|
SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets General Assembly Reports SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian Environmental Network Eco-Congregation |
|
At a press briefing on cloning research on 12 January, teams at Edinburgh University and Kings College London raised the possibility of performing research involving the creation of nuclear transfer hybrid rabbit-human embryos. The suggestion seems extraordinary in the light of the Government's long stated intention not to allow such research. In 2000, following the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer's (Donaldson Committee) seminal report on stem cell research, the Government stated that
It is claimed that such hybrids could circumvent the lack of human eggs. It is not clear why this justifies such extreme measures as creating hybrids. The Donaldson Committee concluded that "the use of eggs from a non-human species to carry a human nucleus was not a realistic or desirable solution to the lack of human eggs for research." 2
The Church of Scotland is not opposed to all research involving embryonic stem cells, but its General Assembly has expressly opposed to the creation of human-animal hybrid or chimeric embryos. In its submission to the Government's current review of the legislation on embryo research, the church rejected the suggestion made by various researchers that hybrid embryos, parthenotes and embryos that have been modified to make then non-viable would be an ethical solution to deriving stem cells from embryos. See a recent press release. Whatever the status of such creations, it is would be at least as unethical to use methods that would create an 'embryo' so deformed that it could not be viable and which therefore inherently denies its potential to develop. For those in the churches who regard any embryo experimentation as inherently wrong, this would be equally unacceptable.
Secondly, it raises sensitive and complex issues of the admixture of the human and the animal at a fundamental cellular level. These are more than just a matter of unfamiliarity or a so-called 'yuk reaction'. They are underlain by profound ethical issues to which the SRT Project has given much consideration in its work on xenotransplantation, cloning and other issues. The Church of Scotland is not opposed to the addition of a human gene into animals for producing therapeutic proteins in sheep's milk, nor of the idea of xenotransplanation as such. See our 2001 General Assembly Report on GM Animals The identity and integrity of both animals and human beings are far more than a sum of their genes, and is not necessarily violated just by adding one human gene. But the admixture of the human and the animal at a basic cellular and developmental level of the embryo would breach the distinction between human and animal in a more fundamental way than sheep expressing a single human gene in its milk or even having, say, a functioning pig kidney inside a human body.
We hold to the view that humans and animals, though holding many deep similarities, are nonetheless different in more than just the biological differences among species. In the historic Christian tradition (drawing on Hebrew scriptures) humans are believed uniquely created in God's image and set apart from all other creatures spiritually and have a unique moral responsibility which animals do not have. Intercourse between animals and humans is also expressly condemned. While humans are given the task of caring for the animal kingdom as fellow creatures of God, they are not seen as of equal status to humans. The present proposal raises issues about respect for both humans and animals.
Thirdly, while some might agree with Ian Wilmut's assertion that he does not view the human embryo at that stage as being a person, this does not mean that a 200 cell embryo has no moral status. The basis of the UK law in this area requires that a human embryo be given more respect than merely cells in a petri dish. It is hard to see how one can speak of such respect being shown in creating an embryo which is a hybrid of human and animal, which is so disrupted that it could never be viable, purely to extract cells from it.
Lastly, it is surprising that this proposal has been publicised by scientists at a time when the tendency for stem cell researchers, both on embryonic and adult cells, to exaggerate the claims the potential benefits for their work has itself become an ethical issue. A recent European stem cells conference organised by patients made clear the acute sensitivity of not raising premature expectations. This highly ethically sensitive rabbit-human hybrid proposal comes hard on the heels of the discovery that what seemed to be the world-leading claims of South Korean research to have made stem cell lines from cloned human embryos were false. Some UK research towards so-called "therapeutic cloning" has been criticised as too speculative and unrealistic about its clinical goals to be justified. It seems clear that much more serious ethical and regulatory scrutiny is needed about the justification of research using nuclear transfer methods in the stem cell field. This press briefing is not a good example.
Footnote : SRT is participating in a multi-disciplinary expert working group which is preparing a report on current human stem cell issues, to be debated at the Church of Scotland General Assembly in May 2006.
See other SRT Press Releases
