CAROLINE FLINT MP, PROFESSOR SIR LIAM DONALDSON AND DR MARK BALE

28 FEBRUARY 2007

  Chairman: Could we welcome you to this, our final evidence session on the Government proposals on the regulation of human-animal chimera and hybrid embryos. I welcome the Minister of State for Public Health, Caroline Flint; a very warm welcome to you. A warm welcome to you, Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer and also to Mr Mark Bale, who will advise where necessary, the Deputy Director of Scientific Development and Bioethics at the Department of Health. Just before we get going with our questions my colleague, Dr Brian Iddon, wants to ask you a question just for clarification purposes because it is quite important for the rest of our session.

  Q268 Dr Iddon: Good morning, Minister. Throughout this investigation we have been struggling with the definitions that people are using. We shall probably use hybrids and chimeras this morning but by use of those terms we have discovered that people have their own impression about the kind of research that King's College, London and Newcastle University want to do with their licence application to the HFEA. Yesterday Sir David King was in front of us and I think he came up with probably one of the best definitions we have had when he used the term "cytoplasmic hybrids" for the entities that King's and Newcastle want to create. What definition of chimera and hybrid embryos did you use when you reached your conclusions?

  Caroline Flint: First of all I think what this debate we are having has shone a light on is the different interpretations of what is meant by a hybrid or a chimera and the Committee has also used cybrid as a definition as well. I think again that was one of the issues when we were both consulting and developing the White Paper proposals.

  Q269  Chairman: What is yours?

  Caroline Flint: In terms of a human hybrid that is one formed by fertilisation of a human egg by an animal sperm. In terms of a human chimera we have used the formation of a chimera by taking a human embryo and adding animal cells. A human cybrid is created by placing a human cell into an empty animal egg. I think that is part of one of the applications although I have not seen the applications in detail. What I would suggest is that part of what we need to do—which is why we did feel we had to leave the door open and I really want to emphasise that the White Paper proposals were taking government policy further than before—was to allow the opportunity to explore these different processes and the definitions that are applied to them because I think there are some differences of opinion. I actually think there are some issues within the scientific community to outline as well. That is why we are open to that and that is why we left the door open to regulate some of these processes which we feel could actually offer huge benefits.

  Q270  Dr Iddon: Can we be quite clear therefore this morning that when we are talking about the Newcastle and King's applications we are really talking about cytoplasmic hybrids?

  Caroline Flint: That is what they have defined it as.

  Q271  Chairman: Do you agree with that definition?

  Caroline Flint: I have not seen the complete application but talking to my colleagues in the Department there is a case for using that term but I think part of what we need to do is be clear about the terms which is one of the reasons why we wanted pre-legislative scrutiny and I have to say it was not an issue in terms of the responses to our consultation that I have had enough from the scientific community on.

  Q272  Chairman: I find that quite strange, if I am honest, and I think the Committee will join me in that, that as Minister for Health you have made a clear statement that you are against this research and you cannot even define what it is you are against.

  Caroline Flint: No, I did define some of these terms.

  Q273  Chairman: Dr Iddon has asked you specifically, is it a chimera, is it a hybrid or is it a cytoplasmic hybrid and you have answered that you do not know.

  Caroline Flint: No, I said human cybrid which I think that would fall into. There is another term that Sir David King has used in evidence to the Committee but I met with David King the other week and we agreed that these were some of the areas that had been developing; new processes are taking place and therefore we do need to be clear about the terms. If I could say to you, as part of our deliberations the White Paper makes it absolutely clear that we think there needs to be a door open to be able to deal with these processes and how they develop and I am sure we will explore during our conversation this morning where we were when the opinions were given to the consultation process which may be different from where we are now in terms of what the scientific community is saying in terms of the development of this type of science.

  Q274  Chairman: When the White Paper was produced the DTI is against you, MRC is against you, the Wellcome Trust is against you, the HFEA is against you, and every single scientist of repute that we have met is against you; even the Prime Minister is against you. Is there any chance that you might change your mind in terms of banning this?

  Caroline Flint: I have to say that one of the opportunities we have today is to explore what I think has been a wrong representation on what the White Paper position is.

  Q275  Chairman: I am talking about your comments.

  Caroline Flint: If I could just say about government departments, as part of the consultation process in producing that document we consulted every government department. Sir David King's unit was consulted. As part of the White Paper's proposals we consulted every government department including Sir David King's office and all of them approved of the document that we produced. We are entering into a debate now which is absolutely essential and that is why I agree that we should have pre-legislative scrutiny. We were in a position before where the current legislation has nothing in it which deals with this particular area that allows the science to develop. Sir Liam might want to speak about the expert committee that he convened which actually ruled out completely at that stage the use of these forms of processes. Our consultation led us to say that whilst we thought there should be a general prohibition, the science was moving and we needed to leave a door open to allow regulation of some of these processes. I think the debate we are having now is absolutely right and to be honest there are 70 areas covered in the White Paper and this is the time to explore in detail some of the issues within the White Paper, not just this but other controversial areas as well.

  Q276  Chairman: You must be concerned that there is so much opposition to the comments which were made in your press release and the comments which your Department made as a result of the publication of the White Paper and, indeed, the comments that were made by Sir Liam Donaldson.

  Caroline Flint: What I would say is that I think we have been misrepresented in this. We are actually proposing a liberalisation of where we are now.

  Q277  Chairman: Is the banning of science a liberalisation?

  Caroline Flint: We are not banning science and that is very clear in the White Paper. What we are saying is that we are opening the door to regulating this type of research and there are a number of other areas within the White Paper where we are also liberalising the opportunities for research as well based on the representations that were made. If I look, for example, at the Royal Society in response to our consultation: "There is at present insufficient scientific justification for creating human-animal embryos to warrant the public disquiet that this is likely to engender". The Wellcome Trust believes that the law should allow hybrids and chimeras in general but subject to further controls. The Economic and Social Research Council whom we consulted at DTI's request said that "the creation of hybrids and chimeras should not be permitted without very serious discussion". I have a few others as well. I think what that indicates is that whilst there was an understanding that this was an emerging area of science that we needed to deal with (I have always said, and I said when I came before this Committee before, that we need to be able to look to the future and not just the now) there was also concern about how this should be regulated which people had not been specific about. Also there was a recognition that where science works well—not where there are extreme views in the public domain—is in bringing the majority of public opinion with you. I think we are able to do that.

  Q278  Chairman: Would you accept that in terms of the scientific community there is not a reputable scientist who is actually supporting your position at the moment in terms of a ban? Can you quote one?

  Caroline Flint: With respect, I have had meetings with Sir David King and—

  Q279  Chairman: He is not against it; he told us yesterday he was not against it.

  Caroline Flint: Lord Robert Winston.