much sums up my position, and that is interesting too because we agree even though I am not trying to reconcile my view with a Catholic faith, I am trying to reconcile it with my own morality and ethics. I suspect that I hold many of the same ethical views as Catholics or other religious people, though they come from another source entirely.

[Emily]

Dear God, I'm amazed at how many posts have appeared between my post last night and now -was it a quiet Friday night for everyone? This is just a very brief post - I'm meant to be leaving the house in ten minutes and am in my dressing gown with no make up. So...
Delilah and LA - as well as being rather patronising "But look, I'll do it for you....", your posts both betray a typical fear of scientists - you assume that because of the field we work in we are devoid of normal human emotions, morals, or anything else. We are human, believe it or not. We don't place scientific success above everything. I will respond to the more detailed aspects of your posts (along with the bad science) later.
Gipsy - thank you.

[Kim]

Lux - if I can just turn your argument on its head, we could equally say, "Why should a newborn baby have more rights than a cat?" A cat has a nervous system, it can feel pain, it has intelligence.

Now I think what you're saying is that we all acknowledge that humans have particular rights not accorded to animals, and that because we have no cut-off point at which we can say "this is human and this isn't", the only acceptable cut-off point has to be conception, because a fertilised egg is capable of growing into a fully sentient human being, with all the rights a fully sentient human being has.

But it's that premise that is interesting - that humans should automatically have more rights than animals. Why? And that's actually a difficult question to answer, if we think in terms of intelligence, sentience etc. I think the answer most people give would be something like "Well, it's obvious" but, as you say, it's actually not obvious. I suspect religious people would say "because humans have a soul and animals don't" but for many of us that isn't a satisfying answer either.

[Lazy Mummy]

"Of course my cat doesn't have human rights, but she has more of some human characteristics than some humans do (and no, I am not being abusive)"

No, she doesn't. She has more of some *mammalian* (or even animalistic) characteristics than some humans do - beyond that, you're anthropomorphizing.

(We actually compared our newborn & a friend's cat to find the point where the baby overtook the cat in cognitive ability. It was pretty early on).

[Lux Aeterna]

Gipsy

You're pulling something out of a wider discussion between Emily and me about sentience, and what you term "my argument" was a question, not an argument. Of course my cat doesn't have human rights, but she has more of some human characteristics than some humans do (and no, I am not being abusive). Delilah has addressed the biological issue here as to whether we are in fact on the way to creating viable creatures. I'm more interested in the ethical one, because I think that's the most important.

Let's keep it simple. If embryos don't have human rights we can do what we like with them. If they have human rights, we can't. We mess with them and we're killing people.

So all I'm doing is trying to find a reason why they should not (yes, I said "not") have human rights. Find one and everyone can go to bed happy. But I haven't managed to do it on my own, which is why I keep asking the question.

Trouble is, I get two sets of reasons put forward. One is that we are dealing with something which does not have the essence of what it is to be human. A fair argument. But I happen to believe (as do a lot of other people I have read) that what distinguishes humans from other animals is intelligence, and specifically an awareness of our own existence and probably mortality. Embryos don't have that, but then a newborn baby, a person with severe mental deficiency, someone in the late stages of Alzheimers or in a deep coma don't either. And if the embryo is viable and is allowed to grow it will get all these things in a year's time. On that basis I don't think I agree with that reasoning, though I understand and respect it, so I continue to look and think.

The other answer I get is "Stop being silly, it's obvious". That's not a good answer. Lots of things are obvious until you start thinking about them, when it turns out that actually they aren't. This is one of them.

[j]

"Well, well, well. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, he who used his Easter Sunday sermon to fulminate about this topic, has just had a pacemaker fitted. I do hope he carefully researched exactly how this technology was developed before signing the consent form. And I mean EXACTLY."

Hit the nail on the head Jean Jones, as usual. Same as people against research who then accept cancer drugs for them or their kids.

Funny how different people feel about these issues when they need the science.

[j]

Delilah- agree about the primrose path, I suppose thats what I mean about the tough adult responsibility to make ethical choices- you are right it is hard and risky. It is only worth it if it is a very good cause, such as this.

Jane et al, my tale on Alpha mummy is it is the *topics* which are chosen to be specially of interest to mothers, but the *comments* can come from anywhere and be enlightening and good. And there are lots of girl-trolls with babies. I'm very uncomfortable with saying that people are "guests", implying we own this site somehow. It's a public resource, like the number 8 bus. We would do well to remember that.

[Delilah]

Emily, you wrote:

"Delilah - I didn't say they used skin cancer cells - I said they used skin cell nuclei, which are then injected into an "empty" animal cell and are stimulated to divide. I then drew a comparison to skin cancer. Any eggs used in this example will be mammalian (but not human) eggs."

I asked the question - why not use a skin cancer cell? to elicit your response as to why it is necessary to use an egg and what that implies. But look, I'll do it for you. You don't use a cancer cell or even an ordinary denucleated animal cell. You have to use an egg - because you want to get the DNA from the skin cell (which was derived from the original conception) to behave, again, like a new conception. The researchers are asking to use animal eggs because they don't have enough human ones. Mammalian ones are your best bet because they work better with human DNA (so obviously the cytoplasm does matter, it isn't just an empty cell). Presumably monkey eggs are best of all (how do you suppose they get those?) But they'll use any egg that they can get to work; and over time will no doubt find mechanisms to use more and different types of egg.

"Evolution and natural selection have no impact here as the "embryos" will not survive and reproduce."

Researchers keep the cells that survive, divide and thrive, not the ones that mope, refuse to perform, or die. That's artificial selection. If you read the EU paper on stem cell research there is loving discussion of the "embryo lines" that are most resistant to laboratory conditions and which have been replicating themselves (with help from the researchers) for decades. You don't need sex or even random mutations to provide the genetic diversity for evolution, the researchers introduce the genetic variations they want to observe. So producing new "species" - creatures incapable of breeding naturally with their ancestors - will occur. In fact it has occurred already. That's evolution. It's also great business.

"The idea of creating a "haplo-diploid" human is so ludicrous (sorry, but it is) that I'm not even going to dignify that with a response."

Agreed. Haplo-diploidy requires a gamete (egg or sperm) to provide two sets of chromosomes, and as I pointed out above, these creatures won't be relying on gametes for that any more. But you have to admit that lots of research organisations have filed patents on how to produce "pure" human haploid cell lines - because they are so useful for genetic research. In fact, wouldn't it be great if you could patent a method of propogating human cells that develop normally with two identical sets of genes (which after all is what haplo-diploid creatures do naturally). Then you'd really be finding out what makes people sick - by producing sick embryos.

"The production of embryonic stem cells may well hold the key to cures for many degenerative diseases. Plus by altering certain genes known to play a role in these diseases, scientists will be able to monitor how these genes affect cells, and how the proteins produced by the genes build up (for example in Alzheimers)."

That's a bit misleading, if you don't mind me saying so. If all you are hoping for is to generate certain proteins for injection, or even whole cells for injection (say in Parkinsons) adult stem cell research has achieved that already.

The purpose of the proposed legal changes is to allow researchers to patent new ways of producing embryos and manipulating them. For it to be of any use, ultimately you would want to produce multicellular organisms which are wholly or partly human, genetically - and privately owned.

I have some sympathy for saying that jellybean embryos are less valuable than born babies; but consider this: once these lines exist and have been patented it will be darn difficult to stop the researchers developing them just a little bit further. Think of the millions of investement represented by this gene line! Think of the potential to save lives! If you don't let us do it here, we'll do it in China (and build our embryo factories there instead)! In fact, we're going to do it in China anyway, we have a herd of cows about to give birth!

In the meantime less ethically-tainted alternatives, such as adult stem cell research, will be starved of funding - although they are just as likely to provide the cures we need. just not patentable ones.

[Gipsy]

>>My cat responds to temperature, hunger and pain and shows more self-awareness than a newborn, so does she have human rights?<<

Stop trying to derail this discussion by taking it off in a tangent. A cat is a cat. It has cat's rights. A human is a human. It has human rights. Anyone can see that your argument isn't logical. A baby is a live, born, human being. It has human rights. A severely mentally handicaped adult is still a human being and has human rights.

What happens before the child leaves the womb and whether human rights should start at conception also has no relevance to this conversation. These collections of cells simply have the ability to subdivide - so do cancer cells as Emily points out. They are not the same as an egg and sperm that have joined together and started to subdivide into what might eventually become a baby.

And with cells that are indeed just that - sperm and eggs that have come together and started the cell division process, before the 14 day point (and indeed for some time after but you need to have a specific point to say, this is the cut off) these cells don't even quality for the definition of embryo's. They are pre-embryonic. These cells are not feotus' as seen yawning and moving in the womb. They are not even the little jellybean you can get on a six week scan.

[Gipsy]

Thank you Emily, your informed responses have raised my understanding. And thanks Delilah for the link.

[Lux Aeterna]

Emily

>> Time has nothing to do with this - A and B will biologically NEVER be able to be sentient, they could never survive beyond a certain stage (sorry for the capitals, but I'm trying to emphasise as I can't use italics or underlining). <<

If I read the proposed legislation right (and my background is in the physical rather than the life sciences, so I am a bit sketchy) B is essentially the interspecies hybrid. I appreciate that to date we have not found any sucessful interspecies hybrids involving humans (though I am intrigued by the various theories that neanderthals and cro-magnons interbred) but in the light of the major developments that have taken place in this field to date can we definitively rule out the possibility that an interspecies half human might someday be created?

>> A newborn child is sentient, they are able to respond to temperature, hunger, pain. They are sentient. <<

Having checked the dictionary, perhaps I have slightly misused the word. To me, sentience not only implies response but also a degree of self-awareness; that which classically (though perhaps wrongly) has been considered as distinguishing humans from animals. I don't see that as developing until 3 to 6 months after birth - the secondary circular reactions phase in Piaget speak. My cat responds to temperature, hunger and pain and shows more self-awareness than a newborn, so does she have human rights?

[H]

I'm absolutely un-scientific so am speaking in a purely lay capacity.

I think the reason for concern about these proposals is around the use of any human tissues (?is that a wrong label to use)with those of other species to develop new units (is that wrong too??). I think scientists rarely if ever launch into ground breaking research techniques from 0-60 as it were, but in gradual steps. I think there's mention below of 'thin end of the wedge'. Initial proposals were for a number of different units (told you I was unscientific) as listed below (A,B etc) and there was talk of not letting them continue beyond 14 days. This would suggest to me that there is a question of viability in terms of development. So surely the question does become one of the line to be drawn when human tissue becomes human. One of the reasons the pictures of babies in the womb apparently laughing and yawning etc was because it does suggest sentience in the terms Emily describes before birth. So we're back to the question of when a human gains inalienable rights, if at all.

I take the point that the initial proposals don't make anything easily described as a human embryo but each step along the way may seem quite gradual. To debate the use of any human cell material (is that better than tissue!?) seems an appropriate time to air concerns and debate the issues, since we're back to another difficult-to-define line as to when those debates do become necessary.

[Emily]

LA ">> with the exception of C and D, none of those examples would ever have any chance of developing into sentient life. <<
Conceded with A. B; not now maybe, but in time? "
Time has nothing to do with this - A and B will biologically NEVER be able to be sentient, they could never survive beyond a certain stage (sorry for the capitals, but I'm trying to emphasise as I can't use italics or underlining).

"Agree its not sentient, but it is alive. But is sentience the yardstick? If it is, referring back to my very first post, in my view a newborn isn't sentient. If not, what is?"
A skin cell is alive. A cancer cell is alive. Are they sentient? The two are very different. A newborn child is sentient, they are able to respond to temperature, hunger, pain. They are sentient.

Delilah - I didn't say they used skin cancer cells - I said they used skin cell nuclei, which are then injected into an "empty" animal cell and are stimulated to divide. I then drew a comparison to skin cancer. Any eggs used in this example will be mammalian (but not human) eggs. Evolution and natural selection have no impact here as the "embryos" will not survive and reproduce.

"And even if the legislation were restricted to pronucleus transfer (which it isn't) any zoologist knows that there are quite a lot of complex animals that develop quite happily with half a nucleus, perhaps we could induce the creation of haplo-diploid sub-humans."
Agreed that there are indeed species which develop with "half a nucleus" (it's actually a little more complicated, but for the purposes of this discussion there isn't any need to go into more depth)The idea of creating a "haplo-diploid" human is so ludicrous (sorry, but it is) that I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
"Do I need to point out anyway that producing these doomed half-nucleated blastocysts isn't going to actually achieve the cures the research is promising? For that they need to produce something a bit more ... durable. " - If I may ask - how do you know? The production of embryonic stem cells may well hold the key to cures for many degenerative diseases. Plus by altering certain genes known to play a role in these diseases, scientists will be able to monitor how these genes affect cells, and how the proteins produced by the genes build up (for example in Alzheimers). The link you have provided is actually rather good - Gipsy you may want to have a look at this - if any one has any questions I am more than happy to help explain.

[Delilah]

Emily, if it's just a skin cancer cell, why the need for a egg cell? Why not use a skin cancer cell? Or an adult stem cell from whatever organ you're trying to produce?

Is it perhaps becuase we want it to behave like an embryo - ie, differentiate into a complex collection of different types of cell? I agree that the first few experiments would be unlikely to survive long, but evolution is a powerful thing, especially when aided by artificial selection. The basic blueprint will be there.

And even if the legislation were restricted to pronucleus transfer (which it isn't) any zoologist knows that there are quite a lot of complex animals that develop quite happily with half a nucleus, perhaps we could induce the creation of haplo-diploid sub-humans. (But should we?)

Do I need to point out anyway that producing these doomed half-nucleated blastocysts isn't going to actually achieve the cures the research is promising? For that they need to produce something a bit more ... durable.

People wanting a succinct explanation can try this link - copy it and put it on that thingy at the top of the screen (obviously I am not an IT scientist):
http://www.genome.gov/10004765

[Lux Aeterna]

Emily

>> with the exception of C and D, none of those examples would ever have any chance of developing into sentient life. <<

Conceded with A. B; not now maybe, but in time? C and D are actually the main course; they allow any mixing of human and animal. A is the starter, but A is the one being sold.

>> I would argue that at the stage we are talking, it isn't life. It is a collection of cells, which are NOT sentient. <<

Agree its not sentient, but it is alive. But is sentience the yardstick? If it is, referring back to my very first post, in my view a newborn isn't sentient. If not, what is?

>> In addition these approaches,in my view, are unlikely to be used on any scale as the rate of success with regards to getting useable cell lines or any significant data is incredibly small. <<

Again, true now, but in 5 years?

[Emily]

LA - with the exception of C and D, none of those examples would ever have any chance of developing into sentient life. Or anything resembling life (For those who are not aware of the term pronucleus, it is the name given to the nucleus of a sperm or egg cell after the cells themselves have fused, but before the genetic material has done so. It is essentially a nucleus with half the DNA of a normal cell, in a state ready for fusion. They can be artificially induced). With regards to c and d, I'm afraid we're back to the "when does life start" arguement. I would argue that at the stage we are talking, it isn't life. It is a collection of cells, which are NOT sentient. In addition these approaches,in my view, are unlikely to be used on any scale as the rate of success with regards to getting useable cell lines or any significant data is incredibly small.
Gipsy, I'm glad you liked my explanation - I will attempt to go into more detail later but I've been distracted by LA, and as my boss is lurking, wondering quite how/why Alpha Mummy is relevant to my work, I should probably get on with what I'm paid for!

