BERNARD LORD WILL BE KNOWN TO IGNORE THE CHIILDREN IN NEW BRUNSWICK!!!

L-4, originally uploaded by Oldmaison.

The Times March 07, 2006

The crazy coalition holding back science
Matthew Syed
It's time to tackle the backward-looking legislators and political extremists who are allied against progress
PRO-CHOICE feminists and pro-life fundamentalists will tomorrow unite in outraged solidarity against what they see as the unethical exploitation of female reproductive tissue.

They have chosen International Women’s Day to raise placards that say: “Hands Off Our Ovaries”.

One’s suspicions are aroused when extremists from opposite ends of the political spectrum find common cause — and for good reason. The immediate issue that has fermented this unlikely alliance is the prospect that the Government’s fertility watchdog will clear women to donate eggs solely for the purposes of medical research. The “ovarian coalition” opposes the move. All right-minded people should back it to the hilt.

*
Click here to find out more!
We are not talking here about women being coerced to provide eggs or offered financial inducements to do so. On the contrary, the proposal is simply that women should be allowed to donate eggs voluntarily if they are satisfied that the specific risk to their health from the invasive procedure (which involves the artificial stimulation of ovaries) is justified by the medical advances that could result.

Such altruism is surely to be praised, not prohibited, particularly when one considers that the chronic shortage of eggs has seriously impeded attempts to produce cloned embryonic stem cells. These remarkable little things hold out the prospect of cures for a range of illnesses including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

It may seem strange that pro-choice feminists have decided to campaign against freedom of choice — until, that is, you hear their paranoid mutterings about “male doctors instrumentalising women’s reproductive capacities”. Choice, it seems, is only legitimate if it is exercised in a way that is approved of by the Sisterhood. The principal concern of the pro-life brigade is, of course, quite different. They are against testing on human embryos in all circumstances.

Given the divergent moral principles of the two sides, it has been difficult for them to find a common language in which to express their disapproval of egg donation. They have settled upon the dubious expedient of questioning the scientific basis of stem cell research. Undermining public confidence in science for ideological reasons is abhorrent, if familiar. It is reminiscent of the animal rights extremists who pretend that medical advances derived from animal experimentation are inapplicable to humans.

The good news is that the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority is likely to ignore the advice of the anti-donation campaigners and will soon liberalise the rules on donation. Those with loved ones suffering from Parkinson’s should not, however, celebrate just yet. The disturbing reality is that the ethical conservatives may yet thwart the success of therapeutic cloning by virtue of the damaging influence they wield beyond these shores.

Outside the United Kingdom and like-minded countries is a wider world in which scientists are being held in check by backward-thinking legislators. Medical innovation that might elicit an honour for a British scientist would lead to a jail sentence in the United States, Germany, Austria and Norway. The problem is that you can give British researchers as much freedom as you like but their progress will be at snail’s pace without the international collaboration that is crucial to scientific progress.

This issue is of such importance that an influential group of intellectuals gathered in London last week to come up with general principles that might provide some much-needed regulatory consistency. Their intention was noble, their optimism naive. How can we hope for international uniformity when the world’s decisionmakers apply incompatible (and often incoherent) principles to the field of medical ethics? In the midst of this global chaos is it any wonder that we see the coming together of wacky coalitions?

Things will rapidly get worse. The confusion surrounding the legitimacy of embryonic stem cell research is compounded when we delve into areas such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (in which embryos can be selected for particular genetic traits), gene therapy (which alters the genetic make-up of selected cells in the body), cybernetics (the alteration of mental or bodily function by embedding electronic systems within the body) and psychopharmacology (the chemical alteration of brain state or mood).

Some of the ethical issues raised by these emerging technologies are already upon us. Ritalin and other stimulants are prescribed to more than four million schoolchildren in the United States while others are buying the tablets from them to help to boost concentration for exams. Anabolic steroