The Great Beyond

As I understand it, the Bishops' statement refers not to what particular scientists have applied to do ("cloning") or what is currently permitted (the "hamster" test) but what the Bill would also allow under licence.

The Bill clearly allows the mixing of animal sperm with human eggs. So in what sense is the Bishops' statement a "radical violation of the truth"?

I think Professor Shaw and Dr Armstrong owe the Bishops an apology.

The bishops state that the HFE bill will "allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal". This is plainly true (Section 4 (a)). This Blog sneers, "Among other misconceptions, the idea that mixtures can only ever be half and half suggests that you do not want to have this man mix you a Martini". But where do the bishops say "mixtures can only ever be half half"? Read what they say. They correctly describe one feature the law 'allows', a feature to which they obejct. A number of scientists who complained seemed ignorant of the scope of the proposed law.

Catholic bishops … claimed the legislation would, “allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal. For example from the egg of a woman and sperm from an animal. To do this would be a radical violation of human dignity.”

And then someone writes .. "I think Professor Shaw and Dr Armstrong owe the Bishops an apology."

An apology for what? The bill provides for certain prohibitions. For example "No person shall place in a woman .. a human admixed embryo"

Even assuming that the legislation would allow "allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal" (which it doesnt, and the Catholic Church is no stranger to twisting the truth and getting scientific matters completely wrong -remember Galileo?), how would this be "a radical violation of human dignity"??

If the hypocritical Catholic Church claims to be a self-styled guardian of human dignity then they should look at their own violations of human dignity, like the trial of Galileo, the burning of people at stake, and the sexual abuse carried out by its priests and bishops. How about the Bishops apologizing for that?

Richard,

No-one has claimed that a "human admixed embryo" can be placed in a woman. But it is unquestionably true that the creation of such embryos is permitted under this Bill and this is what the Bishops have pointed out: no more and no less. It is just silly to assert that the Bill does not permit it, Richard. It does!

Pauline from what I can make out the Bishops have given their unsolicited opinion on two matters:

1. Scientific – The purpose of the bill is to regulate the use of embryos in research and therapy. There are extensive prohibitions in the bill – I have mentioned but one – but you can see it online. So far as I can make out the legislation would NOT, “allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal. For example from the egg of a woman and sperm from an animal.”

Again the purpose of scientists is to use the embryos for research and therapy, for the greater human good. The bill, so far as I can make out provides, safeguards that this purpose is adhered to and not violated. If there is a safeguard lacking then the “Hon” Bishops could specifically suggest an additional safeguard which might plug any purported loophole. They have not done this. They have instead made a sweeping statement (a wrong one at that) and passed a moralistic judgement, as is their wont, to perhaps justify their existence.

2. The have given their opinion on “Human Dignity”. Without defining what “human dignity” is – they stated that creating an embryo that is “half human, half animal” (I presume that applies to other percentage mixtures also?), “For example from the egg of a woman and sperm from an animal” … “would be a radical violation of human dignity.” I don’t see how it would be.

Human dignity loosely speaking would mean human respect, by taking the common meaning of dignity in this context. Humans are worthy of respect and I agree with that. Not embryos. Millions of embryos are flushed down the toilet in spontaneous abortions – are they human? Not in my opinion. Should we retrieve them administer the last rights on them and "fast track" them to sainthood? I don’t think so. But then I don’t consult Bishops or the Pope on matters of common sense or science. They have a poor record on such matters.

Then again is burning people at the stake a violation of human dignity? In my opinion yes
Is forcing the old and sick Galileo to recant and say that the sun moves around the Earth, a violation of human dignity? In my opinion yes
Is gaining the confidence of your parishioners and then abusing them sexually and otherwise, a violation of human dignity? In my opinion yes
Is dividing the world between Spain and Portugal as though other peoples do not exist and condoning and abetting the destruction of the people and civilisations of the America’s a violation of human dignity? In my opinion yes
The list goes on…
What is your opinion on these matters?

Richard,
I am no lawyer (but I am confident that the Bishops would have sought legal advice) but:
Section 4 (2)
After section 4 of the 1990 Act insert—
“4A Prohibitions in connection with genetic material not of human origin

(1) No person shall place in a woman—
(a) a human admixed embryo,
(b) any other embryo that is not a human embryo, or
(c) any gametes other than human gametes.

(2) No person shall—
(a) mix human gametes with animal gametes,
(b) bring about the creation of a human admixed embryo, or
(c) keep or use a human admixed embryo,
except in pursuance of a licence.

(3) A licence cannot authorise the keeping or using of a human admixed
embryo after the earliest of the following—
(a) the appearance of the primitive streak, or
(b) the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on
which the process of creating the human admixed embryo
began, but not counting any time during which the human
admixed embryo is stored.

(4) A licence cannot authorise placing a human admixed embryo in an
animal.

(5) For the purposes of this Act a human admixed embryo is—
(a) an embryo created by replacing the nucleus of an animal egg or
of an animal cell, or two animal pronuclei, with—
(i) two human pronuclei,
(ii) one nucleus of a human gamete or of any other human
cell, or
(iii) one human gamete or other human cell,

(b) any other embryo created by using—
(i) human gametes and animal gametes, or
(ii) one human pronucleus and one animal pronucleus,

(c) a human embryo that has been altered by the introduction of
any sequence of nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal
into one or more cells of the embryo,

(d) a human embryo that has been altered by the introduction of
one or more animal cells, or

(e) such other thing as may be specified in regulations.

So, taking together 2(a) and 5(b) (i), the mixing of human and animal gametes is permitted under licence.

I genuinely have no time to pursue your ancillary points on the Bill right now. Will you still be around in a day or two?

As to the ad hominem stuff; I will not indulge you.

Pauline,

I am genuinely interested in your perspective on this. It's obviously an enormously complicated issue, but I don't quite understand your concerns.

According to the bill which you posted, scientists must have a license, they must not place a mixed embryo inside a human or an animal, nor are they able to keep an embryo after 14 days or the development of the primitive streak.

I presume that your concerns are moral, but I am interested whether they outweigh the benefits that this might give. For those who don't have religious beliefs, should potentially useful experiments such as these be stopped because of the concerns of others?

Pauline – Section 2 stipulates what you could possibly do under licence. Sections 3 and 4 lay out what you cannot do even under licence and section 5 deals with definitions under the act. To me it seems quite clear and quite prohibitive.

That you are “confident that the Bishops would have sought legal advice” merely shows where your confidence and beliefs lie, but has no bearing on the heart of the matter, which to me is the right of scientists to pursue essential research to discover the underlying causes of disease, interventions and basically how cells, the body and life ticks, without attacks and interference from religious “moralists”.

There is no ad hominem stuff in what I have written. Nothing that I have written – the trial of Galileo, or the killing of people in the most inhumane and dastardly manner by the Catholic Church, for believing and daring to state that the world was round and not flat, that the Earth moved around the sun and that Rome was not the centre of the Universe (besides other things) - is false.

How does this have a bearing on embryo research and the Bill that is currently before the U.K. Parliament?

The Catholic Bishops are part of the same monolithic organization that has a record of attacking and suppressing the freedom of thought down the ages since its inception. Today we have a measure of freedom, and the temporal power of the Church, both Catholic and others has been drastically reduced. But this freedom has been hard won, after years of bloody wars and loss of human life and is even today under serious threat from a far more virulent and draconian religion. We have to defend this freedom vigorously.

The statement of the Bishops is in keeping with the historical record of the Church of attacking and impeding science and free thought. The Catholic Bishops have not only given their opinion on the Bill (unfavourable – “a radical violation of human dignity” – whatever that might mean), but they have also exhorted their “followers”, people who have confidence in them, like you, to write to their MP’s voicing their “concern” over the Bill, politely of course so that there is no suggestion of arm twisting.

In my opinion the Bishops, being part of the same organization that for centuries stated that the Earth was flat and Rome was the centre of the Universe have no right to express any opinion on matters scientific and should be hanging their heads shame, if they had a shred of “human dignity”.

Richard,

From your last it is now beyond doubt that you are not interested in constructive dialogue so I will not be responding to you further.
I wish you well.

Emily,

To do justice to your questions will take a little time. Will reply as soon as I can.

Emily,

Thank you for your questions. These arguments are purely my own, but I have taken some time to find out about all this as best I can.

If I may, I will take them in reverse:

In principle in a democracy the majority will must prevail and, in fact, that is the strongly held view of the Catholic Church. But for a democracy to work the public must be properly informed. Clearly, on this issue, they are not.

It is not, in my view, a case of weighing up moral concerns against (putative) benefits. Some principles are so essential to the common good that they should trump any other considerations. In this case it is the principle that no human being should be used as a means to an end. This principle is widely accepted and has led, for example, to a prohibition on experimenting on a human being without their express consent. This prohibition is, for example, acknowledged by the 2002 House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research when they spoke of the “unacceptability of experimenting on a human being” [5.21(b)] even as they sanctioned further experimentation on the human embryo.

This principle is not an exclusively religious one. But there does seem to be a tendency in some circles to “ghetto-ise” any principled objection to scientific research to religious fundamentalism. That seems to me to be unhelpful to the democratic process.

Of course the ‘elephant in the room’ here is; “Is the embryo a human being?”. Lady Warnock, in her report which laid the foundation for law in this area fudged that one. Here’s my take on this:

Science has provided us with an objective definition of a “life”. According to that definition (I am assured) the embryo is a life. [The egg and the sperm are alive but that is not the same thing. Parts of a living organism are alive. But that does not make them a life.] Being a life, the embryo must be of a species. It is hard to escape the reality that an embryo created from human sperm and human egg is a member of the species “homo sapiens”. And that, according to my dictionary at least, makes it a human being.

I assume you would agree that implanting a true human-animal hybrid and bringing it to birth would be a “radical violation of human dignity”? By the same token, by virtue of the status of the human embryo as a human being, the objection applies equally to the creation of a hybrid embryo.

Although, for those who grant the human embryo a lesser status, the 14 day restriction appears to offer a degree of comfort, it is only an arbitrary restriction and therefore vulnerable. Indeed, there is already evidence that, in time, Parliament may be asked to look at this again. As to bringing a hybrid to term, the more we develop the technology along those lines the greater the danger that some day, whether legally or not, it will be done.

The fact that arbitrary restrictions are difficult to maintain once a principle is breached is graphically demonstrated by other aspects of the Bill, which significantly further widens the scope for destructive human embryo research, eugenic selection, “assisted reproduction” as a right and the creation and abuse of so-called “saviour siblings”.

Whatever happened to accepting and loving our children unconditionally?

Does that answer your questions?

What seems to have been omitted in these religious arguments against hybridism is that humans are animals -- eating, defecating, flatulating, fornicating, deficating animals. Other than a propensity for standing upright and higher powers of reasoning, hominids are very little different -- and only in recent millenia -- from other primates.

Pauline, the sampling of the relevant legislation you have shown undermines your own case. Nuffsaid. Richard, your right but calm down the history lesson. Losing your cool just lets the fundies and their sympathizers feel as though they have a more sound basis than they have.

Though on the otherhand "every sperm is sacred" to quote the immortal and unmentionable ones. So the catholic choir are not going to take this one lying down.

I refer to David Frederick's comment. If there is really no important difference between humans and other animals, why do we see humans so rarely on menus?

Gaza,

You say:

"the sampling of the relevant legislation you have shown undermines your own case. Nuffsaid"

I always think an assertion without an argument looks a little lonely. Would you be willing to share your argument?

Emily,
One thing you have got right - I am not interested in having a “constructive dialogue” – (read “complete, blind and unquestioning agreement”) - about the inane, meaningless and uninformed uttering’s of Catholic Bishops, with you.

You seem to be prepared to defend to the death meaningless statements like “a radical violation of human dignity”. You presume that “you would agree that implanting a true human-animal hybrid” (where exactly?) “and bringing it to birth would be a “radical violation of human dignity”?” And then base subsequent arguments on this assumption of presumed agreement.

