Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, January 5, 2007 | Science : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

by BBC News

Thanks to Ben Hope for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6230945.stm

cellUK scientists planning to mix human and animal cells in order to research cures for degenerative diseases fear their work will be halted.

They accuse the body that grants licences for embryo research, the HFEA, of bowing to government pressure if it fails to consider their applications.

Ministers proposed outlawing such work after unfavourable public opinion.

PM Tony Blair said any new law would have "flexibility" to support scientific research that helped people.

He said there were "difficult" issues surrounding creating the embryos, which are more than 99% human but have a small animal component.

He added: "I'm sure that research that's really going to save lives and improve the quality of life will be able to go forward."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is to discuss if two research requests come under its remit.

The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research.

But the HFEA says it is unresolved whether this type of controversial work is permissible under existing laws - or even whether it falls under the HFEA's jurisdiction to grant a licence.

Opponents say the work tampers with nature and is unethical.

The researchers have called for greater understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

Public opposition

The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research.

Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.

The new white paper says scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos.

But government proposes prohibiting them from making human-animal hybrids or so-called "chimeras" - where genetic material is taken from humans and put into a host animal egg.

That is then allowed to grow to a very early embryo stage in the lab as a source of stem cells for research.

'Hybrids'

Scientists are hopeful that studies on stem cells - immature cells that can become many types of tissue - could lead to greater understanding and even a cure for many diseases, including Alzheimer's.

They say using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense because human eggs are in short supply, plus the process is less cumbersome and yields better results.

Professor Chris Shaw from Kings College London, along with his colleague Dr Stephen Minger, has applied for a licence for stem cell work on Motor Neurone Disease.

He said: "To shut this down at the moment is a real affront to patients. We do not have a single drug that makes a difference to the disease course."

Dr Minger, who hopes to look at the genetic causes of conditions like Parkinson's disease, said he had been told that the HFEA was unlikely to grant his application.

A second team of scientists, led by Professor Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University, has applied to research how different tissues grow in the body.

Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, warned there would be fierce opposition from scientists and parliamentarians to any draft bill which included such a ban.

Scientific progress

An HFEA spokesman said: "We need to decide whether the law prohibits this research, whether it falls under our remit at all, and then we can look at whether we have a fundamental view on this type of research.

"We have a duty to consider any application put before us."

If the HFEA decides it is outside its remit, the scientists will not legally need a licence to continue with their work.

A spokesman for the Department of Health stressed that the new law, which still needs to be debated in Parliament, would contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.

Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid and that has to be acknowledged as something that does not meet with approval.

"We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it."

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ON THIS TOPIC:

Medicine faces ban on rabbit-human embryos
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2532502,00.html


Scientists attack plan to ban 'hybrid' embryos
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1983472,00.html


Hybrid animal-human embryos face ban
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2125424.ece


rabbit

Comments 1 - 18 of 18 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #16186 by Healing One on January 5, 2007 at 11:42 am

In the White Paper, the Government said it proposes to ban the creation of human embryos from animal eggs because of the "considerable public unease with the possible creation of embryos combining human and animal material".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2125424.ece

What does "considerable public unease" mean exactly? No legal or ethical reasons are given to support the ban in any of the reference articles. Why is the government unable to say exactly what the "public unease" is? Where is their evidence? Where is their reasoning?

Other Comments by Healing One

2. Comment #16203 by NeuroTrumpet on January 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I truly don't even understand this reasoning.

"Tampering with nature." Huh?!

As if selective (artificial) breeding isn't "tampering." The only difference is the level of accuracy in manipulating the genes.

I also think it's not so different from using animal insulin to treat human diabetes. They didn't seem to have too much of a problem with that half a century ago. I guess we just need the moral zeitgeist to catch up?

Other Comments by NeuroTrumpet

3. Comment #16206 by macronencer on January 5, 2007 at 2:24 pm

 avatarThere's something rather fishy and unsettling about this story. I heard it on the radio this morning, and I got an unusual (for me) "conspiracy theory" tingle on the back of my neck. Someone is covering something up, is my hunch.

Right, that's my one allowed irrational assumption for the month used up, now I have to be totally sensible till Feb.

No, but seriously, this worries me. There are not enough clear statements coming from the people responsible. What are they hiding?

Other Comments by macronencer

4. Comment #16220 by Zappi on January 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm

These people make me yawn. Is it possible that there is such a huge distance between religious ignorance and science? Is the gap getting wider and wider?

Other Comments by Zappi

5. Comment #16238 by Friend Giskard on January 5, 2007 at 4:51 pm

 avatar
The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research.


Darn. I missed that meeting.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

6. Comment #16239 by Slartibarfast on January 5, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Yes why "tamper with nature"?

Let's all just die in mud huts at the age of 40 of easily cured diseases...

I wonder whether such arguments would still exist if their lives (or lives of their offspring) depended upon the gene therapy that they would condemn.

