IN THE dying weeks of 2000, British MPs opened the door for researchers to
begin studying embryonic stem cells鈥攖he multi-talented cells from
which all our tissues develop. Their decision to extend Britain鈥檚 utilitarian
approach to embryo research was preceded by an impassioned debate. The upshot is
that scientists studying serious disease will have 14 days after an embryo is
created in vitro to harvest stem cells.
The vote also paves the way for 鈥渃ell nuclear replacement鈥�, in which the
nucleus of an egg is replaced with one from an adult cell. This method, used to
create Dolly the sheep, is seen as a potentially powerful tool for making
tissues for transplanting that are genetically identical to those of patients,
so avoiding immune rejection.
The debate at Westminster touched on moral issues, complex science and the
potential long-term health benefits for society. The chief argument against the
research was that the embryo is sacrosanct. This issue, however, was decided in
British law a decade ago when MPs first approved research on embryos for
studying ways to overcome infertility and avoid miscarriages. So the crux of
last month鈥檚 debate was that if embryo research is permissible for assisting the
creation of new life, why not for saving existing lives?
Advertisement
On the practical side, most embryos used for research will continue to be
鈥渟pares鈥� left over from IVF courses. Normally, these would be thrown away. MPs
argued that it would be better if the embryos were used for research鈥攚ith
the parents鈥� consent.
They also considered whether research into embryonic stem cells is justified
at a time when the therapeutic potential of stem cells found in some adult
tissues is just emerging. Last year, for example, saw blood stem cells turned
into brain and muscle cells. But MPs were swayed by the argument that embryonic
stem cells hold all the keys for learning how cells regenerate and transform
from one cell type into another. We will need these keys to realise the full
potential of adult stem cells.
Whether or not you agree with embryo research, the way the decision was
reached shows how democracy can deal sensibly with developments in science and
technology. Well-informed elected representatives debated whether scientists
should be allowed to pursue a new line of controversial research. In the
process, members of the public learned enough to make up their own minds. It may
seem strange to applaud a process that is at the heart of democracy, but that
process is all too often omitted鈥攅specially when a new technology is
championed by industry.
Last year鈥檚 public outcry against genetically modified crops in Europe was
born of fear and ignorance. Governments saw no reason to question the health or
environmental implications of this new technology until after the public
realised something new was being foisted on them. Only then did the British
government set up trials of GM crops to look at their environmental impact.
Mobile phones have become de rigueur. Yet it was only a month ago that the
British government issue guidance saying that we really don鈥檛 understand the
impact of radiation from phones on the brain and that it might be better for
children not to use them. It set aside 拢3.5 million to study their health
effects.
In both cases the government failed to give a lead in thrashing out the
implications of new technologies. If one lesson emerged from the BSE disaster,
it was that governments must take notice of the potential dangers identified by
science and tell the public. Much of the bad press that scientists received last
year can be laid at the door of governments for not keeping up with developments
that really matter.
That鈥檚 not to exonerate scientists for keeping quiet about issues that affect
the public. The days when science was a pure pursuit, divorced from everyday
life, have long gone. Distinctions are too blurred between pure science and the
military and commercial uses of advances. Researchers who apply for a grant must
list the potential applications of their work, so they are only too aware of its
implications.
In the stem cell debate, one MP argued that once scientists can carry out
cell nuclear replacement, it鈥檚 only a matter of time before one of them clones a
human being. Health minister Yvette Cooper disagreed. 鈥淭he power to permit human
reproductive cloning lies in this House, not in the hands of scientists,鈥� she
said. Human cloning is an extreme example, but ultimately politicians do decide
the limits of research in many areas. If they are going to exercise that
control, they must be more determined to investigate the challenges that science
poses and ready to debate the issues in public.
