Parliament has approved the human Reproductive Cloning Act which allows research for therapeutic purposes on cells derived from human embryos. The House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research, after thoroughly examining the issues in more detail, has reached a positive conclusion. These advances have been widely welcomed by those of us who champion the proper use of science for medical advancement. Stem cell and cell nuclear replacement (CNR) research could result in new treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease, as well as Aids and diabetes.

The Lords committee carefully reviewed the ethical arguments in relation to whether research on human embryos is justifiable and concluded that it was "not persuaded that all research on early human embryos should be prohibited". The committee's cautious recommendation that it was preferable to use "spare" IVF embryos rather than create embryos for research is understandable. The argument that permitted research should be confined only to adult stem cells was not accepted by the committee, as both adult and embryonic stem cell-based therapies need to be investigated to ensure maximum medical benefit. As it happens further evidence quoted in the Financial Times on March 14 indicates that caution is needed with regard to the therapeutic use of adult tissue stem cells. This has led Professor Smith, Director of Edinburgh's Centre for Genome Research to conclude: "If nothing else, our study indicates that calls for a halt to embryonic stem cell research are not scientifically justified and confirms the far-sightedness of the UK legislature in approving embryonic stem cell derivation and research."

The Lords committee's report identified a number of other issues that the regulatory system may have to address such as the status of cells created by mixing human and animal material and the access to established stem cell lines in cell banks which the Medical Research Council will establish.

In a modern society it is absolutely necessary to develop and maintain public confidence in science and biotechnology. A clear framework of regulation and ethical guidelines need to be reinforced but in a way that does not inhibit therapeutic cloning or CNR, a research field the humane purpose of which should be regarded by most people as ethical and desirable.

The public need reassurance especially when confronted with scare stories relating to the work of maverick Italian fertility specialist and cloning enthusiast, Severino Antinori, who is determined to clone human beings. Hype also surrounded the announcement by the US company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) that it has cloned the first human embryo using techniques pioneered by the British experts who created Dolly the Sheep (in February 1997 when I was still Science Minister). ACT has only produced a few cells with fleeting lives and suspect viability for production of stem cells.

Yet whilst Dr Michael West, President of ACT, maintains there are no plans to clone a human being, others claim it is only a matter of time now that Pandora's box has been opened. The House of Lords committee was satisfied that the current regulations were sufficient to ensure that the development of CNR would not lead to human reproductive cloning in the UK. Suffice to say that any attempt to clone a human being would be irresponsible, given the abundant evidence that present cloning techniques are inefficient and unsafe, as well as ethically objectionable.

Matching regulations with scientific advances will not be easy. There will be disputes about the scope of the description "serious disease". And the distinction between basic research and more applied research needs to be clarified, as the one is an essential precursor to the other. Parliament is undoubtedly going to keep these matters under review as there is a need to ensure the adequacy of regulation.

I share the view of the potential importance of research in providing advances in treatment for repairing and replacing diseased tissue genetically compatible with a patient's immune system. Stem cell therapy has enormous potential and research should not be delayed or frustrated by inadequate regulation. As Professor Sir George Radda from the Medical Research Council recently wrote: "British scientists are uniquely placed to research this area and many patients are desperate for them to do so."

Britain must continue to lead in this field and attract prominent scientists such as US stem cell researcher, Roger Pedersen, across the Atlantic. Our "pro-science" position is a positive contrast with President Bush's ban in America on the federal funding of the creation of new embryonic cell lines and his overall support to ban both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Public attention in the UK, and perhaps understanding, has been increased by the comments made by the former actor Christopher Reeve who hopes these scientific advances may one day help people with conditions such as his own. He has suggested that if necessary he will move to this country because of the more science-friendly approach taken here.

The House of Lords committee has shown how parliamentary enquiry can be rational and well argued. Let us now hope that research will continue to provide prospects for tackling many illnesses and conditions that are currently untreatable.