Social Issues – Additional news and reports (December 2008)
The following are important articles on recent social issues which, for lack of space, could not be included in the November 2008 issue (issue 9) of Affinity’s social issues publication, The Bulletin.
[1] Court blocks judicial review of hybrids research licences
[2] More IVF babies, but “success rate” stays low
[3] Regenerative medicine and stem cells – the basics
[4] Sex and relationships education in schools
[5] The decline and fall of the Royal Society
Court blocks judicial review of hybrids research licences
On 9 December 2008, the High Court refused the Christian Legal Centre and Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) a judicial review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s decision to grant research licences involving the creation of animal/human hybrids. The main concern in this case was that the rule of law was circumvented by the HFEA’s decision, which was taken in advance of Parliament’s decision on whether this kind of research should be allowed.
In a decision which will cost CORE and the CLC approximately £20,000, Mrs Justice Dobbs ruled that the challenge was not arguable because the HFEA had acted within their powers when granting the licences. Mrs Justice Dobbs held that the decision by the HFEA, following their own public consultation, was not irrational because proper consideration had been given to the issues surrounding the grant of the licences.
CORE and CLC argued that under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 the definition of a human embryo prohibited the creation of animal human hybrids (because they are not human) and that even if they were not prohibited, the licences were neither necessary nor desirable in the light of recent developments with adult stem cell research where the real progress in finding cures to serious illnesses is being made.
During the course of her judgment, Mrs Justice Dobbs said it was possible for a human animal hybrid to be defined under section 1 of the 1990 Act as a human embryo and that what is human depends on the facts understood by scientific knowledge at the time. This chilling statement shows little regard for the special status and dignity of what it means to be human.
Following this ruling there is now a danger that there will be further attempts by the HFEA and scientists to push the boundaries beyond even the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos without fearing legal challenge.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and founder of CLC, said: “We are indeed living in a brave and dangerous new world which appears to know no ethical boundaries. We have been penalised for our attempt to seek access to justice on behalf of the embryo and have been hit by substantial costs. It is a travesty of justice that public interest bodies cannot bring these cases without running up enormous costs. It is ironic that the HFEA was set up to be an independent body concerned with fundamental ethical questions and for the protection of public interest. Yet when public interest bodies wish to challenge controversial ethical decisions there is no internal means of doing so, whereas scientists refused a licence can ask the HFEA for reconsideration.”
Members of the public and public interest groups cannot challenge this type of decision unless they seek judicial review and are prepared to risk large amounts of money and resources which most can ill afford. This was an important legal challenge, since the HFEA has total control over the regulation of the embryo, and it is therefore vital that such a body is seen to be held properly accountable.
Fundamental ethical and legal challenges go to the heart of what it means to be a civilized society; how we should treat the most vulnerable members of our society – human embryos in the first days of life.
CORE and the CLC believe this judgment will stop members of the public challenging the actions of public bodies, and will therefore be to the detriment of justice.
From the Christian Legal Centre (edited)
More IVF babies, but “success rate” stays low
Assisted reproduction is becoming more popular. The latest data on IVF in the UK (relating to 2006) show that for the first time more than 10,000 women had ‘take home babies’. The actual numbers were 10,242 birth events, resulting in 12,596 babies.
Nevertheless, the overall ‘success rate’, officially known as the ‘live birth rate’, remains dismally low. It is just 23%. That is still a 77% ‘failure rate’ for the record 32,000 women who underwent IVF treatment in the UK. Moreover, the number of dangerous multiple births also remains stubbornly high. Despite continued efforts by the HFEA to lower this figure, because of the risks to mothers and babies, it decreased by just 1% to 23%. Twins and IVF still go hand-in-hand.
Top of the IVF ‘success rate’ league is the controversial Mohamed Taranissi, who operates from the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre (ARGC) in London. His ‘success rate’ for women under 35 and using their own fresh ova, has been a whacking 61%. Even so, Mr Taranissi has been in serious trouble. The BBC’s January 2007 Panorama programme accused him of pressurising women into unnecessary treatment. He subsequently sued the BBC, which has since abandoned its claim of ‘responsible journalism’, although it now faces a £0.5 million bill for Mr Taranissi’s costs. Also in January 2007, the HFEA raided his premises on suspicion of malpractice. In June 2007, the High Court ruled that the HFEA had illegally obtained the search warrant and the HFEA was faced with a legal bill that could reach £1 million. Then in July 2007, the HFEA banned him from operating because it alleged that he did not possess the proper licence. Mr Taranissi challenged this and in July 2008 the High Court granted him a judicial review. But, rather than face another hefty legal bill, the HFEA climbed down and annulled its July 2007 ruling against him. In the meantime, the HFEA has granted Mr Tananissi a short-term licence, which expires in May 2009, pending a decision by a new Licence Committee of the HFEA on whether he is suitable to act as a ‘Person Responsible’.
Dr John R Ling
Regenerative medicine and stem cells – the basics
There seems to be no stopping the regenerative medicine train – it is currently one of the hottest ‘hot-button’ topics of science. Its aim is to repair diseased or damaged tissues, such as cardiac cells after a heart attack, or brain neurons in a patient with dementia, by the addition of healthy, functioning cells of the same type.
It was the discovery of stem cells within the embryo at the end of the last century that gave this discipline its impetus. These stems cells were subsequently discovered in bone marrow, milk teeth, umbilical cord blood, plus a host of other physiological locations. Then the bioethical controversy of the use of ‘adult’ versus embryonic stem cells erupted - and this battle is still being fought.
However, it is fair to say that a growing number of the general public as well as the scientific community now consider the use of embryonic stem cells to be both over-hyped and even unnecessary. For example, James Thompson, the man who first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998 and the first in the US to produce iPS cells from adult skin has stated: “Human ES [embryonic stem] cells created this remarkable controversy, and iPS cells, while it’s not completely over, are sort of the beginning of the end for that controversy” and “a decade from now, this [adult versus embryonic controversy] will be just a funny historical footnote.” Ian Wilmut, who led the team which cloned Dolly, has said: “This [the use of iPS cells] is the future of stem cell research” and “I have no doubt that in the long term, direct reprogramming will be more productive.” John Gearhart, who first discovered human foetal embryonic stem cells, has added: “Like many of my colleagues, I will vigorously pursue the direct reprogramming of adult cells” and “I think this [using iPS cells] is the future of stem cell research. It’s absolutely terrific.” Nobel prize winner and pioneer of stem cell research, Sir Martin Evans, of the Cardiff School of Biosciences, has agreed: “This [the use of iPS cells] will be the long-term solution.”
The whole astonishing process of biological development begins in the embryo with undifferentiated stem cells and proceeds to differentiated cells that eventually will form adult tissues or organs. That is Biology 101. It is basically how you and I were physically constructed. Until recently, it was thought that this was an irreversible pathway, that is, the traffic went only one-way, from embryo to adult. We now know differently.
We now know that differentiated cells of one type can be converted to another type by a process called cellular reprogramming, or lineage reprogramming. This phenomenon of reprogramming is fascinating because, if it could be harnessed, it could be applied to regenerative medicine. It would mean that plentiful adult cells, which can be easily collected, could be converted to other medically-required cell types in order to repair diseased or damaged tissues and organs.
The work of Yamanaka and others has, in the last couple of years, demonstrated that cellular reprogramming in mammals can be accomplished by the introduction of just three or four specific transcription factors into the differentiated cell. It therefore seems likely that a surprisingly limited number of these factors could be used to reprogramme any given adult cell to become an entirely different type of cell, such as a stem cell, or another mature cell type. This is the basis for the excitement over the reprogramming of human skin cells to become induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Such a relatively simple technique raises the possibility of generating patient-specific human ‘embryonic-like’ stem cells that could then be used for treatments. No patient rejection, no bioethical worries – truly, it would be a milestone in regenerative medicine.
However, we are not there yet. Such therapies may still be several years away. Work such as the translation from animal to human models, human clinical trials and safety tests, will have to be completed first. And one of the key areas that is still far from understood is that of directed differentiation - how do stem cells become, for example, only neurons or only cardiac muscle cells, and then, how is this process to be directed efficiently and with precision? Another crucial unknown is how these transformed cells can be transplanted and integrated into the correct site within the body? Until these pieces of the biological jigsaw are understood and controlled there will be no cures for human diseases.
These formidable hurdles have led some researchers to wonder if it would be possible to short-circuit this complex system and simply transform one type of adult cell directly into another type in vivo, that is, within the organism’s body. Indeed, Qiao Zhou and his colleagues at Harvard University have recently reported an example of this in vivo reprogramming, using just three transcription factors, to achieve the transformation of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to ß-cells in mice. In other words, they were able to transform non-secreting pancreatic cells into those capable of secreting insulin, without the need for reversion to the undifferentiated pluripotent stem cell stage. This novel process is called transdifferentiation – now that should be of interest to all diabetics. It is true, the regenerative medicine train is getting up steam.
Dr John R Ling
Sex and relationships education in schools
A review was launched in February 2008 to look at how best to improve sex education in primary schools. The review steering group was co-chaired by Jim Knight, schools minister, Jackie Fisher, principle of Newcastle College, and Joshua McTaggart, the 16-year-old UK Youth Parliament representative. The steering group included members of the UK Youth Parliament, sexual health organisations, faith groups and teachers. Sex education is already compulsory as part of science but the aim is to present sex in the context of relationships, or as the Times Educational Supplement put it: “…children should learn the skills for coping with relationships, rather than just the mechanics of intercourse.”
On October 23 the Government announced that as part of a new personal, social and health education (PSHE) syllabus, sex education and lessons about drug and alcohol abuse will become compulsory in primary and secondary schools. The aim is to protect young people from pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and substance abuse. Reduction in sexual activity, the underlying reason for the high levels of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, does not appear to have been part of the agenda.
The proposals are unlikely to come into force until 2010 and the Minister gave assurances that the content of lessons would reflect the local views of parents. It appears that a decision has not yet been made as to whether parents would be able to withdraw their children from the sex and relationship lessons.
Justification for the new proposals is linked to three sets of data – (a) The old favourite - relatively low levels of sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies in Holland, where sex and relationship education starts at the age of five; (b) A majority of primary school teachers in favour of sex education in their schools; and (c ) a majority of parents who support sex education in schools because they are not confident enough to take on the role at home.
These justifications are shallow and only account for a select portion of available evidence and data and the proposals are unlikely to have the desired effect. However, the issue is not straightforward.
Although the commonly-presented pregnancy rates ( those measured in terms of numbers of pregnancies per year in a given age population of females) have remained more or less constant over the last 30 years or so, rates determined in terms of pregnancies as a portion of sexually active females has decreased steadily. In blunt terms, the increasing sexual activity of teenage females over the last 30 years has been accompanied by a relative decrease in the pregnancy rate amongst such females. This could be regarded as a success for sex education and the push for more and more readily available contraceptives. The primary issue the government needs to address is the fact that the number of sexually-active teenagers is increasing and at such a rate as to negate any reductions in pregnancies and other unwanted consequences that result from sex education. Since sex education is itself likely to promote sexual activity, the government needs to rethink its strategy since the only winners are the manufacturers of contraceptives.
Pregnancy rates vary widely across the country and in some parts match the lower levels experienced in Holland. Why? The higher pregnancy rates are often associated with the poorest 20% slice of society, exactly the slice that the Next Generation report (discussed above) addresses. If this is the case then the government, by making sex and relationships education compulsory in all schools, is subjecting 80% of the population to a remedy for a problem that is primarily located in 20% of the population.
Of course, the breakdown of the problem to a 20% slice of society is too simplistic. For example, many more parents and children in wider society would probably benefit from education on relationships. The question then is what are the messages on relationships to be? There is a very determined liberal cohort in education that seems to be intent on promoting sexual activity. They seek to deflect criticism by talking of sex inside a relationship, but the relationships they have in mind often appear to amount to little more than mutual agreements to have fun via sexual activity with no consequences.
The debate on sex education is taking place within a society where peer pressure is high and the barriers to sexual activity have dropped so low that even Christian pastors and other workers regularly come across young Christians who are apparently quite happy to engage in sex outside marriage. Sex and relationships education in schools, even at its best, is unlikely to reverse this situation.
What we can do is use the opportunities that are provided to make our views known in our local schools and to our MP. We can advocate a biblical view of relationships and families and the place of sexual activity that also makes sense in terms of social research and other experience. We can oppose superficial, liberal views of relationships. We can seek to press the logic that reduced sexual activity will result in lower unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. We can oppose the safe sex message on the grounds that to those who are not sexually active (still the majority of children under 16 years) it raises the expectations on them to be sexually active (surely you should be doing it, if we are telling you how to do it safely) and lowers the barriers which inhibit it (here are the means to do it safely and avoid upsetting your life and your parents).
Peter Fearnley
The decline and fall of the Royal Society
Before it becomes an incident assigned to history, The Bulletin would wish to put on record its own assessment of the decision of the Royal Society in September 2008 to dismiss Professor Michael Reiss from his part-time post as the Society’s director of education.
Professor Reiss was sacked because in his Society capacity he referred to creationism in a way which, in the eyes of the secular fundamentalists of the scientific world, amounted to giving creationism credibility.
Whatever did Professor Reiss say to warrant so decisive and drastic a punishment?
Well, it was all quite bland really. After stating that in his estimation about 10% of the UK population believed that the earth was only about 10,000 years old and came into being in something like the way described in the Bible or the Qur’an, Professor Reiss expressed some thoughts about how those who held such a view should be handled:
“I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.”
Such a statement does not appear at first glance to be putting at risk the whole citadel of evolutionary hypothesis, but that is how it seems to have been interpreted. The immediate reaction of the “science is secular and this is not discussible” lobby was to express outrage to the Royal Society to such an extent that the pressure was too much for the Society’s initial sense of proportion, and it gave Professor Reiss his notice.
A statement issued by the Society following the dismissal claimed that Professor Reiss’s remarks had “led to damage to the Society’s reputation.” It would be interesting to conjecture what “damage” the words of sweet reasonableness uttered by Professor Reiss could possibly have done. But there is a more significant question: “What is this ‘reputation’ which a clearly immensely self-conscious Royal Society believes it has?” Certainly it cannot be a reputation for open-minded impartial inquiry, since the very action of the Society in dismissing Professor Reiss is the classic response of closed and blinkered minds. Could it be a reputation for consistency and integrity? Well, not really. In its statement following Professor Reiss’s dismissal, the Society said: “The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.” Bizarre and full of holes as this “position” is, that is not its main villainy. In the context it was made, it is monstrously disingenuous. Nothing that Professor Reiss said infringes a single word of “the Royal Society’s position” and to imply that it does is a gross and mischievous injustice. The precise nature of the reputation that has been “damaged” remains unestablished.
The reputation the Society has made for itself over this particular episode in its long and illustrious history is one of ultra-sensitive defensiveness. So fearful is it of the possible influence of creationism on scientific thinking that it has adopted a strategy of zero-tolerance. Such a stance will only increase the credibility and influence of creationism, and this will result in great benefit both to the creationist tendency and to the popular discussion of the theories of origins; but it will seriously damage the scientific establishment, whose authority will take years to recover.
The irony is that the scientific establishment’s sensitivities are so out of keeping with contemporary realities. In November, a survey of teachers in state schools showed that one-third of them would be perfectly happy for creationism to be given equal validity with evolution in the school curriculum. The Independent newspaper carried a serious and impartial article based on an interview with a six-day creationist, Wes McNabb, a pastor in South-East London, and his family. To the scientific “establishment,” six-day creationists are as eccentric as flat-earthers, but the world at large is somewhat more generous-spirited and more at ease with itself, and can afford to be reasonable. In fact the man in the Clapham omnibus would be more likely to agree with Professor Reiss that creationism was a world-view which needed to be discussed rather than a poisonous error which needed to be eradicated than be joining the wringing of hands in the offices of the Royal Society.
This whole episode reminds us that the assimilation of ideologies is cyclical. There was a time during the 350-year history of the Royal Society when biblical evangelical presuppositions were in the ascendancy. Take, for instance, the controversy which greeting the election to Parliament in 1880 of the atheist Charles Bradlaugh by the people of Northampton. In 2008, one would be struggling to find even one evangelical Christian who would recoil in shock and horror if an atheist should take his or her seat in Parliament, but in 1880 the resistance to the very idea was profound and almost universal. Views on such matters can be significantly tempered by the contemporary climate.
Where will the cycle go from here? It is vital that evangelical Christians should encourage the debate, and continue, with great courtesy but with firm insistence, to coax the establishment out of all its dens of intellectual incarceration, and to challenge it to practice true science – the discovery of knowledge.
Rod Badams
The Bulletin is published by Affinity’s Social Issues Team. Its editor is Rod Badams, FIEC Administrator, 39 The Point, Market Harborough LE16 7QU. Tel. 01858 411554. Email:
