BBC report today on a new advance in adult stem cell research:
US researchers have found a way to dramatically increase the harvest of stem cells from adult tissue.
It is a practical step forward in techniques to produce large numbers of stem cells without using embryos.
Using three drug-like chemicals, the team made the procedure 200 times more efficient and twice as fast, the Nature Methods journal reported. It is hoped stem cells could one day be widely used to repair damaged tissue in diseases and after injuries.
The more can be done with adult stem cells, the better. The creation of embryos primarily to use them as bit parts for treatment of others is a major ethical problem, and from what I gather, despite it being approved by Parliament last year, there isn't that much funding for embryo stem cell research. If the same therapies can be found through using adult stem cells instead, then that seems to be a win-win.
Showing posts with label embryo research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label embryo research. Show all posts
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
New Slogan
Following the atheist bus campaign, their Facebook group is looking for other slogans to go on the side of London buses. As one commenter writes: "The slogan used is really pants. Come on people, we can do better."
This is probably the kind of thread Madpriest should be hosting, but you heard the lady. We can do better than 'There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy life.'
And you can probably do better than mine:
"Jesus, probably the best deity in the world"
"There probably is no bus, but step off the kerb and find out for yourself"
"I was enjoying life, then I read Dawkins"
"Look both ways"
good discussion here too.
And of course, this is all a convenient distraction whilst abortion law and embryo research are voted on in the commons today. Update: last minute amendments will make it possible for cloning to be done without consent from donated tissue . These have been thrown in at the last minute, without the chance for proper scrutiny, and they will be voted on today.
The alliance of scientists, biotech enthusiasts and parliamentarians behind the amendments seem to believe that no public case needs to be made for these changes, convinced as they are that cloning is the next big thing in medical research and that the UK has to be the Silicon Valley of this new industry. The dense thicket of over 100 amendments added to the HFE bill provided the perfect opportunity to slip in provisions that would otherwise be extremely controversial.
This is probably the kind of thread Madpriest should be hosting, but you heard the lady. We can do better than 'There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy life.'
And you can probably do better than mine:
"Jesus, probably the best deity in the world"
"There probably is no bus, but step off the kerb and find out for yourself"
"I was enjoying life, then I read Dawkins"
"Look both ways"
good discussion here too.
And of course, this is all a convenient distraction whilst abortion law and embryo research are voted on in the commons today. Update: last minute amendments will make it possible for cloning to be done without consent from donated tissue . These have been thrown in at the last minute, without the chance for proper scrutiny, and they will be voted on today.
The alliance of scientists, biotech enthusiasts and parliamentarians behind the amendments seem to believe that no public case needs to be made for these changes, convinced as they are that cloning is the next big thing in medical research and that the UK has to be the Silicon Valley of this new industry. The dense thicket of over 100 amendments added to the HFE bill provided the perfect opportunity to slip in provisions that would otherwise be extremely controversial.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Whipped
From the Mail on Sunday, on Harriet Harman's tactics at the Embrology Bill vote last week:
When Ms Dorries addressed the House and urged Labour MPs to support her, Ms Harman arrived, apparently to ‘spy’ on her. She stood by the Speaker’s chair, hands on hips, watching MPs like a hawk – exactly how Labour’s Whips operate.
Moves to cut the abortion limit to 22 or 20 weeks were rejected by much bigger margins than had been expected. Ms Dorries believes that Ms Harman’s campaign was one of the main reasons for the surprise result.
‘The tactics used to defeat my proposals were disgraceful,’ said Ms Dorries. ‘Ms Harman ran a fully-fledged whipping operation in all but name. This was supposed to be a non-political debate but she has politicised it.
‘The case for reducing the time limit for abortions to 20 weeks is irrefutable both on moral and scientific grounds. We are not giving up on this. From now on, the gloves are off.’
Ms Harman last night denied she had acted improperly. ‘It is deplorable that people who lost the argument now attempt to cry foul,’ she said. ‘It was a free vote and I worked with others to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo.
‘We won because we had the most persuasive arguments. It is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation.’
Stop. Rewind.
"I worked with others to ensure that as many MP's as possible voted for the status quo"
"it is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation."
How can both those statements be true? Whipping is working with others (the team of whips) to ensure that as many MP's as possible vote for the governments line. Which was the status quo - Gordon Brown said so a couple of days before. It was their bill, for goodness sake.
Picked up elsewhere: Nadine Dorries, Cranmer, Peter Ould, all comment on this story. (also a v interesting post on the abortion topic at Transfattyacid) The stats show that 80%+ of the Labour party were persuaded to vote one way and 80%+ of the Conservatives were persuaded to vote the other. I can also never work out why 500+ people get to vote on a debate that only 100 of them were present at - when you see the debates on this bill, the chamber is mainly empty, yet everyone gets to vote. What if we did general elections the same way: don't bother listening to the arguments, just turn up on polling day. That's democracy!
When Ms Dorries addressed the House and urged Labour MPs to support her, Ms Harman arrived, apparently to ‘spy’ on her. She stood by the Speaker’s chair, hands on hips, watching MPs like a hawk – exactly how Labour’s Whips operate.
Moves to cut the abortion limit to 22 or 20 weeks were rejected by much bigger margins than had been expected. Ms Dorries believes that Ms Harman’s campaign was one of the main reasons for the surprise result.
‘The tactics used to defeat my proposals were disgraceful,’ said Ms Dorries. ‘Ms Harman ran a fully-fledged whipping operation in all but name. This was supposed to be a non-political debate but she has politicised it.
‘The case for reducing the time limit for abortions to 20 weeks is irrefutable both on moral and scientific grounds. We are not giving up on this. From now on, the gloves are off.’
Ms Harman last night denied she had acted improperly. ‘It is deplorable that people who lost the argument now attempt to cry foul,’ she said. ‘It was a free vote and I worked with others to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo.
‘We won because we had the most persuasive arguments. It is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation.’
Stop. Rewind.
"I worked with others to ensure that as many MP's as possible voted for the status quo"
"it is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation."
How can both those statements be true? Whipping is working with others (the team of whips) to ensure that as many MP's as possible vote for the governments line. Which was the status quo - Gordon Brown said so a couple of days before. It was their bill, for goodness sake.
Picked up elsewhere: Nadine Dorries, Cranmer, Peter Ould, all comment on this story. (also a v interesting post on the abortion topic at Transfattyacid) The stats show that 80%+ of the Labour party were persuaded to vote one way and 80%+ of the Conservatives were persuaded to vote the other. I can also never work out why 500+ people get to vote on a debate that only 100 of them were present at - when you see the debates on this bill, the chamber is mainly empty, yet everyone gets to vote. What if we did general elections the same way: don't bother listening to the arguments, just turn up on polling day. That's democracy!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Unbelievable
I can see why people might vote to create subhuman embryos to research serious diseases, even though there are no fruits to this research yet, and plenty of other therapies (e.g. adult stem cells) are proving really fruitful. However if in 10 years the cures for Alzheimers and MND that have been dangled like carrots over MP's don't materialise, I hope the government of the time has the nous to revisit the legislation. (Kevin Davis, for example, supports the idea of a 'sunset clause' which writes this into the legislation itself.)
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Abortion and the Embryology Bill
Most of what I want to say is said perfectly well by Cranmer, who also posts this from the Spectator:
Every so often a letter arrives in a columnist's mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view. That happened to me last week following my article in which I urged caution before lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks.
The letter came from a Registered General Nurse who works on a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations. She apologised for the "unpleasant and upsetting aspects" of her letter but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience.Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. "It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don't want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don't blame them, I was once the same," says Kay. "But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever."
The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother's current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion. Kay adds: "I know of two nurses who went off work with stress as a result of their experience with late terminations. I suffered horrendous nightmares and guilt for months. The guilt comes from the fact that you as a nurse cut the umbilical cord and, as dramatic as it sounds, we felt like murderers."
Kay doesn't believe in hounding or criminalising women who have to make this extremely tough decision owing to severe disability. Her misgivings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says: "There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten years' time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?"
On the Bill, there are 4 short videos exploring the 4 main ethical issues, posted online by CCFON, with Evan Harris putting 1 side of the debate and Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship responding.
Animal-human hybrids (3m59s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=81&avap=1
Abortion 24 week limit (3m44s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=82&avap=1
Saviour Siblings (2m05s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=83&avap=1
Role of the Father in IVF (1m50s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=84&avap=1
Every so often a letter arrives in a columnist's mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view. That happened to me last week following my article in which I urged caution before lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks.
The letter came from a Registered General Nurse who works on a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations. She apologised for the "unpleasant and upsetting aspects" of her letter but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience.Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. "It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don't want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don't blame them, I was once the same," says Kay. "But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever."
The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother's current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion. Kay adds: "I know of two nurses who went off work with stress as a result of their experience with late terminations. I suffered horrendous nightmares and guilt for months. The guilt comes from the fact that you as a nurse cut the umbilical cord and, as dramatic as it sounds, we felt like murderers."
Kay doesn't believe in hounding or criminalising women who have to make this extremely tough decision owing to severe disability. Her misgivings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says: "There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten years' time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?"
On the Bill, there are 4 short videos exploring the 4 main ethical issues, posted online by CCFON, with Evan Harris putting 1 side of the debate and Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship responding.
Animal-human hybrids (3m59s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=81&avap=1
Abortion 24 week limit (3m44s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=82&avap=1
Saviour Siblings (2m05s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=83&avap=1
Role of the Father in IVF (1m50s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=84&avap=1
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Embryology Bill
Really helpful guide in Times Online to the 4 big debates happening in parliament next week over abortion, hybrid embryos, the need of children for a father, and 'saviour siblings'. Dealing with one of these alone would be hard, debating and deciding on all 4 within a couple of days seems a lot to ask from MPs.
Various resources on the ccfon website for reflection on these issues. Something to ask people to pray for tomorrow. Whilst we've already crossed the Rubicon on abortion, the other 3 issues all cross significant ethical lines, and redefine what we mean by humanity, and the nature of key relationships within human community.
The embryo hybrid debate has been the biggest one, which shows how hard it is to deal with all these issues at the same time. There hasn't really been a public debate on whether children need fathers, or conceiving a sibling with the main purpose of saving the life of a living child. It's not hard to see a bit of 'divide and rule' going on here - opponents of one area will tend to be opponents of all 4, but if we split our energies 4 ways, we may lose on all 4. Campaigners have been forced to focus on 1 of the 4 issues, which weakens opposition to the other 3.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Embryology Bill
In a quiet news week, this bill would be the top news story, but tragedies overseas and New Labour memoirs at home have pushed it down the news agenda. Here's part of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship briefing on what happened on Monday:
What happened at Second Reading
The records of how MPs voted can be viewed by the following links:
Vote for the Bill at Second Reading: 340 in favour, 78 against:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debtext/80512-0019.htm
The vote for the restricted timetable to hear the Bill was also carried in favour of the Government. This will mean that only 3 hours of parliamentary time is given to each of the key issues listed above, including the amendments of both sides on the issue of abortion. In total, including Report Stage, there will be a total of less than 3 days for this controversial Bill to be both debated and voted on:
265 in favour, 149 against:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debtext/80512-0020.htm
Index to different parts of debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debindx/80512-x.htm
BBC Parliament 'The Record' summary of the debate in the chamber: http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=76&avap=1.
There were, however, encouraging signs of God at work:
The All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group press statement quotes Ann Widdecombe’s encouraging words: “Clearly there is all to play for, with the large number of MPs abstaining indicating that many have still to make up their minds. We ensured the pro-life amendments—on the upper time limit for the gestation period for abortions—went down first, and if usual procedures are followed, they should be debated first. It was also encouraging how many Labour MPs spoke against the Bill—whereas once it would have been particularly difficult to get, for example, women Labour MPs to do so.”
The group also reports that there was clarity in the laying of the amendments, despite the physical scrum to get amendments amendments on abortion were laid in the following order: 12 weeks, 14 weeks, 16 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks.
A letter to the Telegraph from over 50 scientists highlights the loophole in the Bill, which together with the planned repeal of the Cloning Act 2001, would allow cloned babies to be born. The letter calls for the ban in the 2001 Act to be kept . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/13/nosplit/dt1301.xml#head8 (scroll down to ‘Embryo Bill Dangers’).
The Daily Mail today reports the growing unease amongst rebel Labour MPs at not being allowed free vote either at Second Reading or at Third Reading and the double standards that seem to be creeping in:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566055&in_page_id70.
Please pray for the MPs who have laid amendments on abortion and also for Iain Duncan Smith, who was able to lay an amendment on fatherhood; Edward Leigh and David Burrowes who tabled amendments prohibiting animal-human hybrids and saviour siblings respectively, and Claire Curtis Thomas, who tabled amendments on informed consent for women contemplating abortion (which could be the most influential in the long-term future of abortion in this country) and banning abortion up to birth for disabled babies.
Whilst most of the news coverage was supportive of the Bill and tended to feature the pro-embryo research rally, the following clips were more balanced and Sky News screened their interview with Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship:
Sky News 5.30 pm report:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=74&avap=1
BBC News 24, 4.30 pm report:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=75&avap=1.
This isn't normally a 'campaigning' blog, but the kind of things our Parliament is looking at fundamentally change our view of what it is to be human, and what kind of value we give to human life. We are moving from seeing life as intrinsically valuable, to seeing lives only as means to and end. In some ways this is the same attitude that is pushing thousands of children through the SATS mincer this week, not because the exams do them any good, but so that schools can be ranked in league tables. It is the commodification of children: not created and raised in love, but created as a means to some other end, and raised as educational units or consumer pawns (as Child of Our Time disturbingly showed last week).
What happened at Second Reading
The records of how MPs voted can be viewed by the following links:
Vote for the Bill at Second Reading: 340 in favour, 78 against:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debtext/80512-0019.htm
The vote for the restricted timetable to hear the Bill was also carried in favour of the Government. This will mean that only 3 hours of parliamentary time is given to each of the key issues listed above, including the amendments of both sides on the issue of abortion. In total, including Report Stage, there will be a total of less than 3 days for this controversial Bill to be both debated and voted on:
265 in favour, 149 against:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debtext/80512-0020.htm
Index to different parts of debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080512/debindx/80512-x.htm
BBC Parliament 'The Record' summary of the debate in the chamber: http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=76&avap=1.
There were, however, encouraging signs of God at work:
The All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group press statement quotes Ann Widdecombe’s encouraging words: “Clearly there is all to play for, with the large number of MPs abstaining indicating that many have still to make up their minds. We ensured the pro-life amendments—on the upper time limit for the gestation period for abortions—went down first, and if usual procedures are followed, they should be debated first. It was also encouraging how many Labour MPs spoke against the Bill—whereas once it would have been particularly difficult to get, for example, women Labour MPs to do so.”
The group also reports that there was clarity in the laying of the amendments, despite the physical scrum to get amendments amendments on abortion were laid in the following order: 12 weeks, 14 weeks, 16 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks.
A letter to the Telegraph from over 50 scientists highlights the loophole in the Bill, which together with the planned repeal of the Cloning Act 2001, would allow cloned babies to be born. The letter calls for the ban in the 2001 Act to be kept . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/13/nosplit/dt1301.xml#head8 (scroll down to ‘Embryo Bill Dangers’).
The Daily Mail today reports the growing unease amongst rebel Labour MPs at not being allowed free vote either at Second Reading or at Third Reading and the double standards that seem to be creeping in:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=566055&in_page_id70.
Please pray for the MPs who have laid amendments on abortion and also for Iain Duncan Smith, who was able to lay an amendment on fatherhood; Edward Leigh and David Burrowes who tabled amendments prohibiting animal-human hybrids and saviour siblings respectively, and Claire Curtis Thomas, who tabled amendments on informed consent for women contemplating abortion (which could be the most influential in the long-term future of abortion in this country) and banning abortion up to birth for disabled babies.
Whilst most of the news coverage was supportive of the Bill and tended to feature the pro-embryo research rally, the following clips were more balanced and Sky News screened their interview with Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship:
Sky News 5.30 pm report:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=74&avap=1
BBC News 24, 4.30 pm report:
http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=75&avap=1.
This isn't normally a 'campaigning' blog, but the kind of things our Parliament is looking at fundamentally change our view of what it is to be human, and what kind of value we give to human life. We are moving from seeing life as intrinsically valuable, to seeing lives only as means to and end. In some ways this is the same attitude that is pushing thousands of children through the SATS mincer this week, not because the exams do them any good, but so that schools can be ranked in league tables. It is the commodification of children: not created and raised in love, but created as a means to some other end, and raised as educational units or consumer pawns (as Child of Our Time disturbingly showed last week).
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Embryo Research
Gordon Brown has now announced a partial free vote on the Chimera, sorry, animal-human hybrid legislation. I'm no expert in this field, but here are a couple of links:
Peter Saunders blog at the Christian Medical Fellowship. Here's an extract from his post on embryonic research:
It is now nine years since the publication of the 1999 Donaldson Report, on which the government based its current policy on stem cells. Embryonic stem cells were apparently going to provide miracle cures for people with degenerative diseases like Parkinsons, Diabetes and Alzheimers. Immunologically compatible stem cells were going to be produced by therapeutic cloning, the same technology that produced Dolly the sheep.
Nine years is a long time in science. What has happened since? Human embryonic stem cells are yet to provide a single therapy for any human disease. Scientists are yet to produce a single stem cell line from a cloned human embryo.
Wikepedia has a section on 'stem cell controversy', which seems to have some good background.
Here's what The White House is prepared to fund. No discussion of hybrids, they draw the line at cloning and creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
There is a CofE policy paper here from a couple of years ago. 20 pages, so give yourself time to read it.
Helpful Q&A section at the Guardian, which outlines the main areas of research that the legislation is aimed at.
And Bishop Alan asks 5 critical questions.
Lots of other good links on this at Thinking Anglicans
Peter Saunders blog at the Christian Medical Fellowship. Here's an extract from his post on embryonic research:
It is now nine years since the publication of the 1999 Donaldson Report, on which the government based its current policy on stem cells. Embryonic stem cells were apparently going to provide miracle cures for people with degenerative diseases like Parkinsons, Diabetes and Alzheimers. Immunologically compatible stem cells were going to be produced by therapeutic cloning, the same technology that produced Dolly the sheep.
Nine years is a long time in science. What has happened since? Human embryonic stem cells are yet to provide a single therapy for any human disease. Scientists are yet to produce a single stem cell line from a cloned human embryo.
Wikepedia has a section on 'stem cell controversy', which seems to have some good background.
Here's what The White House is prepared to fund. No discussion of hybrids, they draw the line at cloning and creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
There is a CofE policy paper here from a couple of years ago. 20 pages, so give yourself time to read it.
Helpful Q&A section at the Guardian, which outlines the main areas of research that the legislation is aimed at.
And Bishop Alan asks 5 critical questions.
Lots of other good links on this at Thinking Anglicans
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Embryology Bill Report
From the CCFON report on Tuesday's vote:
Tuesday’s votes in the House of Lords
On Tuesday 15th January the House of Lords voted against on a ban on the creation of animal-human hybrids for research purposes. A proposed ban on embryo selection for ‘saviour siblings’ was also lost. Further issues, including the child’s need for a father and abortion, are due to be debated and voted upon in the Lords on Monday 21st January. Then the amended Bill will have its 3rd Reading before being sent to the Commons for further debate.
If the Bill is not amended in the Commons it will become law that embryonic stem cell researchers will be allowed to mix animal sperm with human eggs or human sperm with animal eggs, in order to create a hybrid embryo. This embryo can be experimented upon and then must be destroyed within 14 days. The UK is alone amongst Western democracies in allowing such research to take place. This legislation, which holds many other worrying provisions besides hybrids, is attacking the very core of who we are as a society, what we value as human beings, how we view the unique dignity of humanity and the lengths we are prepared to go to in perverting nature for our own selfish and often misguided desires.
If the nation is still capable of being shocked, then this Bill – if its contents were more widely known and understood – would certainly do just that. It is the church’s responsibility to speak up for God’s intention for His creation, and in the absence of a wider understanding of the Bill it falls to the church to speak on behalf the nation, to act as lookouts in the watch tower warning of the approaching dangers. Please continue to pray and tell your friends about this Bill, and read on to find out what further action can be taken...
To read the debate in full, use this link
Animal Human Hybrid Embryo vote
Lord Alton’s proposed amendment to the Bill that would have banned the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos was defeated in the House of Lords last night by 96 to 268. These hybrid embryos are now referred to in the Bill as ‘human admixed embryos’ due to a Government amendment.
Several peers spoke in favour of a ban, arguing that such research was both unnecessary and crossed an ethical boundary.
Lord Alton stated “As Parliament is dazzled with misleading claims about therapies and cures, there have been none anywhere in the world... If we permit the creation of these predominantly human interspecies embryos and full hybrids, we will be crossing an important ethical line—crossing human and animal. But for what? For the sake of a technology that we know will not be the future.”
Lord Tebbit argued “Once we get into the business of creating entities which are halfway, or somewhere along that spectrum, between animal and human, we have a deep ethical dilemma... I am also worried about the attitude of the scientific community which, while it is always willing to accept that there should be limits placed on it on ethical grounds, always seems to assume that the limits should be somewhere just beyond what is scientifically possible and what it wants to do and those limits keep moving.”
“The matters we are discussing are more of ethics than of technology. Because it is scientifically possible to do something does not mean it should be done. Because it might bring great benefit to particular people does not mean that it should be done. If we accept arguments of that kind, we are essentially accepting the argument that the end justifies the means.”
The next stage of the bill may include a government move to remove the need for a biological father in the 'creation' of embryos during fertility treatment. And todays innovation is tomorrows starting point.
Update: Nadine Dorries MP has some good stuff to say on her blog. "Whenever there is a bad decision in parliament, you will often find money at the bottom of it."
Tuesday’s votes in the House of Lords
On Tuesday 15th January the House of Lords voted against on a ban on the creation of animal-human hybrids for research purposes. A proposed ban on embryo selection for ‘saviour siblings’ was also lost. Further issues, including the child’s need for a father and abortion, are due to be debated and voted upon in the Lords on Monday 21st January. Then the amended Bill will have its 3rd Reading before being sent to the Commons for further debate.
If the Bill is not amended in the Commons it will become law that embryonic stem cell researchers will be allowed to mix animal sperm with human eggs or human sperm with animal eggs, in order to create a hybrid embryo. This embryo can be experimented upon and then must be destroyed within 14 days. The UK is alone amongst Western democracies in allowing such research to take place. This legislation, which holds many other worrying provisions besides hybrids, is attacking the very core of who we are as a society, what we value as human beings, how we view the unique dignity of humanity and the lengths we are prepared to go to in perverting nature for our own selfish and often misguided desires.
If the nation is still capable of being shocked, then this Bill – if its contents were more widely known and understood – would certainly do just that. It is the church’s responsibility to speak up for God’s intention for His creation, and in the absence of a wider understanding of the Bill it falls to the church to speak on behalf the nation, to act as lookouts in the watch tower warning of the approaching dangers. Please continue to pray and tell your friends about this Bill, and read on to find out what further action can be taken...
To read the debate in full, use this link
Animal Human Hybrid Embryo vote
Lord Alton’s proposed amendment to the Bill that would have banned the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos was defeated in the House of Lords last night by 96 to 268. These hybrid embryos are now referred to in the Bill as ‘human admixed embryos’ due to a Government amendment.
Several peers spoke in favour of a ban, arguing that such research was both unnecessary and crossed an ethical boundary.
Lord Alton stated “As Parliament is dazzled with misleading claims about therapies and cures, there have been none anywhere in the world... If we permit the creation of these predominantly human interspecies embryos and full hybrids, we will be crossing an important ethical line—crossing human and animal. But for what? For the sake of a technology that we know will not be the future.”
Lord Tebbit argued “Once we get into the business of creating entities which are halfway, or somewhere along that spectrum, between animal and human, we have a deep ethical dilemma... I am also worried about the attitude of the scientific community which, while it is always willing to accept that there should be limits placed on it on ethical grounds, always seems to assume that the limits should be somewhere just beyond what is scientifically possible and what it wants to do and those limits keep moving.”
“The matters we are discussing are more of ethics than of technology. Because it is scientifically possible to do something does not mean it should be done. Because it might bring great benefit to particular people does not mean that it should be done. If we accept arguments of that kind, we are essentially accepting the argument that the end justifies the means.”
The next stage of the bill may include a government move to remove the need for a biological father in the 'creation' of embryos during fertility treatment. And todays innovation is tomorrows starting point.
Update: Nadine Dorries MP has some good stuff to say on her blog. "Whenever there is a bad decision in parliament, you will often find money at the bottom of it."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Embryology Bill update
Sadly the challenge to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill failed in the Lords yesterday.
This means that we have given our scientists permission to create new human-animal species, for research purposes. Adult stem cell research, which is yielding many results in new treatments for disease, may be bypassed in favour of research into chimeras. Embryonic lives are being created purely for the purposes of research - Rowan Williams rightly slates this as turning people into mere instruments, rather than creatures with innate value and God-given worth.
My life expectancy of 75+ is down to scientific advances in the cure of disease, for which I'm deeply thankful. It means I should live to see my childrens children (if they have any, and if we don't melt ourselves into oblivion first). But there's a cultural change in attitudes to suffering and death - we believe we're the first generation that can live free of these things, and pursue eternal youth at the gym and under the cosmetic surgeons knife. There's no disease we should simply sit back and accept, but we do seem to be in denial about the fact that we will get older, get sick, and die. Is avoiding this such an absolute moral imperative that it justifies pretty much anything the researchers want to try? If saving life and postponing death is so important, that must be premised on human life having value, yet we're giving our scientists permission to play around with embryo humans at will.
Jesus "shared in our humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death— that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." (Hebrews 2:15) What happens when a whole culture fears death?
This means that we have given our scientists permission to create new human-animal species, for research purposes. Adult stem cell research, which is yielding many results in new treatments for disease, may be bypassed in favour of research into chimeras. Embryonic lives are being created purely for the purposes of research - Rowan Williams rightly slates this as turning people into mere instruments, rather than creatures with innate value and God-given worth.
My life expectancy of 75+ is down to scientific advances in the cure of disease, for which I'm deeply thankful. It means I should live to see my childrens children (if they have any, and if we don't melt ourselves into oblivion first). But there's a cultural change in attitudes to suffering and death - we believe we're the first generation that can live free of these things, and pursue eternal youth at the gym and under the cosmetic surgeons knife. There's no disease we should simply sit back and accept, but we do seem to be in denial about the fact that we will get older, get sick, and die. Is avoiding this such an absolute moral imperative that it justifies pretty much anything the researchers want to try? If saving life and postponing death is so important, that must be premised on human life having value, yet we're giving our scientists permission to play around with embryo humans at will.
Jesus "shared in our humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death— that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." (Hebrews 2:15) What happens when a whole culture fears death?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
This Bill goes before the Lords today, here's what the CARE website has to say:
Currently there are three major problems with the bill.
The bill will allow the creation of embryos for research which are part human and part animal. This is to further the human embryonic stem cell project in the absence of sufficient human eggs. It is an extremely morally questionable undertaking which will bridge the barrier between animal and human DNA. Furthermore it is a distraction from adult stem cell research which has to date given rise to over 70 therapies whilst human embryonic stem cell research has given rise to none.
Second the Bill will legalise the creation of ‘saviour siblings’. This
means that IVF embryos will be screened to enable a child to be born who
genetically matches a sick person within the family. They can then provide a
supply of body tissue to be used for treating the sibling. Quite apart from the
fact that any embryos that don’t have the right genetic match must be discarded,
facilitating the creation of saviour siblings raises questions about
psychological and physical harm. What are the implications for a child who knows
they were brought into the world to save a sick relative? It suggests that they
are a means to an end. What are the physical implications of having to provide
tissue or even heart organs?
Finally, the Bill proposes that IVF clinics will no longer need to consider 'the need of the child for a father' when considering a treatment application. The Bill also prevents children conceived by IVF to a same sex couple from having a father from before their birth until they reach adulthood, when they will only be able to find out the identity of the father
I'm struggling to think of a single instance where the bioethics law has been
tightened, rather than liberalised, at a later date. It's therefore
reasonable to assume that there will be future legislation, looking for
even more scope to create animal-human hybrids (in an excercise in
Newspeak the lobbyists for the bill are trying to rename these 'human admixed' embryos).
We can't afford to let science (and don't assume this is 'pure' science - there's no such thing. There is lots of money to be made here, and lots of prestige attached to being at the cutting edge of these things) set our moral boundaries for us according to what is technologically possible.
"it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be." (Einstein) . Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should. History is littered with tragic examples of the times we have violated this principle. In issues as fundamental as what makes us human, Christians have to make their voices heard, and scientists need to listen.
Currently there are three major problems with the bill.
The bill will allow the creation of embryos for research which are part human and part animal. This is to further the human embryonic stem cell project in the absence of sufficient human eggs. It is an extremely morally questionable undertaking which will bridge the barrier between animal and human DNA. Furthermore it is a distraction from adult stem cell research which has to date given rise to over 70 therapies whilst human embryonic stem cell research has given rise to none.
Second the Bill will legalise the creation of ‘saviour siblings’. This
means that IVF embryos will be screened to enable a child to be born who
genetically matches a sick person within the family. They can then provide a
supply of body tissue to be used for treating the sibling. Quite apart from the
fact that any embryos that don’t have the right genetic match must be discarded,
facilitating the creation of saviour siblings raises questions about
psychological and physical harm. What are the implications for a child who knows
they were brought into the world to save a sick relative? It suggests that they
are a means to an end. What are the physical implications of having to provide
tissue or even heart organs?
Finally, the Bill proposes that IVF clinics will no longer need to consider 'the need of the child for a father' when considering a treatment application. The Bill also prevents children conceived by IVF to a same sex couple from having a father from before their birth until they reach adulthood, when they will only be able to find out the identity of the father
I'm struggling to think of a single instance where the bioethics law has been
tightened, rather than liberalised, at a later date. It's therefore
reasonable to assume that there will be future legislation, looking for
even more scope to create animal-human hybrids (in an excercise in
Newspeak the lobbyists for the bill are trying to rename these 'human admixed' embryos).
We can't afford to let science (and don't assume this is 'pure' science - there's no such thing. There is lots of money to be made here, and lots of prestige attached to being at the cutting edge of these things) set our moral boundaries for us according to what is technologically possible.
"it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be." (Einstein) . Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should. History is littered with tragic examples of the times we have violated this principle. In issues as fundamental as what makes us human, Christians have to make their voices heard, and scientists need to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)