UK Parliament / Open data

Embryology

Written question asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) on Monday, 15 June 2009, in the House of Lords. It was answered by Lord Darzi of Denham (Labour) on Monday, 15 June 2009.

Question

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 23 March (WA 92) and by Lord Drayson on 19 May (WA 290), what is their assessment of the comments attributed to Professor Sir Ian Wilmut regarding the relative merits of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells compared to attempts at getting human embryonicstem cells by cloning, as described in an interview by the French website Gènéthique on 18 May; and which non-reproductive applications would benefit from nuclear transfer that could not be addressed by the use of iPS cells.

Answer

The Government believe that it would be premature to conclude that the advent of induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells has superseded the need for research into deriving embryonic stem cells via cell nuclear replacement. Whilst iPS cells undoubtedly represent an exciting scientific advance, there are still numerous technical issues around both the derivation and biological properties of iPS cells that must be resolved before proceeding to clinical application. Therefore, it is impossible to predict what the relative contributions of nuclear transfer and iPS cell technology might be to medical need, and so, the Government continue to support all forms of stem cell research.

Type
Written question
Reference
3970; 711 c172-3WA
Session
2008-09
Embryology
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Written questions
House of Lords
Embryology
Monday, 6 July 2009
Written questions
House of Lords
Embryology
Monday, 23 March 2009
Written questions
House of Lords
Back to top