Andrew Goodall

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: my MP defies the whip

The Bill passed its second reading in the Commons after several hours of debate on 12 May. My MP, Paul Farrelly, voted against the government – he was one of nine Labour "rebels". Farrelly said:

I have grave concerns about the lack of debate on human-animal chimeric embryos and human-animal transgenic embryos or hybrids. The issue is being glossed over.

MPs will return to the Bill next week. This is how the mainstream media has reported this week's debate:

BBC News website: Embryology laws pass first hurdle

Guardian: Bar lesbians from IVF treatment in absence of father figure, say Tories

Telegraph: Women 'should have abortion on demand'

Telegraph: Girl born before 24-week legal abortion limit

Times: MPs demand more time for fertilisation and embryology debate

Embryology: my MP replies, and more on adult stem cells

I am pleased to say that Paul Farrelly MP sent to me by return of post a long and detailed response to my letter, addressing each of my concerns in turn. He clearly has a keen interest in the issues. And Don Margolis of the International Center for Adult Stem Cell Education has posted an interesting comment on my earlier post.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: a letter to my MP

MPs will debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next Monday. I have written to Paul Farrelly, the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, asking him to consider that:

1. While advances in scientific research are of course essential in order to find more and better therapies to tackle disease, not all such research should be supported irrespective of how ethical or effective it is.

2. Adult stem cell research is already used in many therapies, and many more new ones are being tested. Unlike embryonic stem cell research – which has not yet resulted in any therapies at all – adult stem cell research does not involve destroying human embryos.

3. The creation of interspecies embryos is an offence against human dignity, and to pass a law that explicitly allows it is a risk too far.

As David Jones has pointed out (Times Higher Education supplement 1 May), the Bill would "legalise truly crossing the species barrier, with no real public debate and for no scientific reason other than 'why not?'"

4. The Bill's provisions relating to infertility treatment deny a child's natural right to a father as well as a mother – they even deny the child knowledge of the biological father.

5. Apart from the morality of abortion itself, figures showing that many children survive after being born within the current 24-week legal abortion limit (Daily Telegraph 18 April) make it clear to any rational person that the limit should be limited further.

There is a danger that in an entirely proper and understandable desire to support medical research, MPs will enact a set of diverse laws that could have a lasting and very harmful impact. I will watch the debate with interest.

This is the first time I have written to my MP (I am ashamed to say) but it's really easy, thanks to www.writetothem.com.

How far away are stem cell-based treatments?

A very quick follow-up to my last post on adult stem cell research.  The Medical Research Council paper says this (at page 15 of the pdf):

How far away are stem cell-based treatments?

A huge amount of research is still needed before embryonic stem cell therapies will be used to treat patients, although clinical trials testing these may only be a couple of years away. Researchers don’t yet understand exactly how stem cells work. In the UK clinicians have been testing the use of adult stem cells to repair blood for some time, for instance in bone marrow transplants, and trials are now underway testing adult stem cells for the repair of other tissues and organs.

More on the HFE Bill soon.

Let's hear it for adult stem cell research

Leaders of the Catholic Church in England and Wales said earlier this week:

Scientific research into the potential treatment and cure of various diseases is both welcome and necessary. There have been exciting developments in research using adult stem cells that do not involve the deliberate creation and destruction of human life, or the mixing of human and animal life. It is surely possible to achieve the good ends pursued by this research without recourse to ethically questionable means.

In The Tablet (29 March) Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham said "very little" progress has been made through embryonic stem cell research and added:

In contrast, work with adult stem cells is showing far better results. All the published research points in this direction ... Yet we hear little about it.

In the same magazine Professor Colin Blakemore acknowledged

... the possibility that knowledge from stem cell research might increase the potential for therapeutic use of adult stem cells.

A paper published only yesterday by the Medical Research Council says this under the heading "Which type to use" (page 5 of the pdf):

Embryonic stem cells are able to develop into many more different cell types than adult stem cells and it is easier to control their specialisation and growth. They are also more plentiful and easier to isolate than many adult stem cells. On the other hand, a patient’s own adult stem cells could be used to treat a disease without their body rejecting them as it might reject embryonic stem cells from a donor. Some scientists claim that they have managed to manipulate adult stem cells to form cells other than those they were previously destined to become, such as directing blood stem cells to form brain neurons. If this is confirmed, it may one day be possible to direct particular types of cell to function in other areas of the body and adult stem cells may then offer even more potential for improving human health. Early indications suggest that induced pluripotent stem cells also have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, offering the possibility of their future use once technological hurdles have been overcome.