Other Comments by Slartibarfast

7. Comment #16240 by pauliej on January 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm

According to the BBC, the public consultation included "scientists, medical bodies, patient representatives, ethicists and faith communities."

Really?? Whole faith communities? Or just their usually-unelected leaders?

Perhaps this would be a good time to start start a new e-petition on the Prime Minister's website, where those of us who were not consulted can register our objection to any ban on this research.

Other Comments by pauliej

8. Comment #16242 by HappyPrimate on January 5, 2007 at 5:09 pm

 avatarIn GWB's State of the Union speech last year, he stated that there would be no human-animal hybridizing in this country. It sort of got a laugh because, as usual, most of the public here have very little knowledge, let alone understanding, of the science going on in the world. Most average citizens would suppose that the mad scientists are artificially breeding human-animal hybrids to do awful things to *real* humans. Something on a scale of a Frankenstein-Bovine creature. If you ate its meat, you might be considered a canibal. They simply don't get it, even if it is explained simply. They are terrified also that some sort of *animal* cells could be administered and incorporated into their bodies. Would this then make them less than human? Would they loose their exhalted status of being a special creation apart from the animal kingdom? They are afraid of this most. It is an easy fear to play on. Silly, but true. As far as tampering with nature, we all eat food that has been tampered with everyday.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

9. Comment #16260 by MIND_REBEL on January 5, 2007 at 6:33 pm

 avatarGreat to see the faithful still beating the drums for the war on science.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

10. Comment #16279 by denoir on January 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

 avatarThis is not as much a consequence of religious influence as a failure of communicating modern science to the general public.

Should we mix human DNA with the DNA of other species is a perfectly valid bio-ethical question. The problem is that the debate isn't informed. There is a great gap between public understanding of science and the actual state of science.

This is a general problem which will sooner rather than later have to be addressed.

Other Comments by denoir

11. Comment #16293 by Sancus on January 6, 2007 at 1:14 am

Moral zeitgeist not able to keep up with science, denoir?

Other Comments by Sancus

12. Comment #16362 by macronencer on January 6, 2007 at 8:56 am

 avatarSancus, the moral zeitgeist never keeps up, it always lags behind. That's why, in any era, there are always people working to raise consciousness about something. But at least the moral zeitgeist keeps moving, rather than being shackled to a holy book.

Other Comments by macronencer

13. Comment #16427 by denoir on January 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm

 avatarSancus, yes, and I would say that it is getting worse over time. Scientific knowledge typically expands exponentially, while I'm not sure the same can be said for the moral zeitgeist.

In addition, by necessity, science is increasingly specialized, making it even more difficult for the layman to understand what it is about.

Science does need checks, balances and directions from the outside because it is very susceptible to both internal and external corruption from economic and political interest.

I fear that we might end up with something really bad as a consequence of this 'blind push ahead' (think of mistakes like DDT but on a far larger scale). Another bad consequence might be a backlash against science that seriously hurts progress - religion is of course a good medium.

I would say that we need scientific education of the masses now. Immediately. The necessity for them to have an informed opinion cannot be understated.

Other Comments by denoir

14. Comment #16731 by Luthien on January 8, 2007 at 11:00 am

 avatarFYI, the "non human" DNA that would be present in this type of embryo would be mitochondrial DNA, which is well conserved between mammalian species.

I find it ironic that people are complaining about mixing DNA from different species, when Mitrochondria themselves were originally a seperate species which developed a symbiosis with the host organism.

Other Comments by Luthien

15. Comment #16777 by JohnC on January 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

 avatarI'm with denoir @ 12 and 14. The most pressing bio-ethical questions of the next 100 years will be in areas of genomic research, yet public understanding (including by politicians) is very poor. This is one of the reasons that the attacks on biology by the religious right are so dangerous.

Many of the issues are economic rather than directly "moral". The drive by business to patent genes is offensive - surely the global gene pool is one thing that should genuinely be a matter of our collective ownership. And the record so far of corporations such as Monsanto in the deployment of crop technologies, particularly in the Third World, is appalling.

But with the kind of posturing by Bush to appease his religious base being the only information that many people are getting, the debates are highly distorted. Scientists have a responsibility to speak clearly on these issues in the public interest, not just in favour of their personal grant applications or, worse, as mouthpieces of their business paymasters.

Other Comments by JohnC

16. Comment #18534 by Friggertool on January 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm

 avatarThe very idea of human and animal DNA being mixed is utterly repulsive. What's that...Chimpanzees have 98% of their DNA in common with humans? Well who the ding dong ding dang diggity went and did that?
Burn 'em for withcraft! That's what I say!

Signed GWB

Other Comments by Friggertool

17. Comment #35909 by simplemind on April 29, 2007 at 9:19 am

 avatarYes heaven forbid we ever find cures for degenerative diseases.

Other Comments by simplemind

18. Comment #202957 by bobby on July 2, 2008 at 7:16 am

who did that? God did n00b. We share DNA with all life forms (on earth :))

Other Comments by bobby
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: