[BobbyB]

Humane Biology

Stem-cell researchers have won a sensible concession
News that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is to be amended represents a victory for common sense. It is a victory for the more than two dozen signatories, including three Nobel prizewinners, to a letter published in this newspaper on January 21. It also marks the way forward for the intelligent and flexible policy on the ultra-sensitive issue of stem-cell research.

Stem-cell researchers sit uncomfortably on the boundary between invaluable scientific endeavour and inviolable human ethics. Honourable scientists want to push the frontiers of medicine, cure illnesses and alleviate suffering. The ever present risk, however, is that academic analysis tramples on public expressions of morality, and the private intentions of individuals.

The detail of yesterday's amendment is technical in nature. The implications are no less important for that. The Bill, as originally framed, would have stopped scientists conducting stem- cell research on tissue taken from people who had not given express permission. Research would have been halted even where donors had given general assent for scientific experimentation. It would have halted research on tissue taken from individuals before stem-cell research began. Now, however, the Government has accepted the argument of leading scientists that, since tissue was collected before it became possible to clone embryos, it would have been impossible for anonymous donors to give permission for their DNA to be used in embryonic stem-cell models of diseases.

The sensitivity of the subject explains why legislators had planned to proceed with greatest care. But in doing so, the lawmakers threatened to scupper exisiting projects that have used tissue from individuals who did not give specific stem-cell authorisation. There is no way of checking back with donors or donors' relatives because the samples were given anonymously. Some of the existing project work would have been irreplaceable. Repetition would have come at substantial financial cost. It would have meant that a large library of samples would be inaccessible to stem-cell researchers.

The policy shift signalled by Professor Lord Darzi of Denham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Health, prevents needless waste. It sustains hope for present and future sufferers of serious, currently incurable, degenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes and motor neuron disease. It assists efforts - supported by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - to make Britain a leader in stem-cell research. Wider claims that Britain is home to world-beating research and development work are bolstered.

Stem-cell researchers need to do little more than move a muscle to spark off a round of agonised soul-searching. This is both inevitable and desirable. Difficult questions will continue to arise and must be scrutinised case by case. With equal measures of determination and sensitivity, policymakers must balance pragmatism and ethics. In some parts of the world, misplaced didacticism would take over and elevate scientific endeavour above personal or religious ethics. Elsewhere, ethics may gain primacy over science. It is to the credit of Britain's democratic process that scientists and ethicists compete to be heard.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3291921.ece