[Lux Aeterna]

Emily

While that may be the current scientific objective, the ambit of the proposed legislation is much wider. It would permit (subject to HFEA licence) the creation of human admixed embryos, which are (Clause 4 of the Bill):

"5)

For the purposes of this Act a human admixed embryo is—

(a)

an embryo created by replacing the nucleus of an animal egg or of an animal cell, or two animal pronuclei, with—

(i) two human pronuclei,

(ii) one nucleus of a human gamete or of any other human cell, or

(iii) one human gamete or other human cell,

(b) any other embryo created by using—

(i) human gametes and animal gametes, or

(ii) one human pronucleus and one animal pronucleus,

(c) a human embryo that has been altered by the introduction of
any sequence of nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal into one or more cells of the embryo,

(d) a human embryo that has been altered by the introduction of one or more animal cells, or

(e) such other thing as may be specified in regulations."

[Gipsy]

Thanks for the info Emily. That clarifies things for me. With cells as you describe, I don't see any problems using them, morally or ethically.

Incidently it is only Lux who has been trying to put across the idea that these cells could develop into 'creatures' by insuating as much in his posts. I don't think that anyone here has been taken in by that, more that they've just chosen to ignore those statements.

If you've got the time, would you mind filling us in a bit more on the science involved here, in layman's terms? I think that has been missing from the debate as a whole.

[Emily]

As a scientist I don't understand why people are getting so upset about this and why people are referring to the cells as embryos. They are not embryos as you would recognise, they are formed from the nucleus of a skin cell fused with an empty animal cell, which then is induced to replicate. The cells would never, at any point, be able to develop into a baby, or anything vaguely approaching viable or sentient life. In my mind, the cells are really closer to skin cancer cells than any sort of embryo. It's because embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these cells that they are referred to as embryos. They are not embryos. They are in fact closer to mutated skin cells. And yes, since you may be wondering, I am Catholic.

[mumoftwo]

Delilah, thank you for posting what I was trying to say (not very well, probably) which is that although the casualness with which early (potential) human life is viewed (as an object of scientific manipulation) causes me concern, it is the creation of human-something other life which really worries me for the reasons you have very elegantly outlined. That's why I am puzzled as to why these scientists are so keen to create cybrids when you could simply increase the number of eggs by asking people for them (from IVF/voluntary donation) and continue embryo stem cell research as they claim is their ultimate goal- or better still use the adult stem cell technologies which have proved more productive and are less inherently risky. It seems to me that they have intense curiosity about what happens when you insert human DNA into a non-human egg, and I am not happy about the scientific rationale (how can anyone disagree with the aim of curing disability?) which they use to justify it. I don't mean that they aren't well-intentioned, just that sometimes scientists start to exist in a bubble of possibilities and it is important for society to know that it is possible to burst it if they think too much harm will result.

[Kim]

"Ergo I am silly, blinkered by religion, not normal or sensible or living in the real world."

Er, you said it, Lux.

[MUM BY GRACE]

Final post before I give up - Jane an apology if you thought I was rude. I did try to phrase it as a request >>Please don't patronise us all by controlling the debate yourself<< specifically in case I had misinterpreted so intent was not to insult you but to provide some feedback on how the thread was coming across to me. Anyway, sorry if it was rude.

[Sarah Phillimore]

Dear Sarah

There is a difference between a gentle warning and a threat. I made a gentle warning; if you disagree I'm pretty sure that the reasoning is in Atkins (and yes there is legislation and case law on the point).

No Lux. It was not a 'gentle warning'. You pomped on about your 'major legal qualifcations' whilst threatening a defamation action.

I think you will find, quite rightly, that the Bar Council and the Law Society take a dim view of this.

[Delilah]

For pity's sake, Jane and Kim, and Lux too, let it go. I seem to remember Supermother threatening to look up my URL and report me for child abuse a few threads ago (i think we were discussing smacking), with a bit of support from the rest of you. It happens. It's a blog. If this blog starts being about who looked at whom funny I shall yawn and leave for the biker's bar up the road. And again, enough religion, for or against. It's boring. (I say this as a Protestant Christian). There's enough in this issue to keep any except the most amoral busy, regardless of religious conviction or none.

J, I tend towards the utilitarian but as I get older I find myself getting more sympathetic to absolutes, having seen so many primrose paths to perdition I suppose.

Obviously a blastocyst is not sentient, but that's not the sticking point on this legislation (I think the HFEA already have the right to licence the creation and destruction of fully-human embryos, with a certain amount of hand-wringing). The thing that's new here is precisely that it's not quite human - half-chicken as you say. This creature will consist of the entire blueprint for a human being, in a non-human egg. I suspect it will be quite possible to implant it into whatever creature donated the egg with a reasonable chance of it surviving several weeks, perhaps even going to term (in say a pig or a chimpanzee). I don't know how the legislation proposes to categorise this creature. If human, can it acquire rights beyond the right to die at 14 weeks if for some reason it survives (regardless of the legal position of the person who let it survive)? If non-human, will it be entirely property, belonging to its manipulator? There will be no parents to hang these rights and obligations on. That decision will affect a lot of what happens next.

