17 - "And We'd Have Gotten Away With It Too, If It Weren't For Those Pesky Kids..."

Embryos. Stem-cells. Hybrid. All are scientific words that may well have just got your blood boiling. Another concept which has got people's backs up is conscience voting.

In a rather fence-sitting position, let me start off by stating that on this issue, I have next to no opinion. Yet. I'm going to work through the arguments on both sides of the debate in this blog.

Before I do, let me just bring you up to speed on the dilio. Parliament has just defeated a couple of tabled amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is going through the Parliamentary stages, and which updates the 1990 laws with respect to scientific advances. One of the striking things about this bill is that it gives validation to research involving hybrid "admixed" embryos, which offer the potential to allow future solutions to issues such as Alzheimer's (which has afflicted our Science Fiction Lord and Master Mr. Terry Pratchett). These are a mixture of human and animal embryos, created outside the womb, to be used for research purposes only. Not a one would be implanted inside a woman, and artifical incubation, while cool for chickens or ducks, is not yet possible for humans. Seems fair enough.

But then enter the moralists. ‘FRANKENSTEIN’ EMBRYO BILL BACKED BY MPS, screams the Express. The Daily Mail was practically incandescent in its apoplexy, yelling "What is certain, however, is that we have overturned millennia of moral thinking and stepped into territory hitherto reserved for science fiction horror stories." The Sun, in a remarkable display of calm, actually offered a fair story on the topic, neither reactionary nor one-sided. But that's possibly because they don't really understand what's going on, and neither do their readers. And, as per usual, the Christians step into the fray, telling all who will listen that this is an outrage, God is watching and weeping, yadda yadda. And, as per usual, it's the crazies on the fringes who grab all the attention.

OK. First, a bit more on the issue. Why use animal tissue at all? Well, it comes down to a shortage of human ova for use. Also, human-animal hybrids produce better results and require less human... bits. They can then produce stem cells, which can be used to create other tissue, and research performed on the tissue. Because it will allow tissue to be created specifically for research, the poor yields from efforts to use actual human organs for research will be negated. It is illegal to implant one of these embryos inside a human, and to bring it term, if indeed it were possible for the embryo to come to term. Any scientific body wanting to perform research in this area must apply to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission and each case will be considered on its own merits, with there being no guarantee that permission will be granted.

But wait!, yell many, isn't this tampering with nature? Isn't the fabric of humanity sacred anymore?

Weeelll.... OK. It is tampering with nature, but then, that's not really anything new for humans. Do any of you eat garlic? Well, it might surprise you to discover that garlic is, in fact, not massively natural. It was adapted, by humans, to be a more agriculturally-friendly version of wild garlic. Similarly, the specific breed of chicken that many of us have been eating for a long while, were outed by Jamie Oliver as very purpose-bred fast-growing, large chickens which have a lot of meat. God did not create these massive chickeny beasts at the creation, but humans have adapted what he did create to be something more useful. Any industry which in any way deals with agricultural or living things will usually have taken those plants or animals and adapted them through interbreeding to be more useful to the human race. And these adaptations are allowed to live. This is just a much faster way of providing adapted cells, which have no pain response and do not know they exist.

But is it right to perform experiments on unwilling humans? I suppose that some would think of the horrors of what the Nazis did to those they experimented on, but, again, think: firstly, does this bunch of cells add up to a human yet? If the answer is no, then what's the problem? And if you're not sure, ask yourself what you think it is that makes you a human? Is it your emotions? Your ability to feel pain? Your knowledge of your own existence? The embryos have none of these things.

A massive argument in this comes down to the whole abortion debate. I'm not going to argue about that here because it's been done to death (no pun intended) but, like it or not, abortion is legal in this country. Embryos are allowed to be withdrawn the opportunity to grow. Where you draw the line about where its life begins in the embryonic-foetal process is up to you. But if you are in favour of abortions before a certain point, then I would say that you would struggle to then argue that embryos taken from before that abortion period should not be used for scientific research. If it's not yet a baby, and it's ok to remove its chance of becoming one, then it's ok to use what secrets they may hold to further the health of those of use who are alive.

Note: I am not saying that this is my opinion, but offering a logical extrapolation of being in favour of abortion.

I think that many people simply feel uncomfortable with the idea of using these cells for research. Some perhaps really do picture Frankenstein or some other science fiction horror story. Be cool. None of these bunches of cells will ever amount to a real animal. They would not be able to survive outside lab conditions and will not be used for anything other than their created purpose. But I do have a lot of sympathy for those whose uncomfortability with researching on this tissue leads them to oppose this view. It's important that we do not allow the pursuit of noble goals to lead us down unethical paths. The ends do not justify the means, at any time.

Another thing is for those who do not agree with the research is to imagine that at some point in the future you or your child are afflicted with a fatal or deeply debilitating condition which is treatable, but only because of research in this area. Would you refuse the treatment because of the way in which it had been discovered? Going back to the Nazis, their repugnant and horrific experiments have prompted a debate, explored here and here, into whether or not the results of these experiments should be used to further scientific advances today, given the nature of their collection. Given that the experiments have been performed and the data have been collected, should the results be struck off because of their blood-soaked collection?

And, finally, just to anticipate a particular type of response: at no point does the Bible say anything specifically about human-animal hybrid embryonic research or stem-cells. If you honestly believe God thinks a certain way, and you want to go along with that, then that's fine. The Bible may offer some clues as to God's opinion, assuming he has one, but I disagree that there is anything absolutely definite in there about this issue.

So there. What's your position? I would probably now say that mine is a tentative support, which could waver towards opposition in the near future, depending on the direction of the research. At the moment, I think the benefits outweigh the issues. But that's not to say they always will.