Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (2)

Published on Wed 28th May 2008

This week parliament enjoyed a rare excursion into voting free from party lines and whips. The subject was the Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Unusually the Chamber was full to listen to the arguments. Like many MPs I struggled to understand the complex bioscience involved but we had to reach a decision.

The most important issue was whether to agree to license scientific research into human embryos with a small admixture of animal material (cybrids) to create more stem cells and 50/50 animal-human hybrids ('true hybrids').

There were pressures in opposite directions. I received many cards and letters from residents, mainly church goers, worried that we are potentially crossing a dangerous line between human and animal life. On the other hand, victims of degenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimers look to embryo stem cell research for long term cures.

After a scientific education and having a research scientist son, my initial instincts were to back the scientific research. Having recently seen my mother spend her last days with Alzheimers I want to see cures. But the ethical issues are difficult. An obvious question is whether the research could progress in other ways - for example using adult stem cells or umbilical cords. The answer seems to be 'yes'.

I wanted to vote against true hybrids - for which there is no known medical value and worrying risks - but support cybrids. It became clear that no clear distinction can be made. I therefore voted against animal hybrids as a whole. The majority however voted the other way. The research will now happen, for better or worse.

A possible Bill amendment also enables me to help a local widow who wants a baby from the spear of her recently dead husband: currently banned under British law