If our current abortion laws are a fair measure of the commencement of humanity, how can we logically deny the owners of these sub-human embryos the chance to allow them to live up to twenty four weeks - perhaps in a pig's womb - to see how their genetic changes actually work out in real organs? If they could deliberately disable the brain cells during development (remember this creature is not classed as human), could they allow them to be born and used for long-term experimental observations (or even the donation of organs)? Imagine they are on the brink of a real therapy for sick children - how much easier to test it on these creatures than "real" children. Tempting.

In that scenario, we perhaps cure or prevent many accidental disabled children, but produce a legion of deliberately disabled sub-children. Is that what we want? Is this reducing the world's burden of suffering? Is that the aim of our ethics?

This is not science fiction, it's reality. If not now, then very soon.

As regards ending life as opposed to saving it, there is a difference between creating or destroying an embryo who will have full human rights if born, including the right to parental care, and producing parentless embryos who have no rights beyond being property. I support limited abortion because I think a parentless child is as much a tragedy in some cases as a dead child, and the mother is probably best placed to decide the balance of harm in each case; but here we are giving science the right to deliberately produce and own parentless quasi-human life to manipulate, buy and sell. Not the same thing at all.

As regards the fact that they are due to die anyway, I can't help thinking of Dr. Mengele's experiments on Jewish and handicapped children who were all scheduled for "termination" anyway. These experiments did result in very valuable medical information which is still of vital importance in life-saving treatments. Of course there was a lot of suffering, more than just being gassed. Would we feel better about having that knowledge if we knew that the children had had their brains sufficiently destroyed beforehand that they did not suffer? If not, why?

Are there really unalienable human rights? If so, who should have them? If not, how much are they worth?

[Lux Aeterna]

OK so why does a man read Alphamummy? Well in this context, I am a parent. We have two children, 3 and 1, both girls as it happens. Of course I'm interested in their school places, general welfare, toys and so on. Don't give a stuff about handbags, but there you go.

Plus, something that no-one has yet decided to throw back at me, I am married to a woman who has a blue-badge meriting lifelong disability (for which they currently have little idea of the cause so the chances of stem cell research helping her in this lifetime are probably nil). She is currently largely not working (it's complicated) but is often in poor health. So I have to work. But I also have to be home for bathtime. Sound familiar anyone?

Plus, as it happens, I don't go for segregation of the sexes. Anyway, this is black dots and white dots, so I don't really see how it matters what equipment you keep in your pants. I'll continue to pass on the handbags, but as far as I am concerned parenting is for both sexes. And that's why I read things here.

[Lux Aeterna]

Jane

There is a threshold. Try to see it.

[Rachel]

how do you wish 'alpha mummies' to be defined? does this mean if you are a mother but not an 'alpha' mummy you are not welcome? or that if you are a woman but not yet a mother then you are not welcome? should a test have to be passed before one is allowed to post on here, to check credentials?

just because people 'seem' to be mothers does not necessarily mean that in reality they are. it is very easy to adopt any persona one wishes when posting on the internet.

LA very helpfully defined where he was coming from when he started his debate, just as previous commenters have stated that they are the parents of disabled children, or they were the higher earner in the divorce or that they went to Oxbridge, all of which might be interesting to other commenters to know as it puts their views into context. LA stated that he is male, a father, a catholic, a scientist and lawyer when he presented his initial thoughts, all of which are relevant to discussion about an embryo research bill.

[Jane]

The fact that my response upset you is really your problem, not mine.

***

No, your response didn't upset me - it indicated that you really must be a troll all along(as my 'congratulatory' response to you showed). I mean, no one in their right little mind would start prating on about defamation law in the way you did, on a blog like this, and then complain that you were called 'pompous' for doing so!

Take a look at the level of tone of some of the posts on this blog - 'insult' is commonplace - I've been called patronising by MumofGrace, and there's an even nastier post to me on another thread, from Mary, and this is hardly unusual here - it's par for the course. Lots of people 'insult' lots of other people, and are rude and hostile. For the most part, they are ignored or rebuffed - me, I ignore them.

As for trolls, sometimes I ignore them, and sometimes I don't. We've had a rush of jerks on this blog in recent times, and it would be preferable to think they were trolls than people genuinely holding the views they've expressed.

So, if you don't want to be taken for a troll, don't behave like one. Ditto for pompous overreacting self-important idiot making a fool of themselves by citing defamation law.

[Lux Aeterna]

Jane

Well, although you are trying to be sarcastic, your long post is actually reasonably correct. I tried to be honest, fair and show my hand. If someone came on here and said I am, say, a scientologist or a card-carrying member of the labour party, so that may have influenced my thinking, then fair enough. Bullying: well you did make a few snide anti-catholic comments along the way but basically you hit first. You chose to insult me, publically. The fact that my response upset you is really your problem, not mine. I only talked about my 'high legal qualifications' when I was accused by someone, presumably not a lawyer, of not knowing the law, which again I find insulting. If you made a statement about something within your area of work/education and were told by someone outside it that you didn't know what you were talking about, you might feel a little peeved too.

