Wednesday, November 19, 2008

In praise of... stem cell research

reposted from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/medical-research-genetics-stem-cell

The unlocking of knowledge that seems to happen on an almost daily basis through stem cell research passed an extraordinary milestone yesterday with the announcement that a young Colombian woman had received the first tailor-made replacement organ.

Little more than a decade after stem cells were first isolated by Dr James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, it seems the great hopes invested in them are already starting to be realised.

A trans-European interdisciplinary team that included scientists and surgeons in Bristol, Italy and Spain successfully

transplanted a section of windpipe from a human donor which had been stripped of its biological identity and then clothed in cartilage specially cultured from Claudia Castillo's own bone marrow stem cells, avoiding the need for powerful immunosuppressive drugs.

As the Lancet drily reported, "This patient provides new evidence that autologous cells combined with appropriate biomaterials might provide, in future, successful functional solutions for serious clinical disorders." There is still a long way to go before the complex organs - the hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys - will be tailor-made, but it no longer looks like fantasy. This was a notable European triumph, a tribute in particular to the UK regulatory framework that enabled the stem cell research to make such rapid strides.

Now the election of Barack Obama, committed to removing the block on federal funding for most stem cell research in the US, can only speed the process.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Stem cells 'created from teeth'

Coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of groups of embryonic stem cells
Many religious groups object to using embryos for medical research

Japanese scientists say they have created human stem cells from tissue taken from the discarded wisdom teeth of a 10-year-old girl.

The researchers say

their work suggests that wisdom teeth could be a suitable alternative to human embryos as a source for therapeutic stem cells.

Research involving stem cells is seen as having the potential to treat many life-threatening diseases.

But some people believe using human embryos is ethically controversial.

The researchers, based at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), say it will be at least five years before their findings result in practical medical applications.

Dual benefit

...

The AIST researchers said they had identified a form of stem cell in the wisdom teeth which had the capability to develop and be grown successfully into other forms of cell outside the body.

The cells they harvested continued to grow in the laboratory for just over a month, they added.

The leader of the team, Hajime Ogushi, said the research was significant in two ways.

"One is that we can avoid the ethical issues of stem cells because wisdom teeth are destined to be thrown away anyway," he told the AFP news agency.

"Also, we used teeth that had been extracted three years ago and had been preserved in a freezer. That means that it's easy for us to stock this source of stem cells."

In the US, dentists are starting to offer to store stem cells taken from wisdom teeth and from baby teeth, another potential source, for therapeutic purposes in the future.

Last year, a team of US and Japanese scientists announced they had managed to produce stem cells from skin.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

MPs back hybrid embryo research

A human embryo
Critics say tinkering with human embryos is 'immoral'

The government has survived two big challenges to its controversial plans to change the law on embryo research for the first time in 20 years.

A cross-party attempt to ban hybrid human animal embryos was defeated on a free vote, by 336 to 176.

Catholic cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy voted for a ban. PM Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron both opposed it.

A bid to ban "saviour siblings" was voted down by 342 votes to 163.

The votes followed two impassioned debates in the committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, aimed at updating laws from 1990 in line with scientific advances.

'Ethically wrong'

On Tuesday, MPs have a further free vote on the emotive issue of cutting the abortion time limit.

Mr Cameron, along with Mr Brown, has backed the use of hybrid embryos as a means to develop treatments for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. They also both support the creation of "saviour siblings".

BILL'S KEY VOTES
Use of hybrid embryos - Monday
'Saviour siblings' - Monday
Role of fathers in IVF - Tuesday
Abortion limits - Tuesday

However, the majority of the Tory shadow cabinet, including shadow foreign secretary William Hague and shadow home secretary David Davis, backed the unsuccessful attempt to ban hybrids.

Ex-minister Edward Leigh, who led the fight against the creation of hybrid "admixed" embryos, said they were "ethically wrong and almost certainly medically useless".

He said there was "no evidence yet to substantiate" claims the work could lead to treatment for degenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

The bill would allow regulated research using hybrid or "admix" embryos, where the nuclei of human cells are inserted into animal eggs. The resulting embryos would be kept for up to 14 days to harvest stem cells.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo says any research done using human embryos "must satisfy the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that it was necessary or desirable".

No human "admix" embryo would be implanted into a woman or animal, she says.

'Too human'?

But Mr Leigh said: "We do not believe that regulation is enough. We believe this is a step too far and therefore should be banned.

"In embryos, we do have the genetic make up of a complete human being and we could not and should not be spliced together with the animal kingdom."

And ex-Labour minister Sir Gerald Kaufman, agreed, adding: "How far do you go? Where do you stop? What are the limits and what are the boundaries?

"If you permit the creation of hybrid embryos now, what will you seek to permit next time, even if you have no idea where it will lead?"

MPs comment on embryo bill defeat

Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's arguments were like those used by church leaders against the smallpox vaccine.

"They were wrong and I think you are wrong today," he said.

Liberal Democrat Evan Harris criticised those who argued hybrid embryos were too human.

"If it's ethically acceptable to use up and destroy fully human embryos with all the potential they have, how is it right to provide for hybrid embryos, with less potential of viability, greater protection?" he said.

A separate attempt to ban "pure" hybrid embryos, that would mix a human egg with animal sperm or vice versa, was also defeated in the Commons by 286 votes to 223, a government majority of 63.

Tory David Burrowes' attempt to stop parents having so-called "saviour siblings" - babies selected to provide genetic material for seriously ill relatives - also suffered defeat.

The Bill would allow the selection of embryos that are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister.

But Mr Burrowes said it was wrong to create a child for the benefit of another, regardless of "the need".

MPs are being given a free vote on four controversial parts of the bill. The other two areas are:

  • Role of fathers in fertility treatment: Would end the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the "welfare" of any child created in terms of need for a father. Debate from 1530 BST Tuesday, with vote at about 1830 BST.
  • The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.

The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as "monstrous" and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.

Catholic bishops in Britain and the Irish Republic have given £25,000 to scientists using adult stem cells, which is less controversial than using immature ones.

HAVE YOUR SAY
There are ethical alternatives to what is, in effect, creating a Frankenstein hybrid
Paul, Belfast

Such cells can be used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating diseases.

But Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the result would keep the UK at the forefront of embryo research.

Conservative leader David Cameron, along with Mr Brown, has backed the use of hybrid embryos as a means to develop treatments for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. They also both support the creation of "saviour siblings".

Scientists at Newcastle University announced last month that they had created the first part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos in the UK.

They were created by injecting DNA derived from human skin cells into eggs taken from cows' ovaries which had had virtually all their genetic material removed.

Researchers say these human-animal "admixed" embryos could help solve the current problem of the lack of human eggs from which to generate embryos.

Graphic

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Embryology Bill: the key points

MPs begin debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, an updated version of the current legislation which became law in 1990, this week.

An eight-cell embryo
Research on very early embryos is one of the most controversial areas of the Bill

It was drafted because of a feeling the existing law was increasingly out-dated and irrelevant to scientific advances made in the last 20 years.

But several of the key issues are causing bitter divisions of opinion.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was forced to offer a free vote on three controversial areas in order to avert a rebellion by Catholic MPs.

Here, we set out the debate on those three points, plus a bid to reduce the abortion time limit - also controversial - which is set to be discussed as an amendment to the Bill.

HYBRID EMBRYOS

A hybrid embryo is a mixture of animal and human tissue.

They are created by transferring DNA from human cells, such as skin cells, into animal eggs that have had virtually all their genetic information removed.

The resulting embryos are more than 99% human, with a small animal component of around 0.1%.

They are then grown in the lab for a few days before being harvested for stem cells, immature cells that can become many types of tissue.

Animal eggs are being suggested because of a lack of human eggs available for this kind of work.

Such admixed embryos would never be allowed to develop beyond a few days. It is already illegal to implant human-animal embryos in the womb or bring them to term.

Two licences to create hybrid embryos have already been granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and a team in Newcastle has successfully produced them.

What are the arguments in favour of this process?

Scientists who advocate the work say the cells would allow them to study how genetic defects, which cause diseases such as Parkinson's, develop.

They also say that stem cells' ability to develop into different tissues mean it could be possible to use cells formed in this process to cure diseases.

What are the arguments against?

Opponents say it is tampering with nature, and is unethical.

FATHER FIGURE

Existing legislation requires IVF clinics to consider the "welfare" of any child created. That currently means considering the need for a father.

The new Bill says this should no longer be the case.

What is the argument in favour?

It is said that some lesbian couples and single women have not been allowed to have treatment, and those in favour of the change - including government ministers - say removing the need for that consideration means that would not occur.

After criticism, the wording in the Bill has changed from considering the need for a father to needing "supportive parenting".

What is the opposition to this proposal?

Opponents say the phrase "supportive parenting" denigrates the role of fathers in a child's life

They say retaining the need to consider the need for a father would reinforce the importance of role, but not prevent single women or lesbians from having treatment.

Tory peer John Patten has said recently that having a father brings a range of practical and spiritual benefits to a child, including better health, education and future earning power and less chance of criminal behaviour.

He said a having a father figure also provides boys with a positive role model to look up to.

SAVIOUR SIBLINGS

Saviour siblings are babies born because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition.

Cells from the baby's bone marrow or umbilical cord are used to treat the older child.

It is only considered where conventional treatment, such as using an existing family member as a donor, has been ruled out.

Embryos are created using the mother's eggs and the father's sperm. They are then allowed to develop to the eight-cell stage, which takes two to three days.

One or two cells are removed from each embryo, and tested to see if they have the genetic flaw responsible for the existing child's illness.

An embryo which is a tissue match, but unaffected by the gene flaw, is then implanted in the mother's womb for it to develop.

This type of tissue typing has already been permitted for six families, although it is not explicitly covered by the 1990 Act.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), the technique used to see if an embryo is a match, is legally permitted now if a genetic condition is present in a family.

It can be used to check an embryo does not carry any one of 50 different conditions including cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

What is the argument in favour?

That children who have no other hope of treatment for serious medical conditions could be helped, at no detriment to their new brother or sister.

What is the argument against?

There are fears children will be created as saviour siblings alone, and not because they are a wanted child.

There are also concerns that PGD will be used to select male or female embryos, even when there is no risk of a genetic condition. Some sex selection is already permitted, if the condition concerned is something such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which primarily affects boys.

ABORTION

The upper time limit for abortions is not addressed in the main Bill, but Conservative MP Nadine Dorries is tabling an amendment which means it will be discussed at the same time.

ABORTIONS, ENGLAND & WALES 2006
193,000 abortions took place
89% before 13 weeks
2,948 - 1.5% - after 20 weeks
90% of those took place between 22 and 24 weeks

She, and those who agree with her, want to see the time limit reduced to 20 weeks, from 24.

The argument centres on a foetus's "viability", and around the improvements in the treatment of babies born prematurely, and at what stage they can survive.

What is the argument in favour of reducing the limit?

Ms Dorries says babies born at 24 weeks are increasingly likely to survive, and it should therefore not be permitted to abort pregnancies at this stage.

Right-to-life groups add that efforts should be made to save every life.

And what is the argument against?

Studies, including one published in the British Medical Journal this month, show that while survival rates have increased significantly for babies born at 24 and 25 weeks, they have not risen for babies born 23 weeks or less.

Very few terminations take place at this stage of pregnancy.

But those in favour of keeping the limit as it is say that. since it is the 20 week scan which reveals severe abnormalities, parents need time to make a decision about whether they are going to keep the baby.

Scientists' protest discouraged by MRC

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

Newcastle University's hybrid embryos
Hybrid embryos have already been created in the UK

Scientists are being discouraged from attending Parliament on Monday to show their support for proposed embryology and fertility legislation.

Documents obtained by BBC News show the Medical Research Council (MRC) believes any lobbying of MPs would be "counter-productive".

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill contains controversial proposals on abortion, IVF and hybrid embryos.

Opponents believe the measures are unethical and unnecessary.

Having worked with patient groups in supporting the bill thus far we would leave them high and dry if we didn't give them public support on the day that the bill reaches the Commons
Dr Stephen Minger

Prominent stem cell scientists had been invited by campaigners to a show of support for the bill, along with patient groups and doctors.

The aim, according to the organisers, is to counter lobbying by groups opposed to embryo research - and to explain the science to interested MPs.

BBC News has learned that the head of policy at the MRC, Tony Peatfield, has emailed the heads of four of its institutes asking them to tell staff that the MRC cannot support researchers involved in the event.

He says that the corporate view is that the presence of scientists outside Parliament could have a "negative impact" and might "actually be counter-productive to the research that (the MRC) would like to see progress".

Angry response

One of the scientists invited to the event is Dr Stephen Minger - who holds one of the two licences to clone human embryos for research purposes.

He said that he "failed to understand the MRC's view".

Dr Minger said that as a result of Mr Peatfield's note, rather than just turn up by himself he is now urging his entire laboratory staff to attend.

He said: "By giving our support to the bill we are showing MPs that there is another point of view.

"And it was lobbying by scientists in the first place that meant that the government was able to understand why the creation of hybrid embryos was necessary.

"Having worked with patient groups in supporting the bill thus far we would leave them high and dry if we didn't give them public support on the day that the bill reaches the Commons."

Dr Evan Harris, who organised the event, described the MRC's response as "rather absurd and paranoid".

He said: "It is a valid part of public engagement - which the MRC is supposed to be encouraging - for scientists to come to Parliament and explain their research."

In his email to institute heads, Mr Peatfield forwarded an earlier note sent by the MRC's head of clinical research and ethics, Catherine Elliot. This note, he said, "is now the corporate view".

Dr Elliot states: "The feedback we have had is that the scientists who are speaking about these issues, to MPs and in the media, appear measured, rational, and not pushing their agenda against all odds.

"Again we would emphasise that pictures of apparently protesting scientists is quite likely to undermine this.

"While we appreciate that protest is not the intention of the event that is how pictures may well be interpreted."

In a statement, the MRC said: "In common with all organisations receiving public money, the MRC has a responsibility to ensure that it uses the most appropriate methods to communicate its policy.

"It is not appropriate for the MRC to undertake lobbying activities such as public demonstrations or protests.

"If scientists supported by the MRC wish to become involved in lobbying in a personal capacity, for example by demonstrating outside Parliament, they are free to do so, but we require them to make clear that this is in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of the MRC."

Monday, March 31, 2008

Q&A: Hybrid embryos

Early embryo
Early embryos yield stem cells
A bill is going through Parliament which would allow scientists to create human-animal embryos for research.

Researchers say the work is needed to advance the understanding of complex diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Motor Neurone Disease.

But critics say it involves the needless destruction of human life, and is fraught with moral difficulties.

What is a hybrid?

A hybrid embryo is a mixture of both human and animal tissue.

The experiments that some British scientists want to conduct involve transferring nuclei containing DNA from human cells, such as skin cells, into animal eggs that have had almost all of their genetic information removed.

The resulting cytoplasmic embryos - known as admixed embryos - are more than 99% human, with a small animal component, making up around 0.1%.

The embryo would be grown in the lab for a few days, then harvested for stem cells - immature cells that can become many types of tissue.

Why use animal eggs?

The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research.

Also, experts say using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense because the process is less cumbersome and yields better results.

How could this help find disease cures?

Scientists say they can use embryonic stem cells to study different disease processes.

For example, they could take genetic material from a person with Parkinson's disease and put it into an empty animal egg to make stem cells that will carry the same genetic defects that cause Parkinson's.

Stem cells also have the potential to grow into different tissues, so in the future it might be possible to transplant cells cloned from individual patients to cure diseases.

What are the concerns about the work?

Opponents say this is tampering with nature and is unethical.

Critics say they are repulsed by the idea and there must be no creation of an animal-human hybrid.

It is already illegal to implant human-animal embryos in the womb or bring them to term.

One of the scientists applying to do hybrid work, Professor Chris Shaw from Kings College London, stressed: "We think there is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about this.

"While we understand the concerns, we think they are largely founded on misinformation.

"People think we are generating some sort of hybrid animal. This is just cells, just for science. No animal is ever going to be created."

What does the law say?

Although ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed updating as science had moved on significantly, they were initially cool on the idea of creating human-animal embryos.

However, they bowed to pressure from scientists, who argued a ban would hamper medical research.

In addition, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee carried out an inquiry into the proposals and concluded that the creation of hybrid embryos was necessary for research and that there should not be a complete ban.

A draft bill published in May 2007 allows for the creation of human embryos that have been physically mixed with one or more animal cells. However, true human-animal hybrids, made by the fusion of sperm and eggs, would remain outlawed.

Will the bill become law?

Opponents are determined to block the proposals. Several leading members of the Catholic Church have described them as immoral.

In his Easter sermon, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the church in Scotland, described the legislation as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life".

A significant number of MPs, including several Catholic members of the Cabinet, are also reported to have serious concerns about the legislation, leading to speculation of high profile resignations.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised that MPs will be given a free vote on some of the more controversial aspects of the bill, including human-animal embryos.

Some 200 medical charities have urged MPs to support legislation allowing the creation of animal-human embryos.

And Labour peer and fertility expert Lord Winston has accused the church of misleading the public over the issue.

Are there other controversial elements to the draft bill?

Yes. The draft bill approves the creation of so-called Saviour siblings. This would allow doctors to select an embryo for IVF which could not only create a new child, but also tissue which may be able to treat an existing sick sibling.

The bill would also end the need for IVF clinics to consider the need for a "father figure" when deciding whether or not to offer treatment.

Will the scientists be able to proceed with their work?

The body that grants licences for embryo research, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has agreed in principle to the creation of human-animal hybrids.

However, it also stressed that each application must be considered closely on its own merits.

If future government legislation differs from the HFEA line, then the regulator will be forced to rethink.

MPs urged to support embryo bill

MPs urged to support embryo bill
Early embryo
Hybrids are made using an animal egg mixed with human genes
Leading charities have written to every MP urging them to support the controversial embryo research bill, the BBC has learned.

Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation are among more than 200 charities in favour of the creation of human-animal hybrids for research.

The prime minister is facing dissent over the bill, from some of his Labour MPs and leading Catholic clergy.

But Health Secretary Alan Johnson said an "accommodation" would be found.

The letter, written by the Association of Medical Research Charities, says

although there are ethical issues in allowing scientists to create embryos that combine human DNA and animal cells for research, the move offers "considerable benefits" to future patients.

The letter goes on to say the charities believe there is considerable public support for the move.

The letter states: "... public understanding of the importance of the use of early-stage embryos and ensuing stem cell research remains robust; there is a real acknowledgement of its potential for those who are ill."

Faith

Mr Johnson has said an "accommodation" will be reached for those Labour MPs who are opposed to parts of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Prominent Catholic clergy have called for all MPs to have a free vote - Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will allow their MPs a free vote.

Catholics and others will want to vote according to their conscience
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

It is understood Labour MPs may be allowed to abstain on parts of the bill, as long as its passage is not threatened.

Alan Johnson told Sky News: "I believe... once we have discussed all these issues and seen all the safeguards in the bill, that there will not be a split.

"But there will be an accommodation for those who have a particular sensitivity around this, including those whose sensitivity relates to their faith."

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales, said MPs would want to vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill according to their convictions.

"Certainly, there are some aspects of this bill on which I believe there ought to be a free vote, because Catholics and others will want to vote according to their conscience," he told Sky News in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

"I don't think it should be subject to the party whip."

'Way forward'

The government says the medical benefits of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes could ease the suffering of millions of people.

For people out there suffering from Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease, this is not a question of some issue about the procedure through the House of Commons. This is an issue about whether we can find the drugs that can cure their illnesses
Health Secretary Alan Johnson

The embryos are made by combining animal eggs with human nuclei, which can then be grown into stem cells and used by scientists. The bill comes in response to a shortage of available human eggs for research.

Mr Johnson said the bill tackles deadly and debilitating diseases.

"For people out there suffering from Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease, this is not a question of some issue about the procedure through the House of Commons," he told BBC News 24.

"This is an issue about whether we can find the drugs that can cure their illnesses. So this is the heart of the matter."

One Catholic Labour MP, Joe Benton, has warned that a "substantial number" of fellow Labour MPs are ready to defy the government if there is no free vote.

Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy is reportedly prepared to quit the cabinet rather than vote for the bill. Other Catholics in the cabinet are Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said the bill was an important piece of government business which must be passed, but suggested a compromise was possible.

He told Sky News: "I believe it is possible, if we listen to the arguments and we remove the misunderstandings, to find a way forward so the government can complete its business."

Anglican bishop

But in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Labour MP Stephen Byers - a former cabinet minister under Tony Blair - said the public would "look on in disbelief" if Mr Brown did not offer a free vote.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Since when did the Catholic church decide how the British government conducts its affairs?
Tony, Newcastle

Other senior Catholic clergymen including Scottish leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien and the Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, have also called on Mr Brown to allow a free vote.

And on Sunday the Anglican Bishop of Durham issued a rallying call to all faiths to object to the "1984-style" proposals.

The Right Reverend

Tom Wright accused ministers of pushing through legislation from "a militantly atheist and secularist lobby".

Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, a member of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee, said it was right to conduct research that "might be used to treat people with terrible diseases".

The bill received its first reading in the House of Commons in February, and while no date has been set for its second reading - or approval in principle - it is viewed as a key piece of legislation on the government's agenda.