Because of the advantages and disadvantages of both embryonic and adult stem cells, scientists continue to research both types in the quest for medical advances and new treatments. Information generated on one type informs research into the other.

Where is the evidence of recent "exciting developments" in adult stem cell research? Here are a few reports from the last few months:

New Scientist 27.02.08
Stem cell breakthrough may reduce cancer risk
The main obstacle to using "reprogrammed" human stem cells – the danger that they might turn cancerous – has been solved, claims a US company.

Lancaster University website news, February 2008
Lancaster University is at the forefront of groundbreaking research into human stem cells which could hold the key to treatments for cancer and other serious diseases … The Department of Biological Sciences is leading an international team of scientists who have successfully located stem cells in the gastrointestinal tract and examined the chemical signature, or “fingerprints”, unique to individual cells … Stem cells could hold the key to providing effective treatment for serious conditions, such as cancer, and could be used to repair and replace diseased cells in the human body. They are present in many different parts of the body but locating them is a different matter altogether - researchers have been trying to locate the stem cell region in the stomach and intestines for several years.

New Scientist 24.11.07
Adult stem cells found in menstrual blood
THE "monthly curse" may be anything but: menstrual blood appears to be a rich and accessible source of adult stem cells.

Guardian 23.11.07
Hope for safer bone marrow transplants
Patients with common immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis could one day be treated with bone marrow transplants, scientists claimed yesterday. Hopes for the new treatment follow the development of a more efficient transplant technique which avoids the need for radio- or chemotherapy, both of which have potentially dangerous side-effects. Traditional bone marrow transplants are used to treat only life-threatening conditions, such as leukaemia or lymphoma. The treatment infuses healthy adult stem cells into the patient, which then form fresh blood and immune cells. But before the transplant can be done, patients must receive a course of radiotherapy or chemotherapy to wipe out the defective cells in their bone marrow. The therapy can cause widespread damage, leaving patients brain damaged, at greater risk of cancer, or infertile. Researchers at Stanford University's institute for stem cell biology and regenerative medicine reasoned it might be possible to perform bone marrow transplants without needing risky therapy beforehand. In theory, it would allow doctors to treat auto-immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and type one diabetes by giving patients a new, healthy immune system.

I don't recall more than one of these developments making headline news. Adult stem cell research shows real promise but it seems to be in the headlines only rarely. Why is that?

For commercial reasons, according to Mark Pritchard, the Conservative MP. Writing in the Telegraph (28 March) Pritchard claimed that the lack of progress using human embryonic stem cells was:

... a small detail omitted by the large bio-tech corporations that stand to make millions from the Government's proposals.

How much merit Pritchard's statement has I don't know. As Professor Blakemore has suggested, ethical judgements need to be based on authoritative information.

A call for measured debate on embryo research

I've started to read the human fertilisation and embryology bill. It's big and it's scary. And this is one of those issues where public debate sometimes becomes so polarised that there are times when it seems one side or the other is either sadly mistaken or deliberately misleading the audience to win support.

It was good to hear at least a few minutes of more measured debate on Today (25 March). Indarjit Singh's message in Thought for the Day (script not yet available) was that "while it's important to try to eradicate debilitating disease, we have a parallel responsibilty to ensure that this is not at the cost of demeaning human life in general".

Clifford Longley, the Catholic writer, said he was not in favour of using "very emotive" language. He was responding to Cardinal Keith O’Brien's claim that

One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.

The temperature ought to be kept cool, Longley said. Quite right. But he pointed out that the bill as it stands would violate two principles, not at all unique to Catholics.

First, human life must never be a means to an end, always an end in itself. Secondly, good ends never justify bad means.

There's more on the Listen Again page (at 7.45-8.00), where Longley and Professor Colin Blakemore describe fundamentally different views on when human life begins. And, of course, this is the issue at the heart of the debate.