Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


The Fertility Show


 

Reproducing regulation: issues arising from the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill

03 September 2007

By Professor Marcus Pembrey

Chair, Progress Educational Trust, and Drs Kirsty Horsey and Jess Buxton, Editors, BioNews

Appeared in BioNews 423
A Parliamentary committee has recently challenged several proposals in the UK Government's draft revised legislation for assisted reproduction and embryo research, published earlier this year. These areas of biomedical research and personal reproductive decisions raise important ethical and social issues. As such, the committee report is welcome, because it re-opens much-needed debate on these issues. It is expected that the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill will be in the Queen's Speech in November, making this year a crucial one for assisted reproduction, pre-implantation genetics and human embryonic stem cell (ES cell) research.

The Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, set up to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Bill, reported at the end of July. It rejects the Government's key proposal to merge existing regulators to form the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (RATE). Retaining the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), it says, will provide better regulatory oversight through each having a sufficient number of members with the relevant expertise. The committee also recommends establishing a clear framework of devolved regulation, giving greater regulatory freedom and authority to the regulator and clinicians, except where there is good reason to do otherwise.

Many professional and lay organisations have been involved in the debate over human embryo research and the services that flow from it since the 1980s. Particularly influential in the run up to the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act was the research progress in developing PGD a clear example of benefit to families threatened by genetic disease. However, despite it avoiding the need to consider an abortion, the pro-life lobby argued against PGD because, like embryo research, it results in the destruction of pre-implantation human embryos. After very wide debate, the HFE Act was passed, establishing the HFEA to license treatments involving IVF and permitting licensed research on human embryos up to 14 days in culture.

Since the HFE Act, the offer of PGD has become an important adjunct to prenatal diagnosis as a service to couples whose reproductive confidence has been destroyed by the high chance of transmitting a serious genetic disease. A case has to be made to the HFEA for each new type of PGD that a centre performs. The draft Bill proposes that a licence can only be granted for this purpose if 'there is a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition' (Schedule 2, 3 (2)). The wording follows the current HFEA Code of Practice and indeed reflects the law relating to abortion for fetal abnormality. A number of factors to be considered in applying this rule are listed (para (3)(a) to (e)) - the extent of the impairment having regard to treatment available, the age of onset, the rate of degeneration, the proportion of those testing positive who would be affected and the reliability of the test. Again, there is a close fit with the HFEA Code. However, while the Code of Practice says that the views of the prospective parents concerning the meaning of 'significant' and 'serious' should be taken into account, the draft Bill does not. This will be of concern to those seeking PGD.

In the same way that the scientific advances in PGD acted as an important backdrop in the lead up to the 1990 Act, so human ES cell research is performing a similar function now. With the claims of the Korean scientist, Woo-Suk Hwang discredited, it has become clear that establishing human ES cell lines for research by using SCNT to transfer nuclei from patient cells into enucleated human ova - 'therapeutic cloning' - is currently extremely challenging, with a very poor success rate. More methodological research is needed if ES cells of a particular genetic makeup are to be obtained. Given the understandable shortage of suitable human ova, a promising alternative is to use animal (eg. rabbit or bovine) enucleated eggs. Other forms of inter-species embryos are already being used in research or have potential research uses in the future, but the Government still proposes to ban some forms of hybrids or chimeras even though, as research embryos, they fall within the 14-day limit in culture and transfer to a woman is prohibited. One view is that there is no logical reason why research on embryos that are arguably 'less human' should be subject to legislation that is more restrictive. Amongst those who oppose the use of inter-species embryos there will be some whose views are simply opposed to all types of research on human embryos. The joint committee was divided on this point and called for a free vote in Parliament on whether or not the creation and use of inter-species embryos in research should be prohibited.

If Parliament votes for the use of licensed inter-species embryos in research, then in keeping with their general view of devolved regulation, the joint committee believes the regulator should decide on individual research proposals regarding inter-species embryos as defined in the Bill.

Attempting to prescribe in law the precise nature of embryos that may be created for research purposes could prove unwise, since no-one knows exactly where future lines of inquiry may lead. Equally, many feel that there are good reasons to resist the temptation to try and define too precisely in primary legislation what embryo selection (PGD) can or cannot be permitted for. These intensely personal decisions need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Another intensely personal parental decision is when to inform children that they were conceived using donor gametes. The committee favours putting this fact on the child's birth certificate and asks the Government to consider this.

The controversial parts of the draft Bill described above - along with the issues surrounding infertility treatment 'tourism' and patient confidentiality - will be discussed at Progress Educational Trust's annual conference, to be held on 1 November 2007 at the Institute of Child Health in London. All interested individuals are invited to join us, both to hear the opinions of others and to add your own voice to the debate during this key time for the future regulation of fertility treatment and embryo research in the UK. Bookings are now being taken - see 'Recommends' for details of speakers and how to register for this event.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

09 January 2012 - by Suzanne Elvidge 
Three chimeric rhesus monkeys born in the USA have been described as the world's first primate chimeras...
10 March 2008 - by Dr Karen Devine 
The controversy sparked by the introduction of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2007, which is being debated in the UK House of Commons over the next few months, looks set to continue. The Daily Telegraph newspaper has reported that in an unusual move, Chef Whip Geoff...
05 March 2008 - by Dr Karen Devine 
This week, three Catholic Cabinet ministers in the UK have threatened to quit their posts following government proposals to allow the creation of hybrid embryos - embryos made using animal eggs that have their nuclei replaced with human genetic material, for use in stem cell research. The MPs...
27 January 2008 - by Dr Charlotte Maden 
Stringent new laws on the use of human embryonic stem (ES) cells in experiments are being planned by the UK Government. This will delay critical research into life-threatening diseases, according to a group of leading scientists. The proposed laws are part of the revised Human Fertilisation and...
12 November 2007 - by Dr Kirsty Horsey 
A new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was published last week by the UK's Department of Health. The Bill is designed to update and reform the existing laws on assisted conception and human embryo research in the UK, established by the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Moving the Boundaries of Human Reproduction

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Jacques Cohen

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Andy Greenfield

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation