Brave New World

In the early nineties, genetically modified crops swam into the public ken. These were crops which were more resistant to disease and had a higher yield than normal crops and at first it seemed like they were ‘a good thing.’ However, as the details of the complicated technology were discussed, doubts arose. These were;

1. The DNA modification of crops, which was equivalent to several generations of the normal breeding process and the possible consequences;

2. The ‘genie in the bottle’; GM crops would cross-pollinate with non-gm crops, so if something went wrong with the gm crop, there would be no way of containing it or going back;

3. Companies claiming intellectual property rights over crops that they had developed and charging for them;

4. Companies developing crops that did not produce seed fit for sowing, so that customers esp in the third world, would have to go back to them to buy more seed;

5. People being unable to choose whether or not they could eat gm food or not.

The media did a blinder on what was a very complex subject, broke it down into simple layman’s terms and forced the issue with governments. The result was that we proceeded a lot more cautiously and hemmed in these companies on selling non-seeding crops to the third world.

How I wish, how I really wish that in the embryology debate that finished on Wednesday night in the Lords, that the media had done the same thing.

I did a post on this subject some months back, but to re-cap, stem cell research holds the ‘golden key’ to curing disease. Stem cells are the cells in the body that repair and replace diseased tissue. A number of these cells (called ‘pluripotent’ cells) can adapt to any area of the body and regrow for example, heart muscle damaged in a heart attack. It is the most promising area for finding cures to such horrors as Parkinsons’, Alzheimers and MS. There are a number of sources for these stem cells, but the two basic groups are embryonic stem cells, which come from foetuses, and adult stem cells, which are present in all of us and can be harvested and grown, (usually from bone marrow). Scientists have been using left-over eggs from IVF clinics for their research, but there are not enough eggs for their research, so the point of this bill is to allow them to create 'hybrid' embryos, using eggs from animals (cows,rabbits and pigs) and human cells. Here are the big issues surrounding the technology.


1.The effiacy (or lack of it) of embryonic technology

All the cures that have come from stem cell research, have come from the adult stem cells, not from embryonic ones. It is looking increasingly likely that things will stay this way. There are three major problems with embryonic stem cells;
1. They are not a perfect match to the patient so the patients body rejects them
2. They are cloned and have genetic defects in them from the cloning process;
3 Embryonic stem cells are not biologically compatible with adult tissue; they produce tumours when they are injected.


2. Intellectual property rights

The big brother of embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research, is the area that has actually produced all the wonder cures. Embryonic research has produced none. But the reason that companies want to persist with it , is that with embryonic technology, they can claim patent rights on a medicine developed from it. With adult stem cell cures they cannot, because the stem cells are taken from the patient and therefore belong to the patient.

3. ‘Therapeutic’ cloning

'Therapeutic' is used here, because the stated aim of the research is to grow stem cell lines that can be used to treat people for various diseases, not to actually clone a human being. But it is exactly the same technology and it means that we are building up a bank of experience which could very easily be switched to this use.

4. Crossing the species barrier
In this cloning process, the egg that is being used is from an animal, usually cows, rabbits or pigs, and the cells inserted into the egg are human. This bill allows the creation of cybrids, which is 99% human, to hybrids, which are 50% human. This crossing of the species barrier raises questions about the crossing over of animal diseases to humans, if medicines developed from these stem cell lines are created. At the moment, people who receive neural transplants from medicines developed from pigs have a whole set of restrictions on them; they are past child bearing age, are not allowed to give blood and have to use a condom when they are having sex. Not a whisper of this reached this debate on hybrid embryos.

5.Possible malicious use of embryonic technology

The possibility of full blown cloning and bringing a human embryo to full term, was the spectre that hung over this debate. This was supposedly dealt with in the bill, which forbids the implantation ‘in utero’; into a living being. But there was a flaw in this. The bill did not forbid the implantation of an embryo into an artificial womb. It couldn’t, because the stem cells are obtained by growing them in a laboratory. Scientists in America are developing artificial wombs that are in a different league from a petri dish, and again, this was not mentioned in the debate. And nobody picked up on the fact that doing away with the child’s need for a father, could apply to cloning.

Some might think this wouldn’t happen, but when you have a falling population and a dwindling economy to match like Britain has, or you are short of women as China is, there is certainly a possibility that someone might suggest this as a solution.

So there it is. The debate that never happened, or not in public anyway. Pandora’s Box was opened on Wednesday night, and none of us knew; we were too busy wondering if two clowns on Radio 2 were going to be sacked for making obscene phone calls. I predict that this bill in future will be seen the turning point of the 21st century and we didn't even debate it properly. Now all we can do, is deal with the consequences.

When a Moral Dilemma Ain't a Moral Dilemma - The Strange Case of Stem Cell Research

Last week a bill that goes by the very unsexy name of the Human Tissue and Embryology Bill got its third reading in the House of Lords . It now goes to the Commons and should be decided on by the end of the month. This bill has many things in it, but one of the most controversial is regarding stem cell research, in particular, embryo stem cell research.

Basically, the argument goes like this. Stem cell research holds the ‘golden key’ to curing disease. Stem cells are the cells in the body that repair and replace diseased tissue. A number of these cells (called ‘pluripotent’ cells) can adapt to any area of the body and regrow for example, heart muscle damaged in a heart attack. It is the most promising area for finding cures to such horrors as Parkinsons’, Alzheimers and MS. There are a number of sources for these stem cells, but the two basic groups are embryonic stem cells, which come from foetuses, and adult stem cells, which are present in all of us and can be harvested and grown, (usually from bone marrow).