The bill is designed to bring the 1990 regulatory framework for fertility treatment and embryo research in line with scientific advances.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

A matter of life and death

Its opponents say it sanctions 'the ultimate incest', and will create monsters. Its supporters see only the hope it offers to the ill and infertile. The embryology bill is so divisive that Gordon brown has taken the unusual step of allowing MPs a free vote.

So what are the key issues, and who is lobbying on each side?
Aida Edemariam reports

This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday March 27 2008 on p12 of the Comment & features section. It was last updated at 00:04 on March 27 2008.

The human fertilisation and embryos bill is among the most emotive and divisive bills to have come to parliament since its decision to enter the Iraq war. Cabinet ministers - until Gordon Brown allowed, this week, a free vote - indicated they might have to resign rather than vote for it. Rationalists may claim that the bill is simply catching up with the scientific developments of the past few years, but where the very tissues of human life are concerned, nothing is that simple.

The science involved is so advanced that, like it or not, the nitty-gritty of the bill rubs up against some of the most fundamental philosophical questions there are: at what point can life be said to exist?
What choices can be exercised at that point, and who gets to exercise them? Should we go to infinite lengths to cure illness, or is it sometimes more ethical to accept defeat? What does it mean to be a parent? What if there is only one parent? What if there are three? What does it mean to be a child? What does it mean to be human?

Now that there is to be a free vote in May, those who have been lobbying behind the scenes have everything to fight for. So where are the battle lines being drawn and who is on each side?

Embryo research, therapeutic cloning, therapeutic licences

Since 1990, it has been possible to conduct experiments on specially created human embryos - but only in the first 14 days of their existence, when they do not have anything resembling a central nervous system. They are then destroyed. Since 2000, it has also been possible to use these embryos for research into incurable diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, muscular dystrophy and motor neurone disease.

The sticking point is the next step: the creation of embryonic stem cell lines that could then be licensed for the ongoing clinical treatment of - as opposed to research into - particular diseases.
This is the holy grail of stem cell research - that healthy cells can be used to replace missing or damaged ones, and thus heal people suffering from currently incurable diseases. At the moment, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the regulatory body that polices the current act, can't license such use; scientists and doctors, however, argue that it would waste valuable time, and possibly lives, to have to go back to parliament every time such use seemed to be the only option.

For The aspects of embryo research included in the bill are broadly supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Royal College of Nursing. These groups have everyday, first-hand evidence of incurable suffering, and seek a permissive but highly regulated environment in which such suffering might potentially be eased. They are also supported by more than 200 patient organisations such as Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Society and Diabetes UK.

Against

Bodies such as, most vociferously, the Catholic church, which argue that an embryo at any stage of its development is human - and therefore has an inalienable right to life.
Thus any situation in which embryos are created and destroyed is playing God, unethical and immoral; situations in which embryonic stem cells are created simply to treat other human beings are, further, a commodification of human life. The Catholic church is against most aspects of this bill. It is not necessarily against stem cell research, however, as long as the stem cells are derived from adult tissue.

Embryonic research is opposed, for many of the same reasons, by anti-abortion groups such as Alive and Kicking, and by the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, which works with pro-life outfits such as Life, Care, Core, and the Christian Medical Fellowship.

Proponents of the bill such as Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat Science spokesman, and a member the commons select committee on innovation, universities, science and skills, believe that some groups, such as the Christian Institute, campaign through the all-party parliamentary pro-life group in order not to appear solely religious-based.

Human animal hybrid embryos

The most contentious part of the bill concerns the creation of so-called animal-human hybrid embryos (referred to in the bill as "admixed" embryos). This is actually already permitted under current legislation and the (HFEA) granted year-long licences in January for scientists to work on creating hybrids. It made the decision after a public consultation lasting several months. If it is adopted, the new bill will formalise this activity by giving it explicit parliamentary approval.

The word hybrid may conjure up images of creatures that are part-human, part-animal, but such images are misleading. The embryos will be prevented by law from developing past 14 days, at which point they are a microscopic ball of cells. Their DNA is more than 99% human. Scientists have lobbied hard for parliamentary backing for hybrids because they say they are essential for advancing stem cell research into Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and type 1 diabetes. At present, to create stem cells for research they need donated human eggs, but there are not enough available to meet demand. Instead of using human eggs it is possible to use animal eggs, for example from cows. The procedure involves inserting a nucleus from an adult human cell into the hollowed out animal egg. The resulting cell contains almost entirely human DNA except for a tiny amount of animal genetic material in structures left behind in the egg called mitochondria. The resulting cell begins dividing like an embryo and scientists can extract stem cells from it for research. The research must occur under licences from the HFEA and it will be illegal to implant it into the womb of a human or animal.

For Because this is basically an answer to a practical problem - the shortage of human eggs - and would fall under all the strict regulations that already govern the use of human eggs in research, all bodies that support embryo research support this aspect of it.

Dr Belinda Cupid of the Motor Neurone Disease Association, for example, has said that there is "currently no cure for motor neurone disease, but allowing the use of hybrid and chimera embryos in scientific research may revolutionise the future treatment of the disease and other degenerative neurological conditions".

Against Cardinal Keith O'Brien used his Easter sermon to denounce experiments of what he called "Frankenstein proportion" and branded the bill a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life". Catholics object to the notion of putting human and animal DNA in the same entity and to the notion of creating what they regard as a life for the purposes of research that will then be destroyed.

Mitochondrial transplantation

Mitochondria, found in most human cells, are responsible, among other things, for producing and regulating their chemical energy. Malfunction causes severe childhood illness and often death, and can be passed down through generations. Mitochondrial transplantation would involve removing the nucleus from the egg of the mother and placing it in a donor egg, which would then be fertilised. Chromosomes - which determine the DNA of the child - are located in the nucleus, and so the child would be a true genetic offspring of its two parents - albeit with a few extra bits of mitochondrial DNA from the donor. As Dr Mark Hamilton, chair of the British Fertility Society puts it, "the genetic content of the offspring would be 99.99% from the mother".

For Mitochondrial diseases are "very debilitating, painful and distressing," says Hamilton, who suggests that anyone involved in caring for those affected - one in 10,000 of British children - would want some way for it never to happen again; that in this context a few alien strands of DNA are neither here or there. They would not, for instance, affect a child's appearance.

Against 99.99% is not enough for the detractors, who point out that, in effect, the child would have three parents, two female and one male. What would this mean for the child's identity? Would it have the right to know the identity of the third parent? Does this third parent have rights over the child? Again, the Catholic church, but also anyone who finds the manipulation of gametes, eggs or sperm unacceptable has difficulty with this. "We should not be messing around with the building blocks of life," said Josephine Quintavelle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, when it was reported in February that one such embryo had lived for five days.

Saviour siblings

The original 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act allowed for the creation of so-called "saviour siblings" for children suffering from what it referred to as "life-threatening" conditions. A technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows scientists to select embryos during IVF that are, for example, tissue-matched to a sibling and so would be able to provide compatible tissue to treat the condition. This technique involves extracting a cell from an embryo at the eight-cell stage and conducting genetic tests on it to see if it is compatible. This is typically done on a handful of embryos created by IVF and only genetically compatible embryos are implanted into the mother's uterus.

Saviour siblings have been allowed by the HFEA for treating rare inherited blood disorders in a handful of cases. Britain's first saviour sibling, Jamie Whitaker, was actually conceived in Chicago, after his parents were denied permission to select a tissue-matched embryo. But in 2002, the parents of Zain Hashmi were permitted to select a saviour sibling by IVF who could provide his brother with a bone-marrow transplant that would cure a rare blood disorder called beta thalassaemia. The new bill gives regulators more scope to allow saviour siblings by extending the wording to "serious and potentially life-threatening" conditions. It does not permit embryo selection decisions on the basis of providing a future organ transplant.

For Most parents with terribly ill children will obviously move heaven and earth to keep them alive. Bodies such as the British Fertility Society see no reason why it should not be possible in very carefully controlled cases. In situations where it has been carried out," says Hamilton, "I don't know if the outcome has been anything other than positive."

Against There are serious objections connected to the rights of the created child. Some people do not believe it is ethical to produce a child specifically to save another individual; they worry, with good reason, about straying into the arena of the designer baby. There are also concerns about the psychological impact on the created child. Will it feel as loved and wanted knowing that it was created in order to save another?

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

This, a negative variation of the above, involves testing embryos for specific genes and chromosomes - usually for serious inherited diseases - before they are implanted in the womb. It has been possible since the 80s, and is routinely used in IVF, where the embryos can be screened for more than 20 possible conditions. The proposal is to allow extension beyond IVF, where a parent with a hereditary disease or defective gene can have an embryo, or a group of embryos, created outside the body, and then make sure only healthy embryos are implanted. "Most normal, rational creatures want to have children who are fairly healthy," says Willis. "If you're a carrier of a hereditary disease, then clearly you don't want just to take pot luck." Actively choosing "defects" such as deafness is not allowed. Social sex selection - as opposed to sex selection based on the increased likelihood of a particular gender carrying a particular disease - is also banned (creating a rare situation in which the Catholic church agrees).

