| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): Would the hon. Gentleman care to say how his constituents' letters influenced him in voting on the Stem Cell Research Bill or in the hunting debate?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I voted against both proposals, which I am not sure have anything to do with the issue that we are debating now. I am trying to outline some of the arguments that hon. Members who are not committed on the issue--many will already be committed one way or the other--may wish to consider. Later, with the indulgence of the House, I shall express my personal view. What I seek to do now is to set out some of the issues as I see them.
Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that merely considering the letters on either side of the argument is rather perverse, especially when one considers the situation of people with degenerative disease? I do not think that I have ever had a letter, typed or otherwise, from someone suffering from Alzheimer's disease. People with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease have organisations to speak for them. The hon. Gentleman might mention whether any of those organisations have taken time to see him as representatives of vulnerable people who are often not able to lobby their Members of Parliament.
Mr. Hammond: I accept that point, and I am not suggesting that any hon. Member should or would vote simply on the basis of counting items in his postbag. However, I should also hope that we all regard our constituents' views as an important factor in addressing such issues.
One of the important issues in this debate is the wider relationship between science and society. I think that it would be very dangerous, and very dangerous for scientists, if science were constantly pushing ahead of where the body of society is comfortable and happy to be. It is incumbent on those who seek to make such changes to carry public opinion with them.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight--which is a wonderful thing--it must seem entirely obvious to the layperson that it is unnatural to adopt, for example, cannibalistic feeding practices in agriculture. The very thought, now that we are all focused on it, seems abhorrent, but that was not apparent at the time. At the time, public opinion was not focused on the issue. However, I think that we are entitled to ask ourselves whether scientists should have focused on the issue before they did.
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. Clearly,
however, cannibalism in animals was a matter not of science but of a lack of regulation, and of regulations not being informed by science. That example does not support his own argument.
Mr. Hammond: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may consider the issue from a scientific point of view, but I suspect that until relatively recently, the majority of people in our society have assumed that scientists were focusing on those issues, were attending to the public's best interests, and were able and prepared to protect them.
It must now be obvious that field-scale trials of GM crops are an irreversible action. Such developments may be good or bad. My point is that science has been moving ahead of the political and moral consensus. I rather feel that today's debate is about that issue. My fear is that, unlike some hon. Members, we mere mortals whose science careers never progressed beyond the third-form chemistry lab are being asked to sanction action on the basis that it might be justified by outcomes, whereas history teaches us that actual outcomes may be very different from those that were envisaged.
We are being asked to build on current legislation about which many of us have deep reservations and to move rapidly into uncharted waters. We do not know quite how rapidly we are being asked to move, but, as the Minister said that she expected the matter to be voted on within the lifetime of this Parliament, it may be in the next few months. We are being asked to decide before many of us feel sufficiently secure about the far-reaching potential consequences.
There are two reasons for scepticism about the proposed regulations. I shall call them the upstream and the downstream concerns. The upstream concern is about the use of embryos or embryonic tissue--the creation and then the destruction of life for other purposes. That is a legitimate and deeply held concern. The downstream concern is about potential abuse of cell nuclear replacement technology--cloning. That is the "genie out of the bottle" argument--the recognition that, while any scientific advance may bring benefits, it may also bring disbenefits that are impossible to control. For example, nuclear fission delivers apparently cheap forms of energy but has disadvantages of which we are all aware.
The 1990 Act already permits the creation of embryos through in vitro fertilisation and through cell nuclear replacement, but only for specific limited purposes that may seem slightly bizarre--I have already alluded to research into contraception. The Government are now proposing a significant extension of the powers under that Act. Why? We are told that substantial benefits could flow from stem cell research. I have already confessed to my very limited scientific capabilities, but as I understand it, the objective is to carry out a limited amount of research on embryonic material so as to gain the ability to regress adult cells to their non-specific form, allowing therapies to be developed using the patient's own cells.
Other avenues are open to achieve those objectives. There are other sources of stem cells from non-embryonic tissue. The Minister gave the example of blood cells from the umbilical cord, and some adult tissue can be used. Researchers in Canada and Italy have turned neural stem cells from an adult mouse into new blood cells. If the technique could be applied to humans, it would be a major
step forward. Apart from anything else, the use of a patient's own stem cells would greatly reduce the likelihood of rejection.An Italian group has reported that nerve stem cells from an adult proved more flexible than they were believed to be, and could give rise to skeletal muscle. The British Medical Journal reported in January last year that the use of embryonic stem cells
- may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and less controversial adult stem cells.
- It may well be that the long term promise of stem cells derived from adult tissue will equal or even surpass that of embryonic stem cells.
We are not debating whether embryonic stem cell research should happen. It is a long while since the writ of this Parliament ran that wide. Whether we like it or not, the research is already happening in the United States, and the legal system and regulations there will permit it to continue. The pharmaceutical industry is probably one of the world's most international industries. The question is not about whether to continue down this route in the fight against degenerative disease, but whether we want to take the moral and ethical decisions that will foster that research here in the United Kingdom.
Clearly, there are moral arguments on both sides. Some feel that it is imperative that we do not sanction the taking of human life through the use of embryos to further research, while others feel that there is a moral imperative to carry out that research in order to try to relieve human suffering.
Those are difficult arguments to weigh up, but it seems to me that we are talking not about balancing the moral argument for research against the moral hazard of exploiting embryos, but about balancing the moral hazard of exploiting embryos, within the remit of this Parliament, against the risks to our biotechnology and pharmaceutical research industry of not proceeding. I find it hard to see that as a moral dilemma, although I accept that a Government who have responsibility for that industry can legitimately be concerned about it.
The issue is not for or against stem cell research. Rejecting embryonic research, which is already under way in the United States, does not close the door to these scientific developments, although it could possibly slow down the process. The research will continue, whatever we decide.
Dr. Brand: If, for the good moral reasons that the hon. Gentleman has been elucidating, we ban such research here, should not we logically also ban the results of that research to people living in this country?
Mr. Hammond: No, I do not think that that is logical at all. The logical next step would be to ban the use of any therapeutic material derived directly from embryonic stem cells, but my understanding is that there is a research
step that could perhaps be done more expeditiously using embryonic cells, which will lead to our being able to use therapies derived purely from adult stem cells, which do not present any of the upstream moral questions that I have outlined.The question is not whether the research will be done but whether it will be done in the United Kingdom: whether we, within the limited scope of our jurisdiction, wish to sanction such activity in order to promote our pharmaceutical and biotechnological research base.
For those with an a priori position against the use of embryos or embryonic tissue, and for those who believe that we have already gone too far down the path of interference with nature and natural processes, the answer will be clear; and we must respect their positions.
The question--the difficult question--is for those whose minds are still somewhat open. For them, when we vote, the question will be "What proof do we require to justify embarking on this potentially dangerous path?" The issue for them will be whether a strong enough case has been made to overcome what is perhaps a natural resistance to the idea of harvesting and then using embryos. They will wonder about the destination of the route on which we would embark in adopting the regulations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |