Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

I want to make some progress; if there is time, I will give way later. A vote for animal-human research is not a vote for hope; it is a vote for false hope, and we should not take that risk. It is not good enough to say that such research will be tightly regulated. In many ways, our age is one of technology giants and ethical infants—we are like children playing with land mines, because we have no idea of the dangers posed by the technology that we are handling. It has been stated that there is no prospect, and that there never will be, of creating humanzees, although that was attempted by Soviet scientists in the 1920s—sadly, they got nowhere. However, what Professor Hugh McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian university has said is interesting:"““Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past. If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ""ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me. I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle.””" That was written by a professor in a British university. There is a prospect, although I know that it is only tiny. Do we want to put all our faith in regulation? Can we not recognise a principle when we see it? We do not have to be Christians to believe that we are all created in God's image. We can surely accept that embryos contain the genetic make-up of a complete human being and that we cannot and should not be spliced together with the animal kingdom. The process that we are discussing will perpetuate the destruction of human embryos: 2.2 million have already been destroyed. I know that on Second Reading some cast doubt on opinion polls, but a recent Opinion Research poll said that 67 per cent. oppose the measure and in 2007, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's own poll said that 62 per cent. of people were opposed. Whatever the arguments about public opinion, I repeat that there is no public consensus. A lot of attacks have been made on Cardinal O'Brien—““How can this man talk about Frankensteins? We are not talking about monsters.”” However, a monster does not have to be big and ugly; it could be a monstrous creation. If an embryo could talk, perhaps they would echo what Mary Shelley wrote in ““Frankenstein””:"““I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on.””" I believe that science is doing wonderful things, but it can also do terrible things. Science should be our servant, not our master. Science should not tell us what to do on all occasions; it can tell us what can be done, but should not necessarily tell us what to do. In history, science and even medical research has been corrupted and futile research should not be allowed. May I leave the last word to Professor Yamanaka, who was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) in the debate on Second Reading? The professor has turned away from embryonic stem-cell research and is a leader in adult stem-cell research. He turned away because of what he saw through the microscope 10 years ago:"““When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realised there was such a small difference between it and my daughters.””" This measure is a step too far, and we should oppose it.