Kim
>>As for my insulting you - well, no, not really. I've looked over again at what I've written and the worst I seem to have said is to accuse you of putting forward an argument worthy of a sixth form debating society.<<

but earlier

>> This silliness about the sanctity of a bunch of cells bears no relationship to what most normal, sensible people who lead their lives in the real world think. <<

Ergo I am silly, blinkered by religion, not normal or sensible or living in the real world. As far as I am concerned that's an insult too.

So, again, I put my cards on the table and presented a point of view with reasons. Instead of debate, I got insults. I have not commented adversely (or not) on anyone else's education, qualifications, occupation, age, maturity, race, gender or inside leg measurements. I'm still waiting for someone to attack my inside leg measurement.

[Jane]

"I hope that Jane is not trying to say that new posters are not welcome. She and Kim had a serious falling out with Lux but I would be sorry to think she meant to be that unwelcoming."

No, it's a free blog - but it IS labelled 'Alpha Mummy' which gives a clue as to who its aimed at!

And of course it's nice to have 'guests' - why shouldn't it be? But I'm not too keen on guests who start citing defamation law - I think that will damage the blog just as much as an invasion of prostitution-enthusiasts would!

MumbyGrace seems to be a perfectly 'ordinary' Alphamummy here, just like the most of us, and have I said a word of complaint or comment at her calling me patronising etc, in her not very nice post to me some time earlier? No, why should I - she's entitled to her views, just as I'm entitled to say that the best way to deal with trolls if they arrive is to ignore them, as they feed on response.

[Jane]

wonder whether we're teaching such attitudes to our children and training the next generation of bullies.
**

Funnily enough, bullying is exactly what I feel has been going on on this thread, and not by me. The moment anyone posts here the import that 'I'm a lawyer and I know how to sue' I feel that bullying has started up. Maybe I'm completely wrong - I would hope I am - it is, after all, that tricky line between 'send' and 'receive', intent and impact, that can be, as we all know, quite difficult to get right given the communication limitations of the written word and the character of public blogs/net boards. (It's one of the reasons that emoticons can be so useful, to 'emotionally label' written words)

By the way, I wouldn't at all 'ban men' from here at all, and I don't believe I've said that, have I? (I don't think I have!) - I would, though, far prefer NOT to see men here who are happy to tell us all about their enthusiastic views - experiences even - on prostitution etc. I agree with what has been said on other threads here, that I think the Times is courting a larger participation in this blog which is, after all, still called 'Alpha Mummy' not 'general discusion board', which does rather imply that the blog is primarily targetted at working mothers, and that those outside that category are de facto guests - welcome or otherwise!

[Jean Jones]

Well, well, well. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, he who used his Easter Sunday sermon to fulminate about this topic, has just had a pacemaker fitted. I do hope he carefully researched exactly how this technology was developed before signing the consent form. And I mean EXACTLY.

[J]

Oh dear.

I hope that Jane is not trying to say that new posters are not welcome. She and Kim had a serious falling out with Lux but I would be sorry to think she meant to be that unwelcoming.

[MUM BY GRACE]

Well that's put me off posting forever - I'll go back to lurking too. I had no idea that 'guests' were so marked and treated as interlopers until they earn their spurs to become regulars (how many posts would that take? Or do you just have to agree with a top dog?). Never thought I'd feel 'left out in the playground' as a grown adult on a public blog, on a national newspaper... wonder whether we're teaching such attitudes to our children and training the next generation of bullies.

[Kim]

Jane - beautifully put. Thank you.

And B - no, I don't think Jane does try to control the agenda. Jane and I have disagreed on this site plenty of times, but I have never felt that she was patronising, or controlling, or trolling. She just seems to me to be expressing her own strongly-held views, and that is also true of most of the women who post regularly on this forum.

[B]

With respect, Jane, as a perpetual lurker, I have seen no one else on this site who seeks to "control the agenda" quite as much as you, even to the point of asking that half the population be banned from posting!

[Jane]

Kim, it's not fair of me to walk away and leave you to it.

My original objection to LA's behaviour here was that he arrives out of the blue, not an Alpha mummy but as a guest, and then posts in a way that makes me think his ambition is to control the debate by setting the questions that he wants us to answer, using kiddology to spur us on - which he will then, using all the weight of his vast legal experience etc etc etc, proceed to refute. 'Agenda freakery' is one term for that kind of behaviour which I perceived. Another is that there can exist people whose great kick is to 'outclass' the opposition, and who therefore deliberately choose to 'compete' in forums where they are way, way more qualified than those they are 'competing with'. That's, at best, pretty pathetic behaviour, and one that hardly invites respect or admiration.

Now, maybe, in all charity, that is not at all what was/is happening here. Maybe LA, formidably legally qualified as he has chosen to inform us he is, simply wanted to use this thread to persuade, by his skills, those here who took a different view from him on the issue under discussion. Maybe, too, he doesn't realise just how much he 'outclasses' us, and doesn't realise that coming here, as he does, with all his qualifications, and taking on opponents to his views, could be construed as 'shooting rats in barrels'.

Maybe, too, he genuinely believes that uttering what he chooses to call 'a gentle warning' about the laws of defamation was the hallmark of an 'accommodating' person, and would be aghast to think anyone might misinterpret it as a reaction utterly out of proportion to the general behaviour on forums such as these, or, worse still, as intimidation, a warning off, or as an attempt to silence all criticism of his behaviour here, so that he can get back to amusing himself by shooting down all objections to the points he wishes to make.

