Our current legal framework for human embryo research has been outgrown by more recent developments and needs reform, says Dr Ian Gibson MP

Few subjects create as much controversy as human embryology. For some, embryos - even in their earliest stages of development - are "people", deserving protection just like babies. To them not only embryo research but also abortion, emergency contraception, the intrauterine device and the contraceptive pill, all constitute violations of this "right to life".

For others it is legitimate to distinguish between the protection and rights afforded to babies and the status of fertilised eggs. The law in Britain, and all other Western countries shares this latter perspective. The law ruling embryo research in this country, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, states that embryo research can take place under strict supervision and regulation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This authority grants licences only for high calibre research on embryos below 14 days of age. It inspects fertility clinics and issues strict guidelines for both treatments and research. The authority also consults the public on upcoming issues and newly proposed research or fertility techniques.

The HFE Act 1990 and the HFE Authority have served Britain well. They have allowed a rational and structured debate about scientific progress in the field of human embryology. They have also enabled scientists to learn more about the processes of fertilisation, differentiation of tissues, about inherited diseases and about infertility. One direct consequence of ongoing embryo research is the beginning of an understanding of stem cells and their potential. We really are at the beginning of a learning curve here but many scientists, and I include myself here, are very enthusiastic that the unique ability of stem cells to grow into any tissue will help to develop treatments for chronic and debilitating diseases.

However the legal framework within which the HFE Authority makes its decisions about licence applications is now more than 10 years old. It is based on the famous Warnock Report which will be 20 in a couple of years time and has been outgrown by more recent developments. This means the HFE Authority appears to be increasingly "out on a limb" when deciding licence applications for new techniques.

Two recent examples of this problem were the decisions in the Hashmi and the Whitaker cases. On both occasions, the couples in question had a severely ill child. They were hoping that through screening embryos in vitro (pre-implantation genetic diagnostics or PGD) they might have a child who genetically matched its older sibling and could thus donate cells taken from the umbilical cord in order to help cure the older sibling. The Hashmi family's son was suffering from a genetic or inherited disease, whereas the Whitaker's son had a condition that occurs without an obvious genetic link. Both boys were extremely unwell and their parents accordingly very desperate for the HFE Authority to grant a license which would enable a doctor to attempt this tissue matching. The HFE Authority granted a licence for the Hashmis' treatment, but not for the Whitakers.

The reason given for the different decisions was that only the Hashmis had to fear passing on an inherited illness to their next child, and that the HFE Act 1990 and the guidelines issued by the HFE Authority only allow PGD - and tissue matching - in order to also prevent genetic illness in the child that is being created.

I can see the difference in law that led to these different decisions. But for the affected families this distinction must be hard to understand. What difference does it make to them whether the illness their existing child is suffering from is inherited or not? There might be a distinction in law, but there is not much of a difference in life. For me this is yet another example that it is time to re-address the questions of human embryology and reproductive genetics on a broader, more political, more democratic basis. What we need is a good hard look at the 1990 Act and a rational, well-informed debate about how we bring this very good piece of legislation into the 21st century.

There will be more and more controversial applications, pressures for selection of embryos, new ways of creating embryonic cells and tissues. It is our job as politicians to not shy away from the difficult questions science poses. This means in all likelihood that the minority of MPs who are opposed to embryo research and IVF on fundamentalist grounds will raise their objections once again and will try to obstruct the modernising of the laws in question. Their lobby might even resort to sending out life-sized plastic foetuses again. But this is what democracy means: allowing the contradictions and frictions to become visible. I am confident that we can win the argument for well-regulated science and well-informed, up-to-date legislation.