For The Genetic Interest Group, which represents clinical geneticists, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Against Paula Garfield, a theatre director, and her partner, Tomato Lichy, an artist and designer, both deaf, hoped to have the possibility of using IVF to screen for a deaf child. They are outraged that this is not allowed (embryos carrying deafness genes are automatically discarded) because, they argue, it is tantamount to deciding that deaf children are inherently less valuable than children who are not deaf. Again, the Catholic lobby is uncomfortable with taking choice to these extremes. The all-party parliamentary pro-life group also argues against this.

Artificial ('stem cell derived') gametes

This is, essentially, the production of sperm or eggs not from the testes, or ovaries, but from stem cells, which could come from elsewhere in the body - from the skin, for example. Legislation currently allows so-called artificial gametes in research, but bans it for creating a human pregnancy, whereby an artificially created sperm would be allowed to fertilise either a normally created or an artificially created egg and implanted in a woman. Amendments have been suggested that would allow it in certain situations, such as infertility arising from testicular cancer, or chemotherapy.

For The British Medical Association, the Medical Research Council, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Hamilton gives the example of a recent patient of his, a woman in her 20s, who has just had to have both her ovaries removed, and is therefore sterile - unless she is allowed egg donation, or maybe, in the future when such processes have been thoroughly tested, have an egg of her own derived from another cell. "This technology is not here yet, but if you ban it in primary legislation then you're saying it should never happen."

Against Allowing this would, theoretically, open up the possibility of cutting out the need for the opposite sex altogether, because it would be possible to take a woman's cell and grow it into sperm to fertilise her own egg, for example. Quintavalle has called it "the ultimate incest". "Most scientists don't believe that's possible," says Willis, "because you need an X and a Y chromosome. But there is a feeling that if that could be overcome, then let's do without men altogether. Which might be very popular with some groups, but is probably not something parliament should be encouraging."

'Fatherhood' issues

Partly as a consquence of anti-discrimination laws, and the Civil Partnership Act, the bill removes the requirement that fertility clinics take into account a child's "need for a father". It would thus enable lesbian couples and single women to have equal access to fertility treatment. Lesbian couples would legally be allowed to put both names on a birth certificate, without the partner who did not physically give birth having to go through an adoption process.

For The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Stonewall, and anyone, such as the Lib Dems, who argues that the "need for a father" is discriminatory against lesbians and solo mothers. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, has condemned opponents of the bill for being obsessed with "a few hundred (people) who have an opportunity to have a second loving parent".

Against Religious groups, but also social conservatives who do not necessarily identify as religious are upset by this because they see it as a sign of social decay. There is also the argument - supported by much research - that children with a mother and a father do better in life than those without fathers; however, this research, says Harris, mostly assumes "that the outcomes for children born to solo mothers are the same as those born to teenage mums abandoned by their fathers, or family breakup. The evidence is that the outcome for these children is rather like that for families where the father dies - where there hasn't been conflict, or abandonment, and that otherwise it's not different in terms of outcome from other families."

No father's groups have yet made any representation because the argument is not about access - the issue is whether or not women who have chosen to go it alone, or lesbians, should have equal access to infertility treatment. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, warned last year that this amendment was putting the interests of "consumers" who wanted to become parents before the welfare of children. "There is an unpleasant seam of rampant individualism at the heart of this bill," he said, "rooted in a consumerist mentality, where the science that allows something to happen is transformed into the right to have it."

Abortion

The bill does not include abortion, but it is widely expected that it will be used as a vehicle to amend the law on both sides of the debate. Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries, for example, is expected to table an amendment, supported by David Cameron, that would reduce the legal cut-off point from 24 to 20 weeks; there are suggestions that there should be a mandatory two-week cooling off period before any abortion is carried out. There may also be attempts to remove the right to abort seriously deformed foetuses after 24 weeks. Pro-choice campaigners may argue that it should no longer be necessary to have two doctors' signatures for an abortion to occur, and they may attempt a rethink on the law in Northern Ireland.

In any other situation abortion would be quite enough of a flashpoint on its own; the fact that it hasn't attracted quite the attention it might have simply underlines the gravity and scope of the other issues involved.

· Additional reporting by James Randerson.