---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, find the phrase ““human admixed embryo”” confusing. Like other noble Lords, I have had a large number of letters expressing concern about the Bill and I do not think that replacing the phrase ““inter-species embryo”” with ““human admixed embryo”” clarifies the situation. I had not followed the detail of our debates closely enough to realise that the phrase ““human admixed embryo”” does not mean what I first took it to mean. The Bill has ““Human”” and ““Embryology”” in its title, so when I first read the phrase I assumed that it referred to a human egg that had been admixed with some animal cell input. As I read the Bill, it appears from Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 that the definition of the phrase ““human admixed embryo””, for the purposes of this Bill, will be a mixed animal and human cytoplasmic one or no more than a pure hybrid 50:50 animal-human one, starting from an animal egg. That suggests to me that the resulting embryo cannot be more than half-human, although I admit that I may not fully understand the science. For members of the public who are concerned about mixing human and animal or other species in the creation of an embryo, the phrase ““human admixed embryo”” is unclear on what happens. It could mean, to the uninitiated, that a human embryo has had another species’ material added to it. Did the Government intend that? It may be that the Minister can clarify the reasons for his amendments—and I listened most closely to what he said—but I wonder whether we have yet arrived at the right definition for this problem.