Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

moved, as an amendment to the Motion, Amendment No. 2A: 2A: Line 3, at end insert ““or in any circumstances where the purposes of the proposed research can be achieved by any method not entailing the use of human admixed embryos.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2A tabled in my name straightforwardly seeks to enshrine in the new law the principle that, before any animal-human admixed embryo is created, it must be established that alternatives do not exist. This proposition was advanced in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who has a hospital appointment which coincides with this debate. It was also the subject of amendments in another place at Report stage, tabled by Mr. David Burrowes, Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate. As the debate in another place was guillotined, the amendments were never reached, so the House of Commons did not have a chance to debate this principle. The only way in which such a debate could occur is if your Lordships agree Amendment No. 2A. At earlier stages of our debates on this issue, the issue was often referred to as the ““Hunt test””. It gained that description from some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in our debates on whether we should allow the creation of embryonic stem cells for the purposes of cloning. In that debate in 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it would be licit to use embryonic stem cells only if it could be demonstrated that no other alternatives were available. We should not underestimate the phenomenal public unease about some of the provisions of the Bill. More than 30 major public meetings have been held throughout the United Kingdom, attended by thousands of people; almost 2 million protest cards and letters have been sent to Members of another place; and many significant public figures have spoken out against the mass manufacture, manipulation and destruction of human embryos. This is not, as I know your Lordships will agree, a trivial matter. The argument has been put persistently throughout our debates that experiments on the human embryo and admixed embryos will bring great benefits in the form of treatments for diseases which at present are incurable. Yet, since 1990 not even one treatment has materialised to help the sick, compared with more than 80 treatments using ethically acceptable adult stem cells. There has been scandalous over-hype and playing on people’s fears and desperation. Our obsession with experiments on human embryos has led to a failure properly to pursue the alternatives. That in turn is having a disastrous effect on both our ability to develop life-saving treatments and to develop good science. Some scientists have also been coming to the same conclusion. A report in last week’s Sunday Times stated: "““A leading British scientist is leaving the country to work in France after claiming that British science gives too much priority to embryo experiments over ‘more ethical’ alternatives””." An article in the Times Higher Education supplement of 23 October states that Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at Newcastle University, and an expert in adult stem cells, believes that UK funding agencies and his university have prioritised embryonic stem cell research above work with adult stem cells. He said: "““You would barely know adult stem cells exist””." He added: "““A vast amount of money in the UK from the Government has gone into embryonic stem cell research with not one patient having been treated, to the detriment of (research into) adult stem cells, which has been severely underfunded””." Those are his words. It is tragic that Professor McGuckin feels that he has to leave the UK to go to a country which he says, "““offers a much better environment””—" both— "““to cure and treat more people””" and ““to do good work””. Amendment No. 2A simply seeks to insist on what Professor McGuckin calls, "““a much more reasoned balance””," between the use of human embryos and the alternatives. As the Bill is currently drafted, government Amendment No. 2 requires that a "““licence cannot authorise keeping or using a human admixed embryo in any circumstances in which regulations prohibit its keeping or use””." At first glance this may seem eminently reasonable, but in reality, these words merely assert in a painful piece of tautology that it is not legal to allow something that is illegal. Surely, before authorising the creation and use of animal/human hybrid embryos, we should insist on more rigorous criteria and safeguards. I therefore propose that this should be extended to cover, in the words in the Marshalled List, "““any circumstances where the purposes of the proposed research can be achieved by any method not entailing the use of human admixed embryos””." Some may protest that the law already contains criteria that achieve this effect. However, if it does, I should be grateful if those who believe it would kindly cite the relevant clauses and demonstrate how they have been used in practice. By contrast, I remain unaware of anything in either the current Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act or this Bill that has parity with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, in which the relevant imperative is in the legislation, explicitly requiring, "““that the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence cannot be achieved satisfactorily by any other reasonably practicable method””." That is a perfectly reasonable, logical thing to do. If it is right to do it in the case of animal experimentation, why is it not reasonable to ask for the same thing for human embryos? What objective criteria are employed by the regulatory authority in determining whether the use of embryos is necessary and desirable for a particular purpose? As discussed during our earlier debates, it is especially noteworthy that the HFEA has ultimately never refused any licence application. It has therefore been argued that the HFEA may have found it very difficult to say no. Even as we have been debating the Bill over the past 12 months, there have been extraordinary breakthroughs that mercifully and happily will ensure that these dilemmas and decisions will no longer be necessary. I refer to the breakthroughs made by Jenny Thompson and Professor Shinya Yamanaka in Japan using IPS cells—induced pluripotent stem cells—and getting them to run backwards, using our skin rather than creating human embryos to manufacture embryonic stem cells, which is extraordinarily exciting science. It enables good science and good ethics to march hand in hand. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in his place. I was struck by a programme that he broadcast over the summer in which he demonstrated that a huge amount of hype has gone into the claims made about various forms of stem cell technology. We have to keep this in the kind of perspective that the noble Lord rightly described in that broadcast. As the HEFA comes to consider licence applications, I hope that it will also keep these things in proper perspective and look at the alternatives. Regardless of my previously expressed repugnance at the manufacture of human embryos—my consistent position—there is nothing in this amendment that automatically prevents the creation of so-called human admixed embryos for research, as long as the purpose of the proposed research cannot be achieved by any method not entailing the use of human embryos. The amendment requires that embryos that combine human and animal material should be used only if there is no other means of achieving the same ends. I find it hard to see how anyone could reasonably object to this amendment if they truly believe that a particular project of research is necessary. The licensing authority and scientists should be duty bound to explore the alternatives, not only due to the ethical concerns but also because of the finite resources. Interspecies cybrid embryos were argued for on the basis that we supposedly need an alternative to using excessive numbers of human eggs for cloning research. These are finite resources that often bring complications for women’s health, as we discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, through hyperovulation syndrome. My amendment also brings the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act into line with paragraph 8.3 of the International Society for Stem Cell Research guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research, which states: "““The project proposal should include a discussion of alternative methods, and provide a rationale for employing the requested human materials, the proposed methodology and for performing the experiments in a human rather than animal model system.””" That is all my amendment seeks to do. I hope the House will consider this amendment carefully and will pause to reflect on what message it wishes to send not only to the British public but to the wider world. Are we to be so ideologically wedded to experimentation with all manner of human interspecies embryos that we blind ourselves to the alternatives, especially when they seem to achieve the same purported ends far more efficiently? I invite the House to vote in favour of a modest provision that prohibits nothing, but insists with the full force of law that a case must be made that no alternatives are available before permitting the creation and destruction of the human admixed embryos authorised by this Bill. I beg to move.