Last month the house of lords select committee on Stem Cell Research gave the go ahead to experiments on cloned human embryos and "spare" embryos left over from IVF procedures. Its conclusions came as little surprise to those of us who questioned the wisdom of appointing a retrospective select committee to look into cloning and stem cell research after Parliament had approved hastily prepared and ill-conceived regulations authorising such research. There is little point in wasting months of parliamentary time going through the motions of an inquiry when the conclusion is fixed at the outset.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee warned: "Science's relationship with UK society is under strain." It does nothing to lesson the strain when both the chairman of a select committee and its scientific advisor are on the record as supporters of embryo experimentation and so-called "therapeutic" cloning and that no one who spoke in Parliament against the use of human embryos in destructive research was appointed to the inquiry. This doesn't mean that the committee members are dishonourable men and women, but it doesn't inspire confidence in the process. That confidence has been further undermined by the powerful vested interests that have driven on the debate.
The committee's analysis of the ethical status of the human embryo is philosophically flawed. When one considers that in the report this comes after, rather than before, its conclusion that additional destructive embryo research should be permitted, this is unsurprising. Incredibly the committee made no reference in their report to an unprecedented written submission by an ad hoc group of eminent Christian theologians from across the traditions on the ethical status of the human embryo.
Looking at the science, although the committee did receive oral evidence from scientists working on adult stem cells, such scientists either represented bodies that supported "therapeutic" cloning or had declared their personal support. No scientists devoted exclusively to research on adult stem cells and opposed to embryo experimentation were invited to submit oral evidence. I fail to see how the committee can claim to have given more attention to recent developments in adult stem cell research than to any other.
The committee received oral evidence from a chorus of scientists representing bodies in favour of embryonic stem cell research. Why was it that I had to invite distinguished scientists to accompany me to give evidence from an exclusively adult stem cell perspective? They should have been invited in their own right.
The committee's report exposes the inflated claims of the government and its pro-cloning allies. It acknowledges that over the next few years most studies on embryonic stem cells will involve "basic research" which "will not in itself be therapeutic". According to the committee it could be anything from five to 25 years before we see the introduction of effective stem cell based therapies. Last summer the New York Times, reporting on the possibility of cures using embryonic stem cells declared "if it ever happens, it will not happen soon"although they worked with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years and made some progress, researchers have not used these cells to cure a single mouse of disease". In the meantime the "hit and miss" nature of this "basic research" will involve the manufacture, cannibalisation and destruction of human embryos. This hardly demonstrates the "respect" for the human embryo that the committee is so keen to convince us it wishes to promote.
Viable scientific alternatives do exist. Adult stem cells have been demonstrated to be as good as or better than embryonic stem cells in providing effective regenerative therapies. Why else would three out of every four dollars of private investment in the US be going into adult stem cell research and technology? No wonder those in favour of embryo research are seeking ever greater access to the public purse and putting forward misleading stories about "flaws" in adult stem cells when the research upon which these stories are based demonstrates the exact opposite - the dangers of mixing adult and embryonic stem cells. No problems arise when adult stem cells are placed into adults.
Adult stem cells are stable and plentiful. They can be isolated, multiplied in the laboratory and grown into a number of different tissues. Multipotent adult progenitor cells have been found in the bone marrow of adults by a team led by Professor Catherine Verfaille's at the University of Minnesota. Commenting on these cells, one of her team said that they can "differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into". Adult stem cell research is delivering results. Embryonic stem cell research is not. In fact there are numerous problems associated with embryonic stem cells including difficulty in establishing and maintaining embryonic stem cell lines, difficulty in obtaining pure cultures in the dish, the potential for tumour formation, and genomic instability.
If the "special status" of the embryo as coined by the Warnock Committee stands for anything then we should devote our resources exclusively to adult stem cell research. It represents a viable scientific alternative and avoids the ethical conflict surrounding the destruction of early human life.
The committee's failure to recognise this means that its conclusions are not only ethically dubious, they also represent bad science. The general feeling of contempt and cynicism about the whole process is inescapable. We can do better.