If I jabbed the Bishops in the backside with a strong stick – that would be a violation of human dignity. (Though it is debatable whether that would be a “radical” violation). This is as I understand violations of human dignity.

Examples of your “constructive” “dialogue”:
“In principle” democracy is good… BUT….
“The majority will must prevail and, in fact, that is the strongly held view of the Catholic Church” … BUT …..

On matters of science: “Science has provided us with an objective definition of a “life”.” (What is it may we know?) “According to that definition”- (which I have conveniently not given, but I shall base all my subsequent arguments on this particular mysterious definition of mine, which is gospel), “(I am assured)” – (and thus everyone else should also be) - “the embryo is a life” and.. “a life is a species”… the species is “homo sapiens” thus the embryo is a human being.. “in my dictionary”.

Brilliant! The undefined but gospel “definition” at the beginning has “proved” that the embryo is a “human being” at the end.

“Whatever happened to accepting and loving our children unconditionally?”… “Does that answer your questions?” Sure throw in some more questions to answer questions and we’ll all throw in the towel.

One of the reasons why we have embryonic research is because we love our children. Embryonic research today has given parents of a child with say Tay Sachs disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Cystic fibrosis and a host of other terrible, crippling diseases, the chance to have another child who will not suffer from this disease. Would they/ Should they take that option? To me yes obviously. They have a chance to avoid having a child who would suffer terribly through those horrible diseases, if they were screened before conceiving. Would they/ Should they take that option? Yes Obviously.
The other big reason is that embryonic stem cell research will eventually conquer and cure disease and bring about the consequent huge relief of human suffering. This mainly by therapeutic cloning. Please read what that is, how it is done, why it is done.

Putative benefits? (of embryonic research). You accuse others of not being “properly informed”! With respect it is you who needs more information. Along with the willingness to accept logic over a rigid ideological religious stand.

"What seems to have been omitted in these religious arguments against hybridism is that humans are animals -- eating, defecating, flatulating, fornicating, deficating animals."

David! Surely not Bishops also?

oops Emily - that should have been Pauline. My apologies to you Emily for this unintended insult to your human intelligence.

There does seem to be a fashion right now to dismiss any principled resistance to types of scientific research as irrational or even demonstrating a lack of compassion in the face of the imperative to cure terrible disease. Those who so resist may even be the subject of personal attack, as we have seen here. So be it.

No one, I think, would deny that curing disease is a noble aim. But not at any price. And this was acknowledged by this country when it signed the Helsinki Declaration, which states:

“In medical research on human subjects the interests of science and society must never prevail over the well-being of the subject.”

I see no caveats for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or any other dreadful disease. There are, in fact, no caveats of any kind. So we acknowledge through the Helsinki Declaration that there are ethical restraints which must be placed on medical research. Scientists do not have an unfettered “right”, legally or morally, to do as they wish, even in the most noble of causes.

Basic textbooks on embryology will tell you that human life begins at fertilisation. But, perhaps, as with the Bill, it again falls to me to do the work in the face of unsubstantiated counter-arguments. So:

From “The developing human: Clinically Oriented Embryology” by Moore and Persaud:

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (ie, an embryo). Human development begins at fertilisation… This highly specialized totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

From “Human Embryology & Teratology” by O’Rahilly and Muller:

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

It is a particular irony that the Church which is so regularly and enthusiastically accused in some quarters of flying in the face of science and reason should be so attacked for arguments which are, in fact, based precisely on science and reason.

Those who are interested in why I said the benefits from such research are “putative” might like to read, for starters, Baroness Williams’ speech on the subject, which you will find on the Parliament website: Hansard, Lords, 15th January, Column 1210.

To suggest, in the light of this evidence, that to oppose destructive embryo research is to impede progress towards finding cures for diseases is, to say the least, simplistic. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to argue that to continue to pour vast resources (both in terms of expertise and finances) in this direction, rather than into adult stem cell research – the research that works – is to impede rather than assist progress towards the cures we all desire.

Finally may I remind you where we came in? Professor Shaw accused the Catholic Church of “a gross violation of the truth” for stating that the Bill permits the creation of embryos using animal sperm and human eggs. Dr Armstrong described their statement as “gross and irresponsible”. Daniel Cressey then waded in by falsely implying that the Bishops had claimed that human –animal hybrids were the only type of inter-species embryo proposed. The headline backed these false allegations. No effort was made to establish the facts. What was that all about?

Further, no-one here has yet had the grace to acknowledge that the Bishops’ statement was entirely accurate, both in what it said and in what it did not say. I leave as I entered; with a call to Professor Shaw and Dr Armstrong to acknowledge their error and apologise.

As an objective bystander to this current discussion (I only just came across it through Nature.com) May I offer a few comments? All I would like to do is get as near as possible to the truth of why and what this HFE bill is all about? The exchanges here start off reasonably. However, it seems to have rapidly come down to a murky level by some contributors who use vitriolic abuse and uninspiring invective to indulge in religion bashing. This is unhelpful. What a pity! I know a little about all three major world religions and it seems to me that they have all contributed a great deal to civilisation as we know it. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have all contributed to art,music, architecture, science and medicine, poetry, philosophy etc., I think the word 'sisters' for todays nurses derives from the fact that the first in England to care for the sick and infirm were 'religious' sisters!
Anyway, to the current exchange of views: congrats to Daniel, Pauline, Emily and David for REASON-able contributions. But oh dear. Richard's rant! What are we to make of his use of vitriolic language and crass invective? (Sorry Richard but that's the way it comes across!)Of what use is that to someone like me? I think I must be brief here so I won't quote all his phrases. A few might do: "hypocritical" "self-styled" "burning people". Pauline seems reasonable to me when she claims that the bill will permit human-admixed embryos. Well, is it true or not? What does Richard say? Well, I can't see you answered it mate! He does say however, "passed a moralistic judgement, as is their wont, perhaps to justify their existence". What? What good is that to me? I cant pursue all he says here for brevity's sake but the business of 'making saints' out of toilet waste is .. well, odd don't you think Rich? Sorry mate, but I think Pauline has my vote up till now with her repost! (By the way, do we KNOW is she's a Catholic Christian? Or is she simply arguing the case as she sees it?) She seems to me to argue in a cogent,relevant,secure and well researched contribution. No?? Sorry again Richard, I really cant comment on your next effort; it seems to lurch from bad to worse. Were you 'raging' at the time? I must refer to the good Emily.. good question in the previous exchange! Pauline does seem to answer her with some powerful insight and presumably checkable facts though. Then we have a piece from David Fredericks followed by 'Gaza'. Even these responses don't seem to answer Pauline though. All we get is a proposition that there is no difference between 'animals' and homo sapiens followed by Gaza referring to 'fundies'( what are they?) It seems to be meant insultingly? Or again 'catholic choir??' in an apparent attempt to support Richard's deflated voice?? Pauline, don't let it go to your head but you still have my attention. Oh, and poor old Richard even forgets who he is replying to at this stage! Come on mate, get it together for my sake! You do use a 'good' word though.. it's 'logic'. Take it as your watchword. Pauline's final piece clinches it for me I'm afraid.. well ahead on points! Well, there we are.. I think so far I'm persuaded by Pauline but I really think I'll have to look elsewhere for her answers to her contentions than this blog as it is at present. Sorry editors if this is long, but I really am trying to encourage constructive dialogue as befits Nature.com
Kevin.

Pauline,
There was no personal attack intended. If I pointed out that someone was talking rubbish, or was irrational or misinformed, that was how I reasoned it out after examining what had been written or quoted. There are perfectly nice, decent people who are misinformed, have mental blocks, are impervious to reason and talk rubbish.

Your comment on what is in fashion is irrelevant to the issue, but wrong from my observations. Your quote of the Helsinki agreement is what is known as “an appeal to false authority”. It implies that the Helsinki agreement, and the Government who is a signatory, backs up your argument, which it doesn’t.

You have trotted out a few champions in support of your contentions - Moore and Persaud, and Baroness Williams.

Even the quote that you have given from O’Rahilly and Muller contains an important caveat “under ordinary circumstances”. Many of the embryos that are, or can be, used for research are not “ordinary” and the circumstances under which they were fertilized were not “ordinary” either.

The benefits from embryonic stem cell research are “putative” – Why? Because Baroness Williams (and plenty of others) said so. (And Baroness Williams is an intelligent lady so it must be true).

“To suggest, in the light of this evidence,”??? “that to oppose destructive embryo research is to impede progress towards finding cures for diseases is, to say the least, simplistic. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to argue that to continue to pour vast resources (both in terms of expertise and finances) in this direction, rather than into adult stem cell research – the research that works – is to impede rather than assist progress towards the cures we all desire.”

How condescending, how noble, how seemingly reasonable - yet how unmitigated hogwash.

It has been widely circulated that adult stem cells are already being used in many therapeutic interventions and remedies, whereas embryonic stem cells are being used in none. There is a slight difference in the timelines of the two fields of research.

The first technique to isolate and grow human embryonic stem cells was developed by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin in 1998. Making this research less than 10 years old. Not only that, in the US, which has the largest resources for research, this research has been stymied by President Bush’s restrictions, for the last 8 of these 10 years.

Adult stem cells on the other hand have been studied for over 50 years. Haemapoetic stem cells, being studied for the longest, are the best understood and most widely used for therapies.

Embryonic research has already yielded benefits other than for therapies. As I stated there are a myriad of terrible diseases that can be avoided in their children by couples who carry these genes. Is that a trivial benefit?
You say there are “no caveats for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or any other dreadful disease”. Your statement is unclear, but are you accepting that avoidance of this disease in the children of such couples is acceptable? This would be the reasonable position, but I don’t think it is the Catholic position. The way that this is done is by the genetic screening many embryos from the couples, discarding those which carry the disease and selecting only those, in most cases only one, which are disease free.

Would this not be the preferable way to go about it rather than play genetic roulette and bring children into this world to suffer because of “God’s divine wish”?

Doing a search on Moore and Persuad led me to Islamic websites and I found this quote from the Quran “We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)...” (Quran, 23:12-14). We? Who is we? I thought that Islam was rigidly monotheistic? – but I digress.

This, and other similar statements from the Sunnah and the Hadeeth persuaded Moore to write “…the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.” (Surely there are other reasonable conclusions – such as the statements are too vague to be worthy of scientific scrutiny or that any purported resemblance to actual embryos were a coincidence, or that dissections were carried out even in those barbaric times, or that these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad, or any subsequent writer of the Quran, by someone other than “God”)

and Persuad to state “I have no difficulty in my mind in concerning that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to relay the statement.” I do have difficulty however in being so persuaded. This is very akin to the vague ramblings of Nostradamus, with their myriads of interpretations, which have thereby “amazingly prophesied” so many things.

You have quoted Moore and Persaud as saying “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (ie, an embryo).” Is (ie, an embryo) your own interjection?

Perhaps when you say that - “Science has provided us with an objective definition of a “life” – by “science” you mean “Moore and Persuad”. The terms are not interchangeable. Moreover, Moore and Persuad’s opinions are not gospel truth, and in fact, there is no such thing as “gospel truth” in science, funnily enough. Science in a sense is work-in-progress. It does not claim to have discovered the “truth” for all time. Religions and religious proponents, however, have no such compunction.

There are many forms of life. Bacteria are “a life” so are yeast, fruitflies and nematode worms. What is this definition you are referring to?

There is a difference of opinion as to at which point of biological development should the “conceptus” be covered by the term ‘embryo’. According to one opinion this should be referred to as an embryo only after gastrulation - the time the cells that will give rise to the future human being can be distinguished from those that form extraembryonic tissues (Lee and Morgan, 2001).

In 2005 the Australian Government published a Discussion paper to find a Biological Definition of a Human Embryo. The people commissioned were Professor Jock Findlay AM (Vic), Professor Peter Illingworth (NSW), Dr Steven Junk (WA), Dr Graham Kay (Qld), Dr Adrianne Pope (Vic), Dr Leeanda Wilton (Vic), Dr Michael Gear, Dr Alison Mackerras and Dr Harry Rothenfluh.

It concluded “The definition specifies that the term ‘human embryo’ cannot be applied prior to the completion of syngamy, or after eight weeks of development. This definition is also based on the potential to develop to or beyond the first time point at which a multicellular structure that will uniquely give rise to the new individual is formed.”

Science is based on reason. That the “soul” enters the egg, when a sperm (or two or three or six) invades it, is a matter of faith. That the fertilised egg is not yet a “human being” is a matter of reason.

The egg could be fertilised by the DNA of another egg, without the use of sperm. What happens to the soul in that case I wonder.

I read somewhere about the following hypothetical, improbable, though not impossible, scenario: A scientist’s lab is on fire. In the lab there is a two year old child and a petri-dish containing five viable, recently fertilised eggs. The scientist rushes in and he/she has time only to either save the child or the petri-dish containing the fertilised eggs. (That he or she has time to save only one of the two is a given – a perfectly clear and accurate assessment).

Now to a reasonable person there is no dilemma. He or she snatches the child and lets the petri-dish burn. A Catholic should snatch the five souls in the petri-dish and let the child burn. That’s the kind of conclusions you come to when you base your actions on religion rather than reason.

The heart of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research alone has the potential to find cures for all human disease, including cancer. It is a laudable aim. And the law adequately deals with that aim.

As for apologising to the Bishops. No apology is due. They are doing a great disservice by spreading misinformation and trying to obstruct what is in societies interest, for no sensible reason. They should therefore apologise.

However the Catholic Church takes a long time to realise its mistakes and apologise. In the case of Galileo several centuries.

Richard,

I find your persistence and your endless questions a little strange, given your previous declaration:

“One thing you have got right - I am not interested in having a “constructive dialogue” – (read “complete, blind and unquestioning agreement”) - about the inane, meaningless and uninformed uttering’s of Catholic Bishops, with you.” (Nice!)

and your apparent disapproval of posters asking question:

“Sure throw in some more questions to answer questions and we’ll all throw in the towel”

Or is it OK for you to ask questions but not me?

Well, I am reneging on a prior commitment by responding to you at all. But then you have calmed down (more or less). Clearly I could never persuade you but I can not let your last go unchallenged for the sake of any more open-minded reader who might still be around.

Your attempts to counter my arguments amount to little more than a bucketful of red herrings. I will deal with each in turn:

I would not dream of suggesting that the Government backs my argument - you twist my words. Obviously it does not. You seek to divert attention from the point of mentioning the Helsinki agreement. Let me remind you of the wording:
“In medical research on human subjects the interests of science and society must never prevail over the well-being of the subject.”
And the point was to demonstrate that, regardless of the benefits, a principled resistance to destructive research on “the human subject” cannot be “ghettoised” to religious fundamentalism.

In fact, it would seem, the Government remain committed to the Helsinki Agreement (insofar as I am not aware of any intention to withdraw from it – are you?). How they reconcile that with this Bill you would have to ask them.

I have not “chosen champions”, Richard. I have quoted from standard embryology textbooks. Are you able to quote other embryology textbooks which state that human life begins at a different point?

Your interpretation of the O’Rahilly and Muller caveat will convince no-one. You’re clutching at straws here. Whether the egg is fertilised naturally or in vitro, provided the fertilisation is successful I understand that the subsequent development of the fertilised egg proceeds identically. Do you know different? Surely the caveat refers to the possibility that the fertilisation process is not successful in producing a fertilised egg capable of normal development.

You then jump to the supposed benefits of embryo research before reverting to discussion of when human life begins. Let’s deal with when human life begins first. I will take each paragraph in turn from “Doing a search…” to “…rather than reason”.

Your next red herring on this is a digression to Islamic teaching. Why must you keep dragging religion into this? My argument (which you seem to be trying to rebut) is based entirely on science and reason.

You ask if the reference in Moore and Persaud to the embryo is my interjection. No, I am not in the habit of misquoting people. Their statement is quite clear and unambiguous regarding when human life begins – with the zygote.

I realise that you are not willing to accept that there is such a thing as objective science and that it tells us quite clearly when life begins. It’s called “denial” and it’s your problem, not mine. When I was at school (no, not Catholic) we were taught (in biology not Religious Studies) that life begins at fertilisation. It was axiomatic. Subsequent ambivalence in some quarters is, I suggest, a function not of further scientific discovery or of biological evolution but of political expediency.

You say: “There are many different forms of life …”. Obviously. So what? No, I won’t give you the definition of life. And I’ll tell you why: I have done all the work here. I have provided cogent arguments and backed them by appropriate references which you attempt airily to dismiss as attributable to chosen “champions”. You have been wholly negative, have attacked everything but made no effort to do your own (relevant, cogently argued) research. Any open-minded reader can find this definition (in various forms) on the net. So let him choose his own and then judge whether what I have said makes sense.

You then mention varying views as to when the “conceptus” should be called an embryo. What a thing is called is not morally significant, per se. But you seem to imply that the designation as an embryo represents a morally significant stage. Among those who choose not to recognise fertilisation as the beginning of the new human being there is an astonishing variety of arbitrary subsequent stages on which they may choose to hang moral significance. But these are essentially philosophical arguments which deny the basic science. They are not scientific arguments so much as rationalisations in order to exclude from the protections normally accorded to human beings those whom they wish to exclude.

Science is, indeed, based on reason. That’s the point. There you go again, dragging in religion. Who mentioned ensoulment?

I am going to quote the late Cardinal Hume, writing in 1990 as the first HFE Bill was going through Parliament. I quote him, not because of who he was but simply because I think he puts it so well:

“Contemporary scientific knowledge both of the genetic code which determines human development and of the process of fertilisation itself provides us with solid grounds for recognizing when life begins. A unique biological event occurs with the conjunction of egg and sperm. That gives rise to a new distinct organism with its own dynamic organisational capacity. That life is human; as the product of human fertilisation it can be none other. All subsequent events, including the development of the primitive streak by 14 days, are but stages of varying importance in human development. …….