Maybe, too, he genuinely is appalled to think that his behaviour here might give rise to some people thinking he is behaving pompously, and would never dream of deliberately behaving in such a way, and had absolutely no idea that citing defamation law on a blog, telling us all about his high legal qualifications, and saying, so very generously, that he wouldn't sue, makes him open to such an interpretation of his behaviour here.

Perhaps, too, he is new to the world of blogs and internet debate, and so is completely unaware of the pernicious existence of trolls, who appear out of nowhere, and amuse themselves taking over discussions and getting all the other posters running in circles around them, while he holds up hoops for them to jump through. Perhaps he's appalled to think that people could behave in such a way, and even more to think that, inadvertantly, his behaviour might lead anyone else to suspect him of such trollism.

Maybe he's really a much, much nicer chap than he's given me reason to believe. I do hope so.

[Kim]

PS you haven't engaged with any of the points I made, either - you seem to have been far too busy taking offence and turning this into an issue of personalities rather than about the rights and wrongs of the case.

[Kim]

Lux: in a couple of my posts, I did engage with your argument. But, as I've said before, I agree with what J said, and she said it very well. I don't feel the need to add to that.

As for my insulting you - well, no, not really. I've looked over again at what I've written and the worst I seem to have said is to accuse you of putting forward an argument worthy of a sixth form debating society. I really fail to see how you can get so het up about that - particularly as you then admitted having been in the sixth form debating society.

But people who are determined to take offence will take offence, regardless. I'm afraid it says far more about you than it does about me.

[Lux Aeterna]

Kim

"Before" means, well, "before". Whether or not that post was defamatory (and I believe it was), in my view the trend was definitely in that direction. No, I wouldn't sue, but next time she tries it she might not find someone so accommodating.

>> t's just really hard to have a proper debate with someone who is that thin-skinned. Internet forums are all about robust debate, <<

Robust debate is one thing. Assertions that I am "pompous", "silly", professionally ignorant, immature, a religious stooge, supercilious etc etc appear to me to be insults, not debate. As I said before, only Delilah and J fully engaged with the points I made. You, Sarah and Jane did not.

[Kim]

Lux: "In fact I suggested that Jane might like to read up on defamation law *before she posted again*. As a lawyer you are supposed to be alive to subtleties, after all."

The trouble is, Lux, I'm having difficulty seeing what Jane said as defamatory. She described you as an "agenda freak". That's all. Even stretching the definition of "defamatory" to its limit, it's really hard to imagine how it can be seen defamatory. Are right-minded people going to think "Ooh, that Lux Aeterna - I used to think he's a good bloke, now I think he's an agenda freak?" (Particularly as none of us knows who Lux Aeterna is.) Even if we DID think that, it would still fall well within the defence of "fair comment". Do you actually think you could present a case for libel without being laughed out of court?

It's just really hard to have a proper debate with someone who is that thin-skinned. Internet forums are all about robust debate, after all, and I think on Alphamummy the debates are generally vastly more civilised than on other forums.

[Lux Aeterna]

>> perhaps Lux is Lucius Malfoy? :)

Getting warmer

[Anon]

"Anon- you say ". I personally think that it is quite stupid going around using your full name on websites, as you never know what the consequences (personal, professional and so on) may be."

Well, maybe that's right. But that's exactly what having the courage of your convictions is all about, isn't it? It's about saying what you think, publicly, regardless of what clients, employers, friends and family may think of you."

Yes, saying publicly, not posting publicly. If you state something publicly, the meaning of what you're saying is far less likely to be misconstrued than if, say, you typed up a comment on a blog. As we have seen here, what you think you've said in your head, and how that is interpreted online can be completely different. Also, misinterpretations are not easily (or speedily) rectified or explained.

[j]

perhaps Lux is Lucius Malfoy? :)

[Lux Aeterna]

Dear Sarah

There is a difference between a gentle warning and a threat. I made a gentle warning; if you disagree I'm pretty sure that the reasoning is in Atkins (and yes there is legislation and case law on the point). Go read. In fact I suggested that Jane might like to read up on defamation law *before she posted again*. As a lawyer you are supposed to be alive to subtleties, after all. You might even think it advisable that everyone who publishes (in the technical sense) in a public forum ought to have an idea of where the boundaries lie.

[Lux Aeterna]

>> Lux aeterna a pun on your real name? Lightman? <<

Not quite. In my (father's) family there is a tendency to reuse forenames across the generations and within the family to use a middle name. That was done to me. So the name by which I am known to the world is not that by which I am known to (should there be one) God. Enough clues!

[Kim]

Lux aeterna a pun on your real name? Lightman?

Anyway, if people want to post anonymously, that's fine by me. But people who do so don't really have the right to accuse others of being "insecure'.

Anon- you say ". I personally think that it is quite stupid going around using your full name on websites, as you never know what the consequences (personal, professional and so on) may be."

Well, maybe that's right. But that's exactly what having the courage of your convictions is all about, isn't it? It's about saying what you think, publicly, regardless of what clients, employers, friends and family may think of you.

