A new challenge for human dignityBritain's fertility regulator has just approved the creation of human-animal embryos for research. What's next?
In the United Kingdom, experiments with embryos are closely regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. So when scientists began to lobby for the creation of interspecies embryos in order to create embryonic stem cells, the HFEA's approval was required. What the scientists proposed was this: removing the nucleus of a human cell and placing the genetic material into an empty cow egg, using technology developed for cloning. The resulting "cybrid" is said to contain 99.9 per cent of a patient's DNA and only 0.1 per cent of the cow's. When it develops, embryonic stem cells are extracted. These can be used for studying diseases, researching genetics or testing drugs. The HFEA has stipulated that the embryo must be destroyed within 14 days. Scientists would prefer to study cloned embryos which are created with women's eggs and 100 per cent human, but there is a huge obstacle. Thousands upon thousands of eggs will be needed and almost no one is going to volunteer her eggs for research. Payment is banned in the UK, but would be prohibitively expensive in any case. So the alternative is to use animal eggs, even though the embryos will contain the mitochondrial DNA which floats in the cells' cytoplasm. (That's one reason why the HFEA calls these entities "cybrids", rather than hybrids. Strictly speaking, hybrids result from combining animal sperm with a human egg, or vice versa, an even more controversial step.) Even in the UK, which may have the world's most progressive embryo legislation, creating and destroying human embryos for their stem cells is controversial and the HFEA knew that cybrids had to be handled with care. So it conducted an inquiry, with focus groups, a public meeting and an opinion poll. The result? Britons feel "at ease" with hybrid embryos. Really? How much "at ease"? The HFEA's own documents tell a different story: "when further factual information was provided and further discussion took place, the majority of participants became more at ease with the idea, although as one participant observed, 'The gut reaction is hard to overcome'". In other words, only after extensive re-education by the mandarins of a guided democracy could average Joes stomach the thought of mingling human and animal genetic material. Furthermore, the HFEA must have been wearing earplugs during its public consultation. The view that all embryo research was wrong was "overwhelmingly represented" in written comments to the HFEA and "dominant" at its public meeting. Even the opinion poll involved some creative fudging. True, 61 per cent were in favour when told that the hybrids would help scientists to understand diseases, but 22 per cent had never even heard that such a thing was possible. And, to pick one amongst many figures, only 32 per cent were unconcerned about what scientists might do next if they were allowed to create hybrids. Those who were most concerned, in fact, were those who were best informed. Not for nothing, it seems, is the chairwoman of the HFEA, Shirley Harrison, a lecturer in public relations with two books on the art of spin-doctoring to her credit.
If the results of its own "public dialogue" required such vigorous chiropracty in order to interpret them as public "ease" with human-animal
hybrids, how about its ethical analysis? Well, research on human embryos has been legal in the UK for some time, so objections on that score were irrelevant. But blending human and animal genetic material adds a new wrinkle to the debate. How about the "yuck factor"? Simple disgust is not a genuine moral objection, sniffed the HFEA. In any case, no British scientists have ever sought permission to create the half-human, half-beast monsters in H.G. Wells's sci fi classic The Island of Dr Moreau. Excessive sensitivity to primitive taboos might stifle scientific progress.
How
about human dignity? The HFEA documents do not make it clear whether it
believes that "human dignity" is a meaningful concept. (In fact, many
contemporary bioethicists do not.) "Moral rejections tend to rely upon a
species distinction between animals and humans, but it is unclear
whether such a distinction can be maintained," says the HFEA.
So what's the problem with a bit of animal DNA in an embryo? Scepticism about human dignity sounds odd in a government document, as most people in a democracy regard this this as the foundation of human rights. Surely a bright line between humans and animals is required to deny suffrage to guinea pigs. One would have thought that bureaucrats in the UK, in particular, would have thought a bit harder about this. Before the rise of Islamic terrorism, animal rights extremism used to be the most serious police challenge in the country. All in all, the HFEA's arguments to support the radical step of authorising the creation of human embryos contaminated with animal DNA don't stack up. Which shows that everyone, even many supporters of embryo research, has reason to worry. With its self-serving opinion polling and its shoddy ethical analysis, is there anything the HFEA will not approve if scientists ask for it? Probably not. The HFEA's guiding principle has always been adamant opposition to all violations of human dignity which are not currently on scientists' shopping lists. No scientists have sought permission to extend the lives of their embryos beyond 14 days, so the HFEA opposes it. No scientists have sought permission to mingle animal sperm with human eggs, so the HFEA opposes it. No scientists have sought to implant a hybrid embryo in a woman's womb and bring it to term, so the HFEA opposes it. But scientific inquiry may someday take these paths. That's the way science works. As Dr Moreau explained in the novel:
“You
see, I went on with this research just the way it led me.
That is the only way I ever heard of true research going.
I asked a question, devised some method of obtaining an answer,
and got a fresh question. Was this possible or that possible?
You cannot imagine what this means to an investigator,
what an intellectual passion grows upon him! You cannot imagine
the strange, colourless delight of these intellectual desires!... To
this day I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.” No scientists have sought permission to reproduce Dr Moreau's experiments, thank goodness. But when they do, the HFEA is sure to announce that the public is "at ease" with them. Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (16)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
The
creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for medical research, which
has just been approved by the British government's fertility
watchdog, pushes the needle on the "yuck factor" meter far
into the red. But even more "yuck" is the deception and
manipulation used to justify the decision.
Comments (16)
Tim Roberts said...Lydia, I agree that many technological advances have been grossly misused. And clearly there is tremendous danger that genetics applied to humans will be similarly misused.
However, technical advances also have the power to do great good - they have done such good in the past, and will do it in the future. Drugs, vaccines, clean water, agriculture - all of these enable more people to live more healthily for longer. It is not easy (I would say often impossible) to balance the pros and cons of a particular technical development - particularly in advance of it’s being widely adopted. So let’s not be too certain that genetic technology must be an unmitigated disaster.
I must also disagree with you about the separation of species. No doubt there are reasons for such separation, but we need to know if they are such that all attempts to overcome them must be resisted. England used to be physically separated from France, (which had certain advantages as well as disadvantages): was this part of the divine plan or merely an accident of geography? Should the Channel Tunnel have been opposed because it might interfere with some important purpose that we hadn’t understood? If we simply assume that there are reasons for everything being as it is, and resist all change, we will waste our energies and lose important opportunities to make things better. If there are good reasons for resisting all genetic science, we must make them clear - they can’t just be assumed. I certainly agree with you that many applications of genetics to human beings are dangerous and need to be considered carefully and controlled - but others may emerge which could be perfectly acceptable and of great benefit.
-- | Friday, 2 May 2008 at 11:09 pm
Page 2 of 2 : < 1 2
New comment