It obscures the issues to debate whether this human life can, from day one, be regarded as a person and whether it is already endowed with an immortal soul. These are strictly philosophical and theological questions which science and legislation are in no position to determine. The status of the human embryo and its dignity and rights under the law should be determined by the human life it undoubtedly has from the beginning.”

Your science lab analogy is false and you also misunderstand and misrepresent the Church’s position within it.

Now we turn to the matter of the benefits of embryo research. You say:

“Embryonic stem cell research alone has the potential to find cures for all human disease, including cancer”.

Oh, really?

You choose, then, to ignore the words of Sir Martin Evans, the Nobel Laureate who first discovered embryonic stem cells in mice, as quoted by Baroness Williams (again not a “champion” just a resource since all her quotes are presumably checkable)? He said:

“The writing is on the wall for destructive embryonic research”.

Well perhaps, since you mention him yourself, you would like to consider the words of Dr James Thomson who first discovered human embryonic stem cells, speaking to the New York Times (Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It - 22 11 07) about the ramifications of his and Professor Yamanaka’s work on returning ethically-sourced stem cells back to an embryonic-type state: He said:

“Isn’t it great to start a field and then to end it”

and if you check the article you will find he is referring to embryo research.

Given that these and many others – again no selective choosing of “champions” - see no future in embryo research on fully human embryos it is hard to see any justification for creating human-animal hybrids.

Finally we come to your oft-repeated assertion that no apology is due to the Bishops. You say:
“No apology is due. They are doing a great disservice by spreading misinformation and trying to obstruct what is in societies interest, for no sensible reason. They should therefore apologise.”
Now let’s just look at your argument: It would seem that the fact that you disagree with the Bishops’ moral stance on the Bill makes it, in your view, morally acceptable to falsely accuse them of lying about the actual content of the Bill. Is that correct? And precisely what “misinformation” are they spreading? I can not believe you could be so arrogant as to describe a statement of a moral position with which you disagree as “misinformation”?

I have spent quite enough time replying to you now. It is now for others to take what they will from this exchange.

But I still wish you well!

Pauline,
I was most surprised to read your post. I thought you had gone for good. Thank you for your wishes. That you should wish a soul, as damned as mine, well – almost makes me want to embrace Catholicism. (I wish you well too – though I doubt that it will make you inclined to leave the faith).

Unfortunately I am not quite prepared to follow the Bishops as yet and I wonder if you will wish me well after reading what I have to say.

You quote me: “You say: “Embryonic stem cell research alone has the potential to find cures for all human disease, including cancer”. Oh, really?”

Yes really.

“You choose, then, to ignore the words of Sir Martin Evans, the Nobel Laureate who first discovered embryonic stem cells in mice, as quoted by Baroness Williams (again not a “champion” just a resource since all her quotes are PRESUMABLY checkable)? He said: “The writing is on the wall for destructive embryonic research”” –

No not really. Firstly it is only a presumption that Baroness Williams quotes are checkable.

In any case you have unwittingly given a nice example of how quotes can be snatched out of context – or perhaps even out of thin air – to erroneously support a religious stand. The impression created is that Sir Martin Evans (oh by-the-way – he’s the guy who first discovered embryonic stem cells in mice and got a Nobel prize last year), is against embryonic research and thinks it should be ended.

Quite the contrary. Speaking to the BBC, shortly after Prof Yamanaka’s discovery of creating embryonic stem cells from skin cells, he repeatedly stressed that embryonic stem cell research should continue. This has been backed up by almost every world authority on stem cell research.

Not only that in one interview a couple of months ago, he specifically talks about the legislation, and about producing human-animal chimera’s - about which he says “I think it is absolutely reasonable.” Listen to his opinions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBK7Jh4igw

Why does Human Embryonic stem cell research alone have the potential to find cures for all human disease, including cancer? Because Embryonic Stem cells alone have the capacity for forming all the cells of the body, unlike adult stem cells. We need to understand the process, including the process of the formation of disease and cancer. Once we know that - we can then throw the correct switches to correct these defects.

This is the simple over-all explanation, but a lifetime of research lies in between.

You state: “Now we turn to the matter of the benefits of embryo research…. perhaps, .. you would like to consider the words of Dr James Thomson “Isn’t it great to start a field and then to end it” – The implication here is - that’s the end of the benefits of embryonic research. The truth – nothing of the sort. Actually what he said, in effect - I have found a new source of embryonic stem cells called induced pluripotent stems (iPS), “ethical” – as you put it- so that ends (so far as I am concerned – but not for many others) ESC’s.

Dr James Thomson is a timid man, as is obvious from his interview, greatly worried about ethical opposition. Human Embryonic stem cell research alone has the potential to find cures for all human disease, including cancer - Does Dr James Thomson disagree? No- unlike what you seem to have implied. Only till now the source of these cells were human embryos, now suddenly they have been manufactured from the skin (and presumably could be from other cells too.)

Why use human-animal chimera’s for the research? Because human eggs are in short supply. Embryonic Stem Cells, for example, have been generated from cloned embryos produced by transferring human cells into rabbit eggs. Human-animal chimera’s are therefore a way out of this problem.

What about the “Ethical” Embryonic Stem Cells generated from skin cells as demonstrated by Prof Shinya Yamanaka in Japan and Dr James Thomson? -

Maybe that’s the future for generating embryonic stem cells, who knows. It’s too early to tell. But Science will decide – not the Bishops, Popes or Mullahs.

But does that not solve the ethical/ moral dilemma? No- there was no ethical/ moral dilemma to start with, except in the exhortations of the Catholic Church and other religious adherents.

The Catholic Church and other religious people are now screaming – see I told you so - there was no need to use embryonic stem cells in the first place. But hang on.

If they are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs), then for all practical purposes they are embryonic stem cells.

How does one know? Well to establish that, Prof Rudolph Jaenisch’s team created a genetically abnormal mouse embryo that consisted of only placenta rather than the entire fetus. The reprogrammed stem cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), were injected into the embryo and then placed into a uterus. The combination of the placenta and the stem cells resulted in a late-term mouse fetus.

So the human version could produce a baby, even though not created from an egg and sperm. Where does that leave the moral dilemma so far as Catholics are concerned?

Moreover to produce them, it has been revealed, one has to take the use of – guess what? – you guessed right – embryonic stem cells. (The ones that come from fertilized eggs, and these eggs are destroyed in the process).

Moreover, despite that, they are not quite like embryonic stem cells that come from fertilized eggs. Why?

Because adult cells are compromised. Their DNA gets damaged with age – they are not pristine like embryonic stem cells from a fertilized egg. They suffer the same problem as Dolly the sheep, which looked normal – but in fact was born an old and defective animal. The research papers show that a few thousand genes in the “ethical” iPS differ in function from ESCs.

Finally what does Prof Yamanaka himself have to say about the ethics of these “ethical” stem cells (iPs)? : “I can make eggs as well as sperm from my own male iPS cells,” Yamanaka said. “What if somebody took those sperm and eggs from a single person and fertilized them? The result would not be a clone because of the way cells divide during sexual reproduction … but it would be something very strange and dangerous.”

About Moore and Persaud, I showed that their logic is flawed, hence their opinions cannot be valued very much.

You say about Zygotes “.. whether this human life can, from day one, be regarded as a person and whether it is already endowed with an immortal soul. .. are strictly philosophical and theological questions which science and legislation are in no position to determine”.

And I suggest neither can the Church or the Catholic Bishops determine whether it has “an immortal soul”, though it may pretend it can.

As for whether it is a person and a human being, from day one - I disagree. Science and legislation can, and has, decided that – it is not.

“The status of the human embryo and its dignity and rights under the law should be determined by the human life it undoubtedly has from the beginning.” Dogmatic Statement – false one – not an argument.

You say - “There you go again, dragging in religion. Who mentioned ensoulment?” and ..

“It is a particular irony that the Church which is so regularly and enthusiastically accused in some quarters of flying in the face of science and reason should be so attacked for arguments which are, in fact, based precisely on science and reason.”

I suggest that Bishops leave science and reason to scientists. If Bishops are going to step into matters scientific and pontificate on the morality of science then perhaps we should also examine their religion and the Church’s moral record? Let the scientists debate matters scientific and we not be reduced to learning science from the Bishops.

Does the dogma that embryos have a soul, have nothing to do with the Bishops and the Church’s position? I suggest it has everything to do with it and science and reason has very little to do with it.

I clearly showed that the position is illogical and unreasonable. An argument that you have briefly dismissed as “false and you also misunderstand and misrepresent the Church’s position within it” - without elaboration. The rights of a child or an adult cannot be equated with those of a mass of cells in a petri-dish. Cloning has shown us that every cell in our body has the potential to develop into a human - the same as the fertilized eggs.

I too am done let the readers decide which is the reasonable argument.

But before I go I cannot let the inane remarks of Kevin Burgess go unscathed. I will deal with only one:
“I know a little about all three major world religions and it seems to me that they have all contributed a great deal to civilisation as we know it. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have all contributed to art,music, architecture, science and medicine, poetry, philosophy etc.,”

Your observation, though totally wrong, has nothing to do with the argument.

If you were to study art, music, architecture, science, medicine etc would you open the Bible or the Torah or the Quran? No! – they have contributed NOTHING towards these subjects. In fact there are many scientific fallacies found in each of these books, which have instead impeded science greatly and, as this debate has shown, is doing so till this day. Islam is also very much against art and music. Only certain very limited forms are allowed. Sculpture and painting of human figures are forbidden.

Can you not distinguish between the religion and the followers of the religion? All advancements in these fields were made by individuals. The fact that they have belonged to a particular religion is just incidental to their achievements, which were often made, despite the hindrances put in their path, which were directly attributable to their religion.

