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

28 FEBRUARY 2007

  Q280  Chairman: He is not against it; he told us that yesterday.

  Caroline Flint: If I could just finish my sentence, there have been meetings in the Department with, for example, Stephen Minger, with our Chief Scientific Officer and I think what has come out of those discussions was some misunderstanding about actually what the Government's position was. We needed to rectify that and I have to say from my meetings with Sir David King and with Lord Robert Winston, when I have spoken to them to say exactly what we were saying and what we were not saying they have been reassured by that. That is debate, that is okay and that is important.

  Q281  Chairman: Just to clarify, the article in The Times yesterday which said, "The proposed government ban on fusing human DNA with animal eggs, which promises insights into incurable conditions such as Alzheimer's and motor neuron disease, will be abandoned because of concerns among senior ministers that it will damage British science", is that accurate?

  Caroline Flint: We were not abandoning research in this area.

  Q282  Chairman: You were abandoning the opposition to it, I think that indicates.

  Caroline Flint: No, what we have said as part of our process here is that we wanted to find a way in which we could regulate in this area. That is very clear in the White Paper but that is why pre-legislative scrutiny is so important. As we agreed with yourselves a draft bill is helpful in making that greater debate. So we have not shut the door, in fact we have moved further forward than we have ever been before in this particular area of science. However, I do think it is important that all people who want to voice an opinion in public do make sure that they are correct about what they think the Government is saying and what the Government is not saying.

  Q283  Chairman: Sir Liam, are you surprised that there is such opposition to what the Government is proposing?

  Sir Liam Donaldson: Chairman, you started by asking about the definitions and I wonder if I could briefly cover that and then I will come directly to your question. I think it is important that there are definitions. I think it is a bit unfair to criticise us because we do not have those precise definitions yet because, as you rightly said, there are people even in the last few days coming up with their own definitions. I would have said that there was not a huge vacuum on definitions up until relatively recently because when we were describing this sort of technology in the earlier report to describe the transfer of a human cell into a human egg with the nucleus removed the term that was used was cell-nuclear transfer. We could equally well say cell nuclear transfer and then qualify that that it is an animal/human cell that is involved. That is one way of approaching it. Another way of approaching it is Sir David's term which he coined when he gave evidence to you. Another way would be to say that that is too much of a mouthful and the term cybrid is a better one.

  Q284  Chairman: It is certainly not a hybrid and it is certainly not a chimera; you would accept that.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: I would certainly accept that, yes.[1]

  Q285 Chairman: Yet that is the basis of your White Paper.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: In what respect?

  Q286  Chairman: That is the title of it in terms of the consultation. It is on hybrids and chimeras.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: I suppose to the extent that the term cybrid is being used which contains elements of the same descriptor, I think that the term was intended to cover a spectrum of things, some of which you are considering and some of which lie completely outside your remit in the territory of the Home Office and are not to do with fertilisation techniques at all. I think there is an entire spectrum and if we had time it would be good to identify the full spectrum of activity here because I think there are both scientific and ethical issues right across the whole spectrum and to narrow down on one aspect of it because the terminology and the description is not worked out I think is slightly unfair, but then that is your prerogative.

  Q287  Chairman: It is our prerogative because that is what our inquiry is about. Two laboratories in Newcastle and at King's College in London wanted in fact to carry out a range of research which they regarded as important, they regarded it as within the law as it stands in terms of the 1990 Act, HFEA agree that it is within the law in terms of the 1990 Act but the Government has come in and said that it is not, we want to ban that. I think that is within our remit.

  Caroline Flint: That is a misrepresentation, I am afraid to say.

  Q288  Dr Turner: It is quite clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding going on; there is a lot of clarification that needs to be done. Can we perhaps try to start that process by asking you what is actually motivating you in your approach to these issues?

  Caroline Flint: The task I was given was to review the legislation as it stands and clearly I think much of the HFEA legislation has stood the test of time. However, we recognise that there were areas that were not even covered in the legislation, that science had moved on and was able to do today what it was not able to do when that legislation first started, but we also recognise that there were issues that were maybe tentative at the moment in scientific world but were likely to be developed down the road so what we wanted to try to do was to take into account previous expert groups and committees that had discussed some of these issues—and there have been groups that have discussed this issue around hybrids and chimeras—but also try to find a way to move forward. It was not the case—I am pleased to be able to say this today publicly—that we were being led by some sort of popular opinion poll as to what government legislation should be in this area. I think when I gave evidence to this Committee before, there are a number of other areas—I have to say included in some of the areas of research that we are liberalising—where, if it was down to possibly a postcard campaign or an opinion poll I would be on the wrong side of that. So I do not think I can be accused of just pandering to that sort of lobbying. Having said that, even the quotes I have just given to you from eminent scientific organisations do acknowledge that within the scientific community they are conscious of a wariness amongst the public about developments in this area. In order to create something that can stand the test of time we want to make sure we do bring the sensible public opinion with us on that. That is what we were trying to do and I have to say that what I think is emerging now which I think is positive is possibly far more science engagement on this issue and more ideas and evidence coming forward as to developments. I cannot answer for that but I am guided by a couple of things: legislation that does not lose its sell by date within a short space of time (I think that is very important when you are talking about science); stem cell research of which we are world leaders on making that happen; also, having science that more or less the public understand what it is about, what it is for and why it is necessary.

  Q289  Dr Turner: The scientific community at the moment is suffering a certain amount of alarm and despondency and there are very great fears that we are going to lose our lead because it would not take long to do that. There is an inherent conflict—in fact an inherent ethical conflict—in delaying cytoplasmic hybrid proposals and at the same time encouraging altruistic egg donation with the ethical risks associated with that. Do you see that inherent conflict?

  Caroline Flint: In the context of the timetable here, with the best will in the world even if the White Paper had said, "No holes barred, we are going to do this" we would have had to wait for parliamentary time for that to happen. This is just one issue but there are plenty of examples where the HFEA (they are independent of our Department, we have had no influence on that whatsoever) have to make decisions and have made decisions in the absence of the law being specific in different areas. There are a number of examples of that. Regardless of what we have said in the White Paper we would still have had to go through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, getting a slot within the parliamentary timetable to pin it down within a piece of legislation. This discussion and these applications that have come from Newcastle and other places would have had to have gone through that process anyway and that is why we have the regulator and why the regulator has certain powers in which to do this. Whatever the regulator does decide clearly they are open to judicial review. What we are doing is not stopping that happening.

  Q290  Dr Turner: It is agreed by practically everybody that those applications are within the scope of the current law. Sir Liam, you produced your report in 1995, to what extent do the recommendations of that report influence your current thinking? Have your views moved on since 1999?

  Sir Liam Donaldson: I am conscious that the Chairman is worried about time but I do feel that the rationale behind my original report is an important thing for me to be able to discuss today. I am happy to take that question now, but I would like to spend a couple of minutes explaining where we were coming from when we produced the original report.

  Q291  Chairman: I am quite happy for you to spend a minute doing that now.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: There were three factors that I think need to be born in mind when we look at why the report said what it did. The first is that we were producing a report whose main recommendation was to legislate to allow so-called therapeutic cloning. It is fair to say that at the time that that recommendation was made it was highly controversial. The media reacted with diagrams of Frankenstein limbs, there was uproar in some countries of the world (particularly the catholic countries of the world), there was criticism made by the Pope of the decision. It was a committee that came to that decision after a lot of hard analysis and talking. Certainly I believe as chairman that we were potentially opening up a new medical frontier. However, it was by no means certain that the committee as a whole would pass the report; it contained scientists but it also contained ethicists. Had we then added into a field of great controversy and an area we felt wanted to go the recommendation that in some way animal cells and human cells would be mixed as well, I actually think we would not have got through the report containing that important main recommendation at that time. I think it would have been considered unbalanced and highly controversial. So there was a pragmatic reason at that time and it was the view of the whole committee, the scientists as well, it was not my personal view. That was the first point. More briefly, the second point was the one about egg shortage, that at the time it seemed as though there would not be the need for so many human eggs to achieve the cell nuclear transfer type creation of an embryo. The third point—which some of the scientists felt very strongly about—was that it would be a distraction, that the main benefit of this form of research was the opportunity to create embryonic stem cells from the fusion of an adult cell and an empty human egg because of the potential benefit in not having rejection of that tissue in a transplantation type situation. It was felt that the majority of scientific attention needed to go that human to human method. To start getting involved in other forms of research the scientists felt would be a distraction. That is why we recommended what we did and I would stand by it. At the time I think it was absolutely the right thing to do and, remember, it only got through Parliament, it was not immediately seen to be something that Parliament would accept. After a lot of parliamentary briefings that I undertook, the Minister's predecessor, Yvette Cooper, spent a lot of time talking to MPs about it and then the regulations went through. Even as it was passing we were not sure that it would be accepted; we were delighted that it was. That is the background but to suggest now that somehow I was dragging my feet all along or that I never wanted to consider this is unfair.

  Q292  Dr Turner: That was eight years ago and things have moved on.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: Yes, and I have received no representations over the whole of that eight years from any leading scientist that we should push forward on this.

  Q293  Dr Turner: They did not realise there was an issue until their licences were not granted.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: It has obviously not been a very active field of research because we have not had applications pouring down on us.

  Q294  Chairman: We could say that about any area of research until somebody actually puts in a research bid.

  Sir Liam Donaldson: The interest was in the cell nuclear transfer. That is where the interest has been all along and this is an area that people are now obviously becoming interested in but it has not been something where there has been pressure and we have somehow been resisting it.

  Q295  Dr Turner: We cannot blame scientists for the shortage of human eggs or for the technical difficulties that they have encountered in getting success which has led them to want to use the animal egg so that they can investigate why it is so difficult before they waste human eggs. Things have moved on and it is not the scientists' fault.

  Caroline Flint: There has been every opportunity, I would suggest, for that representation to take place both in the consultation and in the on-going meetings the Department has and across government too. This has not been a closed debate but we do need people to voice their views and give the evidence to persuade. I just cannot emphasise enough, we are opening the door to this research and not closing it. With the number of issues that the White Paper covers it is important to have this pre-legislative scrutiny. I am relaxed about that because I think it is important to have this debate but there has not been a door closed on people coming forward and voicing their opinions.

  Q296  Dr Turner: There was never a closed door in those people's minds anyway. What weight have you placed on response to consultation?

  Caroline Flint: I think I have made that clear. If we purely took an issue around the number of people who respond and their views for and against, there are a number of other areas where we would not be making progress. Clearly you know that the majority of individual responses on this issue was against; clearly we have not just adopted that view because we have said that we think there should be within the legislation the scope for regulating some of this activity. I think the debate about what is a hybrid, what is a chimera, what is a cybrid, is very important to that because it is when you get down to the detail of what processes and what entities (for want of a better word) you are creating, that is how you can regulate. What I do think is important—I think scientists agree with this—is that scientists are best served by science that generally has support and that is why I think the Act has been so successful and why we are the leaders of stem cell research in the world. It is not about a popularity contest.

  Q297  Linda Gilroy: What proportion of the responses to the consultation came from the scientific community? Are you saying they missed the opportunity to make their views clear?

  Caroline Flint: I can give you a break down in detail but I think we had from some reputable organisations their views made. Clearly I have cited that a number of them did feel that if we were to move down this route we would still have to have strong regulation in this area. I think that is what we tried to reflect in our proposals, but I do think, whatever the whys and wherefores, that possibly more of what we are hearing today if that had come before you before, then that would have been helpful. I do think there are factors in this about how fast science moves. I do think there are some issues around the developments in Korea where it did seem that stem cell lines could be developed from a relatively small number of eggs. To a certain extent I think that scientists around the world thought this was a solution. Later, when that was found to be fraudulent, I think that started to develop within the community that that was not an option and therefore these other issues have suddenly come up to the fore. I understand that, but again I think we are dealing with an area where people do have to make sure they engage, make their views known and we should not have to wait for applications for that to happen.

  Q298  Linda Gilroy: A note on that would be welcome. Could you include in that perhaps an analysis of how many of the responses were from the same people who opposed the use of human embryos for research and can I just ask you if you think that matters?

  Caroline Flint: I think if you are having a discussion and people are fundamentally opposed to something therefore any variation is linked to their fundamental opposition. There is not much room for debate in that.

  Q299  Linda Gilroy: Could you cover that in your note to us?

  Caroline Flint: Yes, I will.