« Fact, fiction, and academia | Main | Explosions on the Moon »

Bookmark in Connotea

British fertility debate ‘a vote for science over religion’? - May 21, 2008

embryo-in-womb ALAMY.JPGPosted for Mike Hopkin

After two days of debate, not to mention weeks of rancorous lobbying, British MPs have voted on four controversial pieces of fertility legislation in the ways that research advocates and pro-choice campaigners had wanted. Parliament rejected calls, mainly from religious groups, to remove the more permissive aspects of Britain's new legislation on fertility and embryology.

Of most interest to the research community will be the decision to go ahead with legalizing the creation of hybrid embyros, potentially giving researchers a much more ready supply of embryonic stem cells.

Coming at the end of a highly charged debate - witness the contrasting takes of the liberal Guardian and conservative Daily Mail - the vote will undoubtedly be seen in some quarters as a victory for science over religion.

What's more, the verdict puts Britain far beyond other developed countries in terms of the scope of what embryologists will be allowed to do under government licence. Some German commentators, for example, have reacted with dismay, while the story has made headlines worldwide (here are AFP and the New York Times).

Among the other victories in the government's clean sweep were the removal of the 'need for a father' in cases of in vitro fertilization; this is now being replaced with a requirement for 'supportive parenting' which respects the claims of same-sex couples and single mothers. The screening of IVF embryos for 'saviour siblings' when this might help existing children with genetic diseases has been legalized and Britain's 24-week limit on abortions has been retained.

Image: Alamy

Comments

Bravo!

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thegreatbeyond at nature.com'.

please enter code

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5199