---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

There are several avenues of research that scientists are exploring or wish to explore in the hope of better understanding the causes of and the treatment of disease. One such avenue of research involves the creation, the keeping and the use of embryos containing both human and animal material. Both the Scientific and Technology Committee in the other place and the Joint Committee which undertook the scrutiny of the draft Bill have concluded that legislation should be extended to enable research involving such embryos, subject to strict regulations. A broad spectrum of embryos can be created which contain both human and animal components. The Bill sets out a framework of regulation for interspecies embryos. Interspecies embryos are defined in the Bill in Clause 4 and are those embryos created using human and animal components where the resulting embryo is towards the human end of the spectrum. Two parliamentary committees have examined this topic in much detail and the scientific community has also engaged with the Government in stressing how important it is to undertake research in this area. Having listened to the arguments presented here, we have set out in this Bill a framework for regulation, the same as is already in place for embryo research using human embryos. We have also heard the limitations and the dangers to donors of eggs, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and by my noble friend Lord Winston. We need to open up this area of research to scientists in the hope of developing knowledge about disease, of discovering new ways of treating and perhaps even of curing serious disease and medical conditions affecting the quality of life of countless people worldwide. I turn to Amendments Nos. 6, 6A and 43. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has tabled a number of amendments, the combined effect of which is an absolute prohibition on research involving interspecies embryos, as defined in Clause 4 of the Bill, including the prohibition of the use of hamster eggs in testing of human sperm fertility, a test which can be licensed under the 1990 Act. Such embryo research since 1990 has been limited so that it is permissible only under licence from the HFEA. Research involving interspecies embryos will also have such boundaries. As with all human embryo research, a licence from the HFEA will always be required for the creation, the keeping and the use of interspecies embryos as well as for the hamster test. There is an absolute prohibition on placing of interspecies embryos in a woman or in an animal. In addition, no licence may authorise the culture of interspecies embryos beyond 14 days or the time at which primitive streaks appear or whichever occurs first. Any interspecies embryo must be destroyed once the limit is reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested, research involving interspecies embryos could provide us with better understanding of human embryos and embryonic stem cells. With appropriate limitation in place, I believe that that research should be licensable under the regulatory remit of the HFEA, just as the research which Professor Wilmot intends to undertake now into reprogramming of human somatic cells would not be possible without prior research using embryonic stem cells. Research using interspecies embryos may one day provide more clues to the mechanics of human cells and lead to a better understanding of the nature of disease and provide effective treatments. I turn to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about tetraploid complementation, to which he referred as covered by the Bill to the extent that they will not be permitted embryos and therefore could not be implanted in a woman. The Secretary of State also has the power under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to prevent them being implanted in an animal. The Bill contains in Clause 4 the power to extend the definition of interspecies embryos to cover any further embryos that combine human and animal material, should the need arise. Perhaps I may turn to the yuck factor mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I agree that there is an important need to distinguish between the legitimate concerns and the discomfort arising merely from unfamiliarity, a point highlighted very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Two moral claims have been highlighted as forming part of the yuck factor: the response of the horror of the idea of playing God and the transgression of a fundamental taboo. In some way, the claims are associated with the issues of naturalness; for example, scientists are wrong to attempt to manipulate nature in this way because such manipulation is unnatural. Not only is it very difficult to specify, as highlighted in the very powerful document published by the Academy of Medical Sciences to specify what ““unnatural”” means, but it is not clear why unnaturalness should be bad. IVF is an unnatural process; vaccination is an unnatural process; but those scientific advances have created modern medicine as we know it today. Amendments Nos. 9 and 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, alter the proposed ability, through regulation, to change and to extend the definitions of interspecies embryos, as inserted by Clause 4(2) the Bill. The amendments set a limit on the regulation-making power, such that any new types of interspecies embryo, once included in the Act, would be prohibited from being created. The regulation-making power would provide the future flexibility we need to ensure that the law keeps pace with any technological developments in the creation of part-human, part-animal embryos. A power is also provided in new paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act, inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, to permit the HFEA to grant a licence to create, keep and use any form of interspecies embryos. Under new paragraph 3(8), the Secretary of State can further limit the scope of what can be licensed by the HFEA in relation to any new entities. The choice as to whether and how these powers should be exercised would be a decision for Parliament as well, as the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. This means that the decision on whether or not to devolve discretion to the HFEA to permit the creation, use and keeping of any form of interspecies embryo not already listed in the Bill can, and rightly should, be made at that time. Amendment No. 28 would remove from the HFEA the ability to license a procedure commonly referred to as the hamster test, which involves the penetration of a hamster egg by human sperm to assess the fertility or normality of those sperms. The resulting product must be destroyed by the two-cell stage. This test has been performed by many clinics since it was permitted under the 1990 Act, and is a valuable method of assessment without the need to create a human embryo.