Now comes the dilemma. The most promising path for therapies, according to scientists, is embryo stem cell research. But they have a problem. They cannot get enough leftover eggs from IVF treatment centres to continue their research. So what they want to do is to create hybrid embryos called ‘chimeras’ which are made up of either a cow or rabbits egg, and human cells injected into the egg. This is, of course crossing the species barrier. But this research is the only chance of finding cures for uncurable diseases. So, do you listen to all those loonies going on about how destructive and dangerous this research is, or do you take a deep breath and allow it to go ahead for the greater good? Not an easy choice, or so it would appear.

There’s just one thing wrong with all of this; what is being said is totally, utterly, untrue.

Human embryonic stem cell research has been going for 17 years, during which time it has not come up with a single treatment for any disease. It has not got past the animal trial stage and it is looking increasingly likely that it will never be used for human treatment. This is because of two major problems;

1. Embryonic stem cells cannot be used to treat adult tissue; they are not biologically compatible. What happens when they are injected, is that they produce tumours.

2. Embryonic stem cells are not identical to the person being treated, so you have the same problem that you have with transplant, of host rejection. If they ever did manage to treat anyone with these, they would have to receive drugs to counter this for the rest of their life.

Adult stem cell research by contrast, is forging ahead. More than 80 cures and treatments have resulted from it and about 300 more are being researched. Here are some of them;

Dr Dennis Turner, who had Parkinsons’ disease, had an injection of stem cells into his brain. He almost completely recovered, and stayed in remission for four years. The symptoms have now returned, but it is a huge step forward.


A man who had cardiac disease, found that not only did he recover, but that the stem cells appear to have replaced some of the damaged heart muscle.

People with diabetes no longer have to take daily injections of insulin, after treatment from stem cells obtained from their own blood.

Experiments on mice with stem cells from new born mice,are showing promising signs for Alzheimers.


Now, you would expect discoveries like this to be trumpeted from the roof tops, wouldn’t you? But here’s the strange thing- they haven’t. Most of them have appeared on inside pages of papers or in science section of the paper that nobody reads. By contrast, embryo research has been given masses of headlines.

When Ronald Reagan died in 2004 of Alzheimers, it was used as an opportunity to promote embryo stem cell research, which it was said, could offer a cure to a disease like this. Nancy Reagan and others in the American Senate took up this cause. Just a couple of weeks after this, the Washington Post printed this article, which refuted the idea that embryo stem cells could produce a cure for Alzheimers. Alzheimers is what is known as a ‘whole brain’ disease; that is, many different brain cells are affected and the brain is also physically damaged. Embryo stem cell treatment is thought to be only viable for single cell diseases. Unblushingly, one scientist said that people needed a fairy tale to believe in.

Again, last November, Professor Ian Wilmut, creator of Dolly the sheep, withdrew his application for a licence for embryo research,because a new research technique became available in Japan that enabled him to study the same things that he would have done with embryos. Despite this ringing endorsement, other researchers say they don't want to use this research path because there is a problem with the production of cancer tumours. They have not mentioned that there is a similar problem with embryo research, nor do they mention that the new technique overcomes the problem of host rejection that they have been beset with.

So what the hell is going on? I wish I could tell you, but a I am unhappy about several things;

1. A very successful technique in treating disease is being sidelined in favour of a very unsuccessful technique.

2. Scientists have requested to cross the species barrier in pursuit of embryonic research. This has been banned in every European country apart from ourselves, Sweden and Spain. Mother Nature put the species barrier there for a reason; to stop disease spreading from one species to another. Remove that barrier and you are creating a bridge over which disease can cross. For example, the last disease to cross the cow- human barrier was BSE, becoming CJD in humans. If it goes wrong, we can’t just reverse it; we will have to live with the consequences. The worst case scenario is that it could wipe us out.

3. On the subject of embryo destruction, 2.2 million embryos have been created and destroyed so far. That figure, even for the most liberal of us, is pretty grim reading, and it has produced nothing. Why does this have to go ahead, especially when there is viable and ethical alternatives?

4. Government funding of stem cell research is split 50:50 between embryo and adult stem cell research, despite adult stem cell research being far more productive.

5. Scientists are not being straight with us. Whatever this research is for, it is not for the treatment of disease. Futhermore, those of us affected directly or indirectly by things like Alzheimers’ have not been asked for our opinion of where this research should go.


It is time for scientists to tell us just exactly where they are going with this. Embryonic stem cell research involves cloning, and if it is not being used for disease, then the most likely possiblity is that it is about cloning. If this is the case, there should be a debate about it. Until then, this research should not be permitted; there is no medical justification for it.

In the meantime, if you have read this and want to stop this bill, write to your MP soon. You have about two weeks to stop this becoming law.

Oh brave new world..



PS Can I say one last thing. This was not an easy article for me to write, because opinion is so prejudiced against anyone objecting to embryo research. We are portrayed as uncaring and narrow minded. Can I just ask one thing of anyone who might think this of me; please read all the links before you come to a judgement and bear in mind that I care for someone with Alzheimers, which is why I think it is so important that I should speak out on this.