Everybody... I thought this morning to look and see how this discussion was getting or not as the case may be. It seems I have looked in just to cath the end of it? I had to remind myself that it started with the simple proposition that one group of people should apologise to another group of people. It developed from there into a more detailed debate concerning the pros and cons of the forthcoming HFE Bill. It seems to have ended in an unspoken agreement to differ, which seems amicable. Nevertheless I should like to offer some general observations on its conduct for the benefit of future discussions. I read Richard's penultimate posting and then Pauline's response to same, which appears to have been her last. This means she may not see Richard's last, which is a pity because she might have made another interesting counter to it. I don't blame her really because none of us know each others circumstances and after all, conversations have to end somewhere! I am not sure if Richard will make another foray? In which case, he may in turn not see these comments either. In any case Richard, it seems appropriate to remind you that I offered only one previous posting, the purpose of which was clear: to comment on the content and conduct of the contributions received up to that point and to encourage everyone whose comments I had read to confine themselves to constructive dialogue. I am happy to apologise to you Rich, in case you were discomfited by my saying, "Sorry mate, but that's the way it came across." It was only intended to persuade you to try and find a calmer and more disciplined style of expressing yourself -that's all. I'm a naturally friendly person. I would also express regret if you imagined I was 'taking sides'. Yet it is fair to say that you continued to make contentious statements. You said that what was in fashion (in the matter of scientific research)was irrelevant. It is legitimate to observe that some populist ideas of what constitutes important and critical research one moment, pass and are forgotten the next. In this context 'fashionable' seems a fair word to choose. Worst of all you accused another party of being condescending and noble and seemingly reasonable. This is called 'a contradiction in terms'. Condescension is not noble behaviour is it? Then you go on to display the same attitude which you have just condemned! (By the way, as you appeal to science, have you a scientific basis for the condition you describe as a 'Mental Block'?) Another thing: you appear to have been hoisted on your own petard when you brought James Thompson into your argument! Allow me to clarify my situation as I have made no contribution to the minutia of HFE bio-ethics, it is not my field of expertise. I wonder Rich, if it is yours? I remain to be convinced one way or the other by the protagonists here. However, perhaps if I am allowed, I would suggest that mutual apologies from both of the original parties in the fields of science or moral theology may calm the waters? Richard, you digress too much. You seem obsessed with one aspect of the Galileo controversy of the 16th/17th centuries. I am tempted to take you to task on this, involving as it does Galileo's rejection of the established Ptolemaic system and his adoption of the Copernican. (Copernicus was a churchman!)Copernicus' great work was published at the solicitation of two churchmen. A 'Cardinal' and a 'Bishop' and was dedicated to the Pope of the time.Galileo's undoubted contributions to science (notably in the development of the telescope) are accepted by everyone. Nevertheless he made his own errors too. eg: Galileo attempted to prove the rotation of the earth on its axis from the phenomenon of the tides. This is now universally recognised as a grave error. It was Kepler who proved to be correct about tidal influence on the moon's orbit. As far as the 'ecclesiastical' authorities of the time were concerned, they never had any intention of persecution. In fact, when Galileo returned to Rome in 1611, he was recieved in triumph! Anyway,sorry, I must also avoid the error of digression! You seem unable to view objectively the positive contributions of religion in general terms.Look, I am fortunate to have friends who are atheist, agnostic, christian, who follow the Prophet (peace be upon him), Buddhist and Hindu. (I have been in correspondence with Akhandadi Das). To consider all their beliefs seriously is to be both respectful and educational. Yes, I know that there are extreme opinions in every strata of society Richard, including atheistic fundamentalists.Your last (?) posting suggests that you would like to 'scathe' my remarks. That is to 'harm' or 'injure' me. Why would you want to do that? As the proverb says, "Violence is the last refuge of a bankrupt mind." It would also presumably be true to apply that to ridicule and sarcastic invective. eg: "inane". You deal with only one remark. Unfortunately you choose to take issue with the fact that personally I have concluded that the three great monotheistic religions have contributed a great deal to the civilisation that we enjoy today, in all the fields of knowledge that I enunciated. But Richard, the way you do it! A feat of linguistic distortion indeed. Religion doesn't include the achievements of its followers? I realise the opinion of others that Religion has NOT contributed to our civilisation is a legitimate one. That's pretty mainstream. It's a great debate which has been running for years. Betrand Russell was a great proponent of this view though other philosphers took the opposite. But even he did not entertain the notion that the individual could be isolated from the belief system that motivated them. To suggest this is what I mean by 'linguistic contortion'
If you glance at the headline paragraph to this blog, you will read, "Scientists go head to head with the Catholic Church etc.," I see no distinguishing of indvidual 'bishops' from that religion? Actually, you do the same in your own contribution, using the terms 'Church and Bishops' without distinguishing the one from the other! Religion serves no purpose without its followers! Quod est demonstrandum Richard? To cap it all, you state the obvious when you say that a person with religious faith who wants to study maths, medicine, art, music etc., would not turn to their 'holy' books for use as text books. Der! That is not their purpose is it? Do you know anyone who would even claim to use their'books' for this purpose? I am entitled to adhere to the opinion I gave. Since you seem to have a particular penchant for catholicism, I am informed that catholic ie 'religious' schools are so popular at the moment that even non-catholics are trying to get their children into them! Is this an indication that religion contributes nothing to our civilisation? But all this is a different debate as I said, one which will run for years yet.
At one stage, I noticed you asked for a definition of life. Well, anything that is alive I suppose, as distinct from inorganic matter. However, surely you mean HUMAN life? Yes, it would be good if science came up with a consensus definiton but never seems to have. Religion however at least seems to offer a tenable one as I gather from Pauline's quote of a religious individual.
Finally, allow me a little irreverence here: I guarantee absolutely that you Richard, will find that you are not 'done' after all. (You know, the 'tis' 'tisn't' 'tis' 'tisn't' routine ?). As there seems little point in me looking in again however, on this particular section of an excellent website for a while because the main protagonists have gone silent, I look forward to another discussion on another occasion perhaps? Whatever!
Kevin.

Its obvious Pauline has stated her case from a catholic stand. Richard knows it. He's quite right. Call a spade a spade I say. Richard is also clearly an extreme atheist as he condemns all religions by implication. At least he's honest. That's simple.

The question also is simple. One body of people has accused another body of people of misinformation and distortion. Is it true or not? What should happen is the accuser must prove the offence. If they cant, they should apologise. Simple.

Unfortunate that Richard has used this whole thing as a platform for his anti-religious views in a hysterical way. Atheism and Religion are often irreconcilable but they needn't be. They can inform each other like the Vatican Observatory in Italy, where the scientists are also religionists and produce excellent work. Or the Catholic University of America or the Universidad Catolica de Chile, which I know.

Kevin- you miss the point. A better comparison you could use of the silliness of saying you can separate religion from its believers would be to ask 'Is it true that Science has achieved NOTHING over the years but only its individual scientists have?' 'Would you turn to 'The Theory of quantum physics' to find out about God?'

Logic has to have a starting point in hypothesis and has to have an end in a conclusion. What you end up with depends on what premiss you start with. In the case of Atheism and Religion it depends on whether you believe "Cogito ergo sum" or "Sum ergo cogito".

James

Radical Violations of the Truth
I had thought I had hung up my gloves for good. But I must emerge for one final bout, though I find my last opponents somewhat less worthy than Pauline. This posting is really my last on this topic.
I will take up some statements of Kevin and James:

KEVIN - ".. To consider all their beliefs seriously is to be both respectful and educational."
I see no need to be respectful of blind faith, quite the contrary. Misplaced respect hides and perpetuates fallacies and lies. Criticism and logical examination exposes them. Belief without reason or evidence is not educational and should not be taken seriously.

JAMES - "Richard is also clearly an extreme atheist as he condemns all religions by implication."

I am not even an atheist, leave alone an “extreme atheist”- whatever that may mean.

And I do not condemn all religions by implication – I condemn all religions explicitly.

That a person who finds all religions to be false, must necessarily be an atheist, is not axiomatic. There may be a God, though I find no evidence for one, and if he exists, certainly behaves as though he doesn’t. That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist.

I was indeed raised a “fundamentalist” Christian by my grandmother. My journey to rationality was a painful one and not one that I would impose on anyone else. The better way is not to indoctrinate children in any blind belief. I never revealed my doubts and my eventual rejection of Christianity (and subsequently every other religion) to my grandmother.

Although I am against all religions I do not think that all religions are the same.

[edited for length]