MPs debating hybrid embryo laws

[[R_H]]

BBC

MPs have started debating whether to allow scientists to continue to carry out controversial stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos.

Gordon Brown has urged MPs to back the work, saying it is a "moral endeavour" that could save thousands of lives.

Scientists say it could lead to disease treatments, but critics argue that mixing human and animal tissue tampers with nature and is immoral.

MPs are voting on a series of reforms to embryology laws that date from 1990.

The measures, part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, are aimed at updating laws in line with scientific advances.

They will be voted on in the House of Commons over the next two days.

MPs are being given a free vote on four controversial parts of the bill after warnings that some Catholic MPs and cabinet ministers were ready to rebel.

The four areas are:

* The creation of hybrid embryos: These are mixes of animal and human tissue. Scientists say it would help tackle diseases such Parkinson's. Opponents say it is tampering with nature and is unethical. Debate from 1530 BST Monday, vote due at about 1830 BST.

* Saviour siblings: These are babies born from embryos selected because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition. Supporters say it helps children who have exhausted all other hope of treatment. Opponents fear children are created as saviour siblings alone, not because they are a wanted child. Debate on Monday from about 1830 BST, with vote at about 2200 BST.

* Role of fathers in fertility treatment: Would end the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the "welfare" of any child created in terms of need for a father. Those in favour say it would end bar to lesbian couples and single women. Opponents say it denigrates the role of fathers in a child's life. Debate from 1530 BST Tuesday, with vote at about 1830 BST.

* The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Supporters say babies born at 24 weeks are increasingly likely to survive. Opponents says studies do not support that. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.

The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as "monstrous" and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.

Catholic bishops in Britain and the Irish Republic have given £25,000 to scientists using adult stem cells, which is less controversial than using immature ones.

Such cells can be used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating diseases.

The bill would allow research using hybrid or "admix" embryos, where the nuclei of a human cell are inserted into an animal egg.

The resulting embryos would be kept for up to 14 days to harvest stem cells.

After making a strong personal case for using hybrid embryos at the weekend, Mr Brown is expected to be backed on this part of the bill.

However, one health minister refused to predict what would happen in the vote on reducing the upper time limit for abortions, down to a possible 20 weeks.

Mr Brown said last week that he supported the 24-week limit, while Conservative leader David Cameron said he favoured a cut.

Writing in the Observer newspaper, Mr Brown called on MPs to back the use of hybrid embryos, saying such scientific advances could speed up treatment for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

"The scientists I speak to are committed to what they see as an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time, millions," he said.

Mr Cameron said he would be voting in favour of admix embryos and the creation of saviour siblings.

Speaking as he visited Birmingham, he said: "My own approach to this is the law needs updating and the importance of science and research and getting to grips with genetic disease... I want to see the research go forward."

However, he said he would be voting "against some of the things that won't be necessary".

Leading medical research charities, including the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, have issued an open letter also urging MPs to back such research, saying advances in the "understanding and treatment of diseases must not be closed down".

But Conservative MP David Burrowes told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that using hybrid embryos was not the only route for research, adding that it was possible to combine "good science" and "good ethics".

Scientists at Newcastle University announced last month that they had created the first part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos in the UK.

They were created by injecting DNA derived from human skin cells into eggs taken from cows' ovaries which had had virtually all their genetic material removed.

Researchers say these human-animal "admixed" embryos could help solve the current problem of the lack of human eggs from which to generate embryos.

The vote on hybrid embryos and "saviour siblings" will take place on Monday, while the vote on the role of fathers in IVF treatment and abortion limits will be held on Tuesday.

If the proposals are approved, the new legislation could come into force next year.

What is so unethical/immoral, or monstrous as the RCC describes it, about using hybrid embryos? I love the "argument" it's "tampering with nature".

[Mr Bean]

I support anything that leads to an increase chance of nubile cat-girls in my lifetime.

Wish I had that poster handy about supporting genetic research. More to the point the science of this is very clear. They are not true animal-human hybrids they are only exploiting animal eggs to grow human tissue. If they were allowed to grow these things to term it's highly likely you could then produce a fully functioning human or it will never advance past the 5000 cell stage area.

[El Moose Monstero]

I really with they weren't using the term 'hybrid' - they might as well just say 'Frankenstein' or 'abomination unto the lord' for all the good using the word 'hybrid' does. Whether it's accurate or not, it's such a loaded word in the press.

Although it was the Now Show or the Bugle that said something along the lines of 'the church are complaining about human-animal hybrids, and they're the ones with the guys with wings!'.

[Shroom Man 777]

Playing God? Hah! Playing is for children!

I would love to see these hybrid embryos incubated until they are of considerable maturity. It would be quite a sight to behold, no doubt

[Dartzap]

Breaking at the Beeb

A cross-party attempt to outlaw the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos has been defeated by MPs, by 336 votes to 176.

Common Sense: 1 Religious Wankers: 0

[[R_H]]

Breaking at the Beeb

A cross-party attempt to outlaw the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos has been defeated by MPs, by 336 votes to 176.

Common Sense: 1 Religious Wankers: 0

That's very good to hear.

[General Zod]

It would be nice if the religious wankers had arguments that were more than just spins of "It's immoral/unnatural" for a change. Simply for variety if nothing else.

[[R_H]]

It would be nice if the religious wankers had arguments that were more than just spins of "It's immoral/unnatural" for a change. Simply for variety if nothing else.

No kidding. I just had to laugh at the RCC protesting that hybrid embryos was "monstrous". And, what exactly is misinforming people about AIDS and birth control? Or attempting to conceal cases of child molestation? Yeah, of course, science is monstrous. The embryos are 99.1% human, according to the BBC report I saw, but they're monsterous. Aliens, 0% human, are not.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I loved the Lib. Dem. MP who told them to stuff it after stating that we may as well close down all hospitals given they are "unnatural" and letting nature take its course would be letting retarded and sick people die en masse.

I'm seeing similar retarded arguments about the abortion time limit debate now. If you want to be technical, we can have embryos survive outside the womb at any arbitrary age if we had artificial wombs for all such instances, so the argument that premature babies can survive longer now and become infants without major problems is beside the point. But it's yet more appeal to emotion crap as with this hybrid issue. Seemingly people missed the point behind both things because of their own preconceived notions of how life should be in society.

[Crazedwraith]

Excellent. The politicians have done something right for a change.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Breaking at the Beeb

A cross-party attempt to outlaw the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos has been defeated by MPs, by 336 votes to 176.

Common Sense: 1 Religious Wankers: 0

Why do people keep attributing progress to "common sense"? "Common sense" smacks of redneck appeal to tradition fallacies and gut instinct to me, not thorough, rigorous and well-considered logical decision making.

[Eulogy]

Breaking at the Beeb

A cross-party attempt to outlaw the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos has been defeated by MPs, by 336 votes to 176.

Common Sense: 1 Religious Wankers: 0

Why do people keep attributing progress to "common sense"? "Common sense" smacks of redneck appeal to tradition fallacies and gut instinct to me, not thorough, rigorous and well-considered logical decision making.

Because Common Sense isn't that common anymore?

Anyway, we humans have already done a lot of unnatural things. We build tons of structures, blow up mountains, kill evil spirits - I mean disease-causing microbes, grow lots of animals and plants for food and other assorted goods, land on the moon, and make it possible to communicate anywhere in the world instantly.

Saying that this is evil because it's unnatural means that these idiots are hypocrites, and have little if any idea of what REAL morality is. I say, continue tampering with nature - how else are we going to get our flying cars, robot labourers, replicators, etc.?

[Darth Wong]

Because Common Sense isn't that common anymore?

Technically, common sense is always common by definition. I think the real problem is that common sense is vastly overrated.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Breaking at the Beeb
Common Sense: 1 Religious Wankers: 0

Why do people keep attributing progress to "common sense"? "Common sense" smacks of redneck appeal to tradition fallacies and gut instinct to me, not thorough, rigorous and well-considered logical decision making.

Because Common Sense isn't that common anymore?

Ahh, the Good Old Days Fallacy.

The sad irony is that you're completely right, but for wildly different reasons. Common sense can and will be regularly invoked as the "explanation" for the beliefs of creationists, Klansmen, supply-side economists and just about every breed of intolerant Republitard redneck imaginable, and in every case it will be purported to support completely different ideas. "Common sense" is an oxymoron not because everyone is a dumbass with faulty intuition nowadays as compared with before, but because there is no consensus on what constitutes "common sense" among the aforementioned parties other than glaringly obvious self-preservation tenets like not walking under falling safes that Wile E. Coyote throws at you.

[Col. Crackpot]

First, let me preface this statement by expressing my support of stem cell research. Jokes about sexy catgirls aside, lets think of the ethical ramifications of one of these "hybrids" being allowed to be brought to full term.

There is the possibility of creating a hybrid race here? I'm a banker not a biologist so someone please tell me, and the non bio geeks among us, how this is even possible.

[Mayabird]

There is the possibility of creating a hybrid race here? I'm a banker not a biologist so someone please tell me, and the non bio geeks among us, how this is even possible.

Hardly. These "hybrids" are just animal eggs that get their nuclei sucked out and replaced with a human nucleus. The supply of human eggs is really small (and not for lack of trying - I've been trying to sell some of mine for months now) and can't keep up with the possible demand. You might have some animal mitochondria there, but that's it, and I doubt that really matters. They have their own DNA (a teeny amount) and membranes, and unless there's some way that cells recognize that mitochondria are "their own" despite mitochondrial DNA mutating just like any other, there probably won't be a problem.

[Shroom Man 777]

What is the significance of this, then? What are they trying to develop? "Finding cures to diseases" is rather ambiguous and I'd like to know how exactly this does that.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Hardly. These "hybrids" are just animal eggs that get their nuclei sucked out and replaced with a human nucleus. The supply of human eggs is really small (and not for lack of trying - I've been trying to sell some of mine for months now) and can't keep up with the possible demand. You might have some animal mitochondria there, but that's it, and I doubt that really matters. They have their own DNA (a teeny amount) and membranes, and unless there's some way that cells recognize that mitochondria are "their own" despite mitochondrial DNA mutating just like any other, there probably won't be a problem.

Most of the mitochondrial genome is integrated into the nucleus. If the genes in human DNA aren't similar enough to the ones of the original animal, or if we're missing a particular mitochondrial gene from our genomic DNA (not all the genes have been transferred, and it differs from animal to animal), then that could cause problems. I would imagine they'd use a cell from a compatible animal, though.

What is the significance of this, then? What are they trying to develop? "Finding cures to diseases" is rather ambiguous and I'd like to know how exactly this does that.

The idea is to grow embryos as close to human as possible so that you can use them for most of the tests you'd normally use human embryos in, thus avoiding the shortage of actual human embryos available for experimentation, and, presumably, the bad press of doing said experiments on human embryos. Of course, they've just exchanged for the bad press of OMG FRANKENSTEIN!

[Rye]

First, let me preface this statement by expressing my support of stem cell research. Jokes about sexy catgirls aside, lets think of the ethical ramifications of one of these "hybrids" being allowed to be brought to full term.

Why would they be brought to full term? Hybrids are used because it's not feasible to ask for human eggs to get all the research done. Gathering human eggs is invasive and unpleasant, animal eggs offer useful alternatives. Embryoes are only brought to full term when they're implanted in the uterus, in which case, you use human eggs and not hybrids, which are destroyed after 15 days or whatever.

There is the possibility of creating a hybrid race here? I'm a banker not a biologist so someone please tell me, and the non bio geeks among us, how this is even possible.

They suck out the animal nucleus and put a human one in to grow embryonic stemcells. I have no idea about viability inside human or animal hosts, but if they were (I presume they are), the nuclear DNA would still be whoever you're cloning. AFAIK, the remnants of mitochondrial dna and other animal products that were in the cell I would expect to be pretty minimal in comparison to nuclear DNA in determining species and how a person grows, but if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.