WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 20 2000
MPs give go ahead for embryo research
BY PHILIP WEBSTER AND GREG HURST
CONTROVERSIAL research involving the cloning of human embryos was backed by
MPs after an impassioned Commons debate last night.
After a rare free vote MPs supported an amendment to the Human Fertilisation
and Embryo Act by 366 votes to 174. It could pave the way to finding a cure
for chronic degenerative diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers.
The decision came after Yvette Cooper, the Public Health Minister, appealed
for scientists to be given the go-ahead for stem cell research, denying that
it was a slippery slope to human cloning. The vote came in the face of
fierce opposition from pro-life campaigners.
Ms Cooper told the Commons that the research could hold the key to healing
within the human body, giving hope not only to those suffering from
degenerative diseases but also cancer and heart disease victims. There are
immense potential benefits from allowing this research to go ahead,
particularly for those suffering from dreadful chronic disease.
She said there were strong reasons to back the regulations, which were a
sensible extension of the existing law and would be subject to a strict
regulatory framework and limited to embryos up to 14 days old.
Strongly denying that the move could lead to human reproductive cloning, Ms
Cooper insisted: Parliament is not being asked to cross the Rubicon today.
Human reproductive cloning is illegal and must stay illegal. Under these
regulations it will stay illegal. The idea of cloning babies is completely
unacceptable to the House and public opinion as well.
In a well-attended session the debate cut across traditional party lines.
Although most Labour MPs strongly supported the change, 73 did not. Some
Conservatives backed the research.
Liam Fox, the Shadow Health Secretary, voiced his personal opposition to the
use of embryo cells, saying he was not convinced there was no alternative.
Dr Fox, a former general practitioner, said: The benefits of the medical
revolution are immense from limb grafts and transplantation to the
elimination of diseases. But the medical revolution carries with it moral,
ethical and philosophical consequences and our ability to deal with these
matters sometimes lags behind our technical knowledge.
Just because we can do something does not mean we have to. We need to
establish a clear framework within which to operate. He said that the rules
should have been introduced in a new Bill rather than in amendments to
existing legislation.
Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 09:33:13 EST