Science and Technology Committee

Josephine asks an interesting question - the Modernist view would be that experts are those how understand that "facts" and the only ones in a position to make "objective" decisions. The postmodern view would be everyone should be given a say, even if we know nothing about the subject beyond our own "feelings". The comment about "self interested 'experts'" is of course emotive, we are all self interested aren't we? My opinion (non-expert!) would be that whilst public comment on technical issues is of little value on ethical issues it is crucial. Scientists are currently undervalued for the expertise and insight which they offer - a reaction to enlightenment rationalism, but conversely disproportionately responsible for ethical decisions which they (we) are ill equipped to make.

I basically agree with Chris.
In the field of assisted reproduction a knowledge of the facts does not usually take one much past the technology itself, and for the most part in the UK today only issues of safety are taken into consideration. I don't think such knowledge gives us useful answers to the dilemmas posed by the new technologies, as these dilemmas are rarely of a technical nature. A scientist may well have the edge over Jo/e Bloggs public in his/her understanding of the science, but I don't think that is the expertise we are looking for. At stake here are matters which involve the whole essence of what it means to be human on the broadest possible scale. Obviously a scientist can have these insights, but so can and should each and every one of us.
We can all be experts.
When I used the emotive term 'self-interested' I was talking from my own experience in this field. Marcus Pembrey in the Times Higher article made comments which encapsulate my concerns, and I could quote many other fertility and genetics practitioners who take a similar position. Pembrey suggested that sensitive issues (such as sex selection) were best resolved between "the medical professional who is bringing their expertise and the couple who are bringing their own experience". This kind of attitude worries me.
I am often told to mind my own business when I make comments on ethical dilemmas in this field, but surely the business of everybody is the welfare of society as a whole, the child, future generations, the network of relationships and so on, not just the wishes of the individual.
The big problem is of course - who should make the final decisions?????????????

"surely the business of everybody is the welfare of society as a whole, the child, future generations, the network of relationships and so on, not just the wishes of the individual."

I completely agree.

Like Josephine, I welcome the Science & Technology Committee's democratic approach to this review of the HFE Act 1990.

We should not leave these huge ethical issues to self interested 'experts'. Scientists must be accountable to public opinion.

They have a vital role to play in educating the public about their work. Most importantly perhaps, they must be realistic about what they can achieve. In 2001, when Parliament approved regulations authorising embryonic stem cell research and experimental cloning all sorts of claims were made regarding the potential of this new research. One could have got the impression that cures for all sorts of debilitating diseases were just around the corner. The reality is that cures are decades away, if indeed they are ever found.

Having read the Times HES report I am concerned to read that Ian Gibson MP "had some doubts about allowing someone from the pro-life lobby to open the debate." Why? His Committee's consultation will be effective only if the views of all are canvassed.

I am appalled by the thought that Ian Gibson said the above. I admit that I do not know the context or the reasons for this and would invite Doctor Gibson to explain. It seems on the face of it that he is not an unbiased chairman for this committee at all.

This leads to the question of who is qualified to umpire the debate. I question whether the Science and Technology Committee is the best forum as it has a preponderance of members with a scientific background. You would expect them to support the extension of scientific research. This is essentially a moral and ethical question regarding how you view the nature of a human being. Presumably this inquiry will lead to a report that will be debated by Parliament and a vote will ensue thus determining the will of the people and controlling research in this country.

If anybody can explain where this debate will go from here, please do.

Chris Hunt

I am alarmed by any suggestion that the public, because of their lack of scientific expertise should not have the 'right' to influence decisions in the field of assisted reproduction or any other field. I share the doubts of many of those who have contributed to this debate about the wisdom of allowing any one group to make decisions in an area of universal importance.

However, I would like to propose looking at the debate from the other side of the coin: 'responsibilities' rather than 'rights'. Every individual has a responsibility both to contribute to the debate about assisted reproduction and to acknowledge the contributions of others in order to ensure that any resulting legislation is nuanced and mature. Clearly scientific experts have a wealth of knowledge about what further scientific advances stand to be gained in the field of assisted reproduction by introducing further flexibility into the relevant legislation. However, the legislation in question is not an Act solely for the furtherance of scientific development. It strives to balance the benefits which such developments may bring with certain valid ethical safeguards. I would query the agenda of any scientist who either discounted, or set himself/herself up as sole expert upon, the latter.

I too am concerned by the all too common assumption that science should provide the final answer on any given issue.

Scientists should be witnesses in the debate, not judges. Science shows us what can be done; scientists are valuable experts to inform us about the nature and physical implications of any given process. But a scientist's immense amount of skill and training is in the scientific processes themselves. Scientists are not (necessarily) trained ethicists. Their experience and evidence informs a debate but gives them no inflated right to reach a judgment on its ethical status. That right belongs equally to all thinking people.

With that in mind, I express my strong support for JJM's comments. We need to challenge the extremely shaky ethical ground for many currently accepted practices which imply little or no concern for the life of the embryo. This, I believe, needs to be addressed as a matter of extreme urgency. We *must* move away from the assumption that if we can do it we may do it.

Your right of course that scientists run great dangers when they ignore their responsibilities and ignore the wider ethical debates. These risks are hightened due the degree of focus scientists apply to their discipline which can make us blind to the wider issues. And I agree that more weight needs to be given to the life of the embryo. It seems perverse to me to give greater protection to the organs of dead infants than to the life of a living embryo. On the other hand I rarely understand much of what trained ethicists have to say!

It is also helpful to remember that scientists are also human beings, mothers, fathers and sometimes even caring ethicists.

The way foward is indeed a debate about our responsibilities. In the area of bioethics the emphasis should be on proving that something is essential before research is allowed rather than allowing research until it is proved to be harmful.

I note with interest the strand on the competence of scientists and of ethicists. I think it is also important to distinguish between ethical reasoning and scientific reasoning - especially in fields like stem cell research.

For instance, one area of debate is whether embryonic stem cells are more or less effective than adult stem cells for cultivating replacement tissues. But to ask that question presupposes equal legitimacy for using either kind of cell, and seeks to make a pragmatic judgment based on which will be more effective in practice - in essence, a scientific question.

But there are also ethical issues which cannot be resolved by science, such as "What kind of special status do we give the human embryo?" The Warnock report seems to have reached the conclusion that the human embryo is special enough that it is distinguished by making all sorts of red tape necessary before you can utilise it, but not so special that it cannot be used as a means to an end. Is this a meaningful kind of specialness?

I would prefer to err on the side of giving the embryo the kind of specialness which means we can never use it as a means to an end - and I do so knowing that this might require us to use adult stem cells in cases where pragmatism would tell us that embryonic cells would be more effective. A specialness which doesn't bite is no real specialness at all.

Dr Gareth Leyshon - M.A. (Keble, Oxon: Physics) PhD Wales (astrophysics); Member of the Institute of Physics & of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.