[Anon]

I chose to post anonymously, not through lack of conviction, but because this is the internet and I value my privacy. Simple. I personally think that it is quite stupid going around using your full name on websites, as you never know what the consequences (personal, professional and so on) may be.

I admit that my comment about heretic burning was a bit extreme and did question it at the time.

And yes, I have seen all the comments on the Heather Mills thing and so on, and agree that they were pretty horrific.

[j]

um I am not sure about the anon thing.

I have no intention of posting under my full name and nobody seems to mind.

[Lux Aeterna]

Lux aeterna is a pun on my real name, but Kim without a surname is hardly more revealing.

[Kim]

"As someone has already summarised, a child is conceived, grows and is born. At some point in that process it acquires the right not to be arbitrarily killed. We have to find that point."

That, at least, is a sensible comment. And yes, we do disagree on what that point is. J has already explained the reasons for her view (which I agree with) quite adequately. Unfortunately, I think some people's views are clouded by religion and notions of souls coming into existence at the point of creation: if you're not religious, this point simply doesn't have any force at all, so the whole argument becomes redundant.

Anon - I think my comments, and Sarah's comments, have been pretty mild. Given the pomposity of most of Lux's comments, he got off lightly. And some of his responses (such as the one about defamation) have shown him to be very thin-skinned indeed.

Both Sarah and I write under our own names, whereas you and Lux don't. If you have the courage of your convictions, post under your own name.

If you want to see what an ad hominem attack really looks like, go to Comment is Free on the guardian site, or even the last Alphamummy blog post on Heather Mills.

[Rachel]

well said anon. surely the point of a public forum linked to a newspaper is that anyone is welcome to add their views.

perhaps I have missed the point somewhere, but I was under the impression that the cells which are being used for experimentation (and are the subject of discussio here) could not become a viable life. So although I see that there is most certainly a debate as to when a viable life gains rights (and wht these rights are as well as when or if these rights are outweighed by the rights of others) is this debate relevant here other than in reference to the 'slippery slope' issue?

[j]

Lux, many thanks. I suppose that I am open to the 14 days limit as it is so far before development of any central nervous system, and again as I said, because in this case I am far from clear that human life has been created in the first place.

Why 14 days? I am deferring to the scientific community who drafted and advised on the bill, and I am doing it in this case as a utilitarian, because of the balance of harm. It's a different theoretical basis from absolute arguments and has its dangers- but so does absolutism, as we know.

[Sarah Phillimore]

Dear Anon
No need to duck, you are safely anonymous! I'm not ashamed or insecure about what i say, hence i use my name.

Before I go to bed (and I really, really am going now)can I just ever so meekly and insecurely point out that to call me no better than 'heretic burners of yore' for dismissing religious people as mindless idiots (which of course I do) is just a teeny bit silly?

I have no problem whatsoever with people spouting whatever nonsense comes into their heads. Just please don't ask me to 'respect it'. If that is wounding to those of a religious disposition may I suggest they would find being burned alive rather more painful. And thats what they would have been entitled to do to me in England not so long ago and what in fact Islamic states do to apostates right now.

Good night all.

[Lux Aeterna]

J

Of course your point of view is arguable and defensible. As someone has already summarised, a child is conceived, grows and is born. At some point in that process it acquires the right not to be arbitrarily killed. We have to find that point. Now others say variously that point is when it develops a nervous system or can think, or can breathe or whatever. My approach says that none of those is a clear enough boundary, and so that pushes me back to conception. Of course I may be wrong and you may be right; if there was scientific certainty then this (both here and wider) would be an open and shut debate. All I am asking is that those who say that I am wrong, that human rights do not exist until a later point, say what that point is and why they draw the line there.

What is up with people on Alphamummy?

I don't agree with Jane and other whinging about non-alphamummies posting on the site. It is a public site, not a private one. If you did want to have just a select few (that is, the regulars) posting on it, then set up your own site and limit who can post. However, as has happened in the past (I've done tons of lurking), is that you turn against each other, and it invariably turns into SAHM vs WM battle, with Jane on one extreme and Supermother on the other.

As for Kim and Sarah Philmore. Woah. All Lux has been doing is posting his views on this debate. As said above, it's a free country and a public forum. He's allowed to do that. It would be much more boring if everyone sat here going "yip. Stem cell research is great, it will save lots of lives, we all agree". The purpose of this site, I imagine, is to encourage debate, to allow people to air their views. Sarah, as for your rather personal attacks on Lux, it reveals so much more about yourself and your own insecurities than anything else. Delilah and J have entered into well thought out, reasonable debate, whereas you have descended into personal attacks. You stated that "I think it is important for religious people to recognise that their views are simply those; views. I don't believe in their gods and I'm often incandescent with rage that we give their priests etc air time to vent their superstition and attempt to influence national policy with supersition." On the flipside, it seems nowdays that anyone with religious views tries to enter public debate, they are immediately denigrated. It seems that in society now, if you do hold any form of religious belief it is assumed that you're some kind of idiot incapable of reasoned thought (as it seems Sarah assumes, by referring to religious belief as superstition). Atheism, agnosticism and so on are also only views, and by attacking someone who disagrees with on the simple basis that they believe in G-d and/or are religious, then it makes you no better t