Hybrid Embryos

[frogstamper]

The first part of the Embryology bill has been passed by a majority of 336 to 176, Edward Leigh's bill was put forward to ban animal/human cell hybrids, he argued "it was a step to far", also Catholic ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy voted for a ban. Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron voted for the clause in what was a free vote, the vote for "saviour siblings" takes place tonight at 22.30.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm

[Xaccers]

Heard an excellent demonstration of the issues that proponents of "hybrid" embryos are up against, especially with the media.
If it was put forward to people as "rather than use viable human ova in our experiments, we take the ova of a cow, remove the nucleus and insert dna from normal cells, using the empty ova to grow stem cells for research, but as it's impossible to remove 100% of the cow dna, a tiny amount (less than 0.1%) remains, hence the term hybrid" it makes it a lot less scary than talking about Frankenstein and part human, part animal embryos.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

The first part of the Embryology bill has been passed by a majority of 336 to 176,

Good

[frogstamper]

I believe it was a Scottish church minister who coined the phrase Frankenstein medicine, which a few newspapers have picked up on. Irrespective of the minuscule amounts of mixed DNA, which by law must the be destroyed after a maximum of 14 days, we are never going to convince the church this could one day be beneficial, they seem more than happy to put in peoples minds visions of half man half cow entities roaming the nation. Luckily it seems for once our politicians are taking a more pragmatic view, partly I believe because both party leaders have children who are suffering with degenerative illnesses.

[downquark1]

This is a quote from the person who categorized humans as animals in 1747.
260 years later and we are still having the same argument.

It does not please (you) that I've placed humans among the Anthropomorpha, but man is getting to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have, in accordance with the law of the discipline [of Natural History].

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by downquark1

This is a quote from the person who categorized humans as animals in 1747.
260 years later and we are still having the same argument.

Thank Xaccers mate drop dead fred for brave men like this, you can only imagine the opposition he must have faced from a much stronger church in those days.

[Maggy J]

I'm not concerned in the same way that the theists are but I am concerned..Our history is littered with genie out of the bottle incidents.Thus far we have survived.The issue that concerns me is that we will think we know what we are doing and that we are doing it for the right cause.However the road to Hell etc,etc.

Man has failed singularly to look before he leaps on many occasions.

Say we do find cures for all the ills of mankind..will we have the knowledge to not to create unforseen incidents.We have already cocked up our environment,hunted fellow creatures to extinction and created one of the vilest doomsday weapons and used it.

Yes I want to find cures for muscular dystrophy,cystic fibrosis and the myriad of genetic diseases as well as put paid to other more common plagues but not if we create worse or at best equal problems.

[bw41101]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Luckily it seems for once our politicians are taking a more pragmatic view, partly I believe because both party leaders have children who are suffering with degenerative illnesses.

Pragmatic indeed and with good reason. It's about time that this type of research was given credit as there are far to many lame evangelists, bible thumpers and do gooders all too willing to use any feeble excuse to continually progress the needless suffering of others.

As long as the research is conducted in an open responsible manner, then what is the problem? Isn't this what progress is all about? Imagine if Alexander Flemming (discoverer of Penicillin) had been prevented from continuing his research due to some waffling gronk making an issue of green mould being a living organism that shouldn't be exploited - gimme a break!

Si thee

[frogstamper]

Even though Gordon Brown gave the two Catholic front benchers Ruth Kelly and Des Browne an out, by making this a free vote instead of the proposed three line whip, I wonder if their consciences will let them continue in their posts as ministers, now this is going onto the statute books.

[Matt D]

While I fully agree with the Bill, I don't see why anyone who voted against certain parts of it should have to resign from the Cabinet.

If there had been a three line whip on the controversial parts of the bill, rather than a free vote, then yes, IMO any Minister who voted against their own party whip should resign.

You ask about their consciences... that's the whole point, it was a free vote for certain parts because it was regarding a matter of conscience.

I don't agree with those who voted against it, but they did so because of their conscience, because of what they believe in.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I believe it was a Scottish church minister ... half man half cow entities roaming the nation. ....

Don't some of the senior ministers call themselves "primates"?

Let's hope none of them has diabetes and has to inject insulin made from mammalian genes inserted into bacteria. Or would they prefer to go back to the good old days when insulin was obtained from macerated pancreas of cow and pig?

If more stem cell research can be performed because of hybrid embryos, bring it on!