Joint embryo and tissue body rejected
Hybrid embryo research could help debilitating diseases
Also In The News
|
England coach Peter Moores has called on both sets of players to rein in their on-field behaviour as India aim to secure a series win over their hosts in the third Test at the Oval. |  |
Wednesday, 01, Aug 2007 08:09
Health and science organisations have welcomed the recommendation to reject proposals for one organisation to be created to deal with issues including IVF, embryology and storage of tissue.
The draft human tissue and embryos bill proposes a merger of the existing regulatory authorities currently dealing with human tissue and embryos – the Human Fertilisation and Embryos Authority (HFEA) and the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) – into a new body called the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryology (Rate).
But the joint committee of MPs set up to scrutinise the bill said today that it had rejected this proposal as it believes the two areas are distinct and should be regulated separately.
It points to "overwhelming and convincing" evidence that it received against Rate, including the argument that the HFEA deals with much more complicated moral and ethical issues surrounding the use of human embryos.
Other recommendations include the method of conception being registered on people's birth certificates to provide knowledge of genetic history for medical purposes.
The committee's report also highlights concern with the government's distinction between 'true' and 'inter-species' hybrids. The bill proposes that hybrid embryos combining animal eggs with human cells should be used for research into degenerative diseases.
In response the committee is calling for the sections in the draft bill relating to inter-species embryos should be put to a free vote in the houses of parliament in their entirety.
If parliament supports proposals to allow inter-species embryo research under licence, the committee recommends that any decisions on what type of research is allowed should be made by the regulatory authority on a case-by-case basis.
The committee also recommends that a free vote be held in parliament on the controversial element of the bill which would remove the requirement to take into account the need of the child for a father before IVF treatment can go ahead.
Committee chairman Phil Willis described today's report as "bold".
"On the question of research using inter-species embryos the committee is quite clear that it wishes to see a greater role for the regulator within a broad permissive framework set out by parliament."
Other committee proposals include the setting-up of a joint parliamentary bioethics committee and clarity about the ban in the draft bill on human cloning and the creation of embryos for IVF treatment from the genetic material of two women (without the need for fertilisation by sperm).
Commenting on today's report, the British Medical Association (BMA) said it is "delighted" with the recommendations relating to one body being created for tissue and embryo issues.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of BMA science and ethics, said: "This is the first time that the government's plans have been subject to scrutiny and they have fallen at the first hurdle.
"The reason for this is that it makes no sense to merge these two very distinct and sensitive areas of regulation."
The Royal Society added that the decision to reject the joint HTA-HFEA body is "excellent news".
"A merger risks diminishing the expertise to the detriment of both authorities," said Sir Richard Gardner, chair of the Royal Society's stem cell working group.
"It is essential that both the House of Commons and House of Lords are informed of all aspects of the debate on the creation of human-animal embryos prior to the proposed free-vote."