5 items relating to embryo cloning:
1. ngin intro
2. MPs relax embryo rules
3. MPs agonise over matters of life and death
4. Whitehall split on cloning decision
5. Cures will allay fears about biotechnology
---
1. ngin intro
Several items relating to the the embryo research vote in the UK parliament yesterday. Part of a Guardian report + three other Guardian pieces [* urls for full articles] which preceeded yesterday's vote and cover some interesting ground.
The second Guardian piece we've included provides some information on the important issues Dr David King and CAHGE have been highlighting.
The third article makes it abundantly clear where the New Labour enthusiasm for this research direction has been coming from. Blair's comments on this issue exactly mimic Lord Sainsbury's reported view: "the potential medical benefits outweigh any other considerations one might have" ie ethics/biological hazards etc. need to take a back seat on the journey to the promised land.
As per usual the Blair/Sainsbury agenda has been forwarded through democratic denial and public deception.
Although there was a debate yesterday, MPs did not have any opportunity to vote directly on the key related issue of human cloning - so-called "therapeutic cloning", the creation of embryos with a genetic make-up identical to a living adult for medical research - which it is clear, in the absence of a global ban, will also facilitate reproductive cloning. Yet this has been billed as the "clone vote". [see for example: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,411148,00.html ]
The fourth article below gives excerpts from a Guardian leader on pharming. While apparently unrelated to yesterday's debate, a reading of it in this context is instructive as to the underlying Blair/Sainsbury agenda. It explicitly argues that "cures" through biotech "will play a critical role in allaying consumer scepticism about genetic modification" by redefining biotechnology "as a vital hope to relieve suffering."
Of course those cures are a long way off, indeed very probably may never come, and in some cases may even be more easily obtainable by more ethical, less costly and less hazardous routes, but as with promoting to around the world a 'golden rice' incapable of providing sufficient Vit A to actually solve the problem, that's not the point!
These are projected ends to justify the chosen means - more poster children for biotech.
---
2. MPs relax embryo rules
Michael White, political editor
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,413787,00.html
MPs last night voted decisively to relax the rules governing the controversial move into the "stem cell" branch of research into human embryos, despite warnings by critics that they have legally endorsed human cloning "for the first time in the world".
After an impassioned and well-informed debate, the Commons agreed - in a free vote on both sides - to endorse new regulations by 366 votes to 174, a majority of 192.
Tony Blair, who has repeat edly aligned himself with the progressive pro-science side in a series of arguments, voted for the change in what is a relatively rare appearance by the prime minister in the division lobbies.
William Hague joined senior colleagues in voting No, as did the Independent MP, Martin Bell, and Labour's Frank Field and the former minister, Denzil Davies.
---
3. MPs agonise over matters of life and death
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,412207,00.html
Pleas from the disabled and ill, charges of Nazism - and then a free vote
James Meek and Sarah Hall
Saturday December 16, 2000
...The "pro-lifers" have some curious allies in their campaign - an offshoot of the environmentalist movement, not normally standing shoulder to shoulder with Catholics and opponents of the right to abortion, is against the change because it sees it as a step towards human cloning.
Dave King, who runs a campaign against genetic engineering, does not object to experiment on stem cells but does not want to see the rules changed until a worldwide ban on human reproductive cloning is in place: something which will be extremely difficult to negotiate and may never happen.
But the rule change as drafted makes no mention of cloning. What's the connection?
Stem cells are so called because they have the potential to grow into any kind of specialised human tissue. As leaves grow off the stem of a plant, chemical messages inside stem cells instruct them to divide into ever more specialised cells, until they have formed cells for the liver, heart, skin, nerve, blood and scores of other tissue types.
If scientists succeed in unravelling the mysteries of those chemical messages they will be able to grow replacement cells for people whose own supply has been destroyed by degenerative disease.
That achievement is still a long way off. But even if researchers get that far, there is another barrier to successful treatment. Cellular spare parts grown from alien cells are likely to be rejected by the immune system.
One way to get around this would be the cloning technique used to create Dolly the sheep: take a human egg, remove its own DNA, insert the nucleus from an adult patient's cell, apply a jolt of electricity, and create a cloned human stem cell. This could then be used to grow replacement cells which would be 100% compatible with the patient's own.
The government points out that, surprisingly, doing this for humans is not actually illegal at the moment, subject to HFEA approval, although no-one has yet applied for a licence. In other words, they say, there is no need to vote on it. But campaigners for a no vote next week maintain that the change in the rules on embryo research would create a huge incentive for scientists to begin this kind of limited human cloning.
---
4. Whitehall split on cloning decision
Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Monday July 31, 2000
A row between the Department of Health and the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, is holding back a decision on the cloning of human embyros. Government sources acknowledged the department was less enthusiastic about the experiments, which would bring criticism from religious groups.
Both the department and Lord Sainsbury have for six weeks been studying a report from the government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. He is expected to recommend accedence to pressure from within the scientific community to make the cloning process legal, as in the United States.
The government could have published the report before the summer recess, but chose not to do so, possibly because ministers were reluctant to distract from the National Plan for Health. Any go-ahead would be subject to legal controls and a full five year review.
However, Lord Sainsbury said in an interview over the weekend that, in his view, "the potential medical benefits outweigh any other considerations one might have". These remarks were interpreted as signalling the go-ahead for cloning.
Liam Fox, the shadow health secretary, said yesterday: "This is a huge issue of concern to church groups and religious groups, who are all expecting the very different ethical issues involved to be given maximum scrutiny."
Dr Fox accused Lord Sainsbury of "sweeping away all the complex ethical issues with complete contempt" and of having neglected the consultation that had been promised. Lord Sainsbury issued a clarification yesterday, saying that no final decision had been made by the government.
The aim of the proposed research would be to find ways of turning embryo stem cells into personalised replacement tissue for transplantation. Ruth Deech, who chairs the government's human fertilisation and embryology authority, indicated her support for limited research.
She told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend: "Nobody anywhere wants reproductive cloning, the cloning of babies, but right round the world there is a growing consensus that there would not be any harm, indeed there would be much good, in 'therapeutic cloning' of embryos."
She said the aim of such research would be to find ways to grow new cells and tissues to help people with Parkinson's disease, with Huntington's, with Alzheimer's, with cancer, and with burns. "It will be gradual, and every step will be checked by us. Our powers are backed by law. We give licences, and we can take them away."
---
5. Down on the pharm
Cures will allay fears about biotechnology
Leader
Thursday December 7, 2000
Yet again the Roslin Institute is pointing the way for the future of biotechnology. Yesterday, it announced a joint project with a US biotech company, Viragen, to genetically modify chickens so that their eggs contain antibodies for skin cancer. This is the brave new world of pharming.
Just as we have tamed and adapted animals to provide us with food and material for clothing, so we can launch a new chapter in animal husbandry in which we develop them with genetic modification for medicines.
...The anti-cancer eggs are years away from any appreciable effect on cancer treatment. In the meantime, the hopes of investors - and the price of shares - have to be kept high, hence yesterday's announcement.
Pharming will play a critical role in allaying consumer scepticism about genetic modification. It is easy to see how consumers took against GM soyabean which offered no benefit to anyone except Monsanto, but when a cure for cancer is at stake - one in three dies of the disease - biotechnology will no longer be seen as a playground for multinationals but as a vital hope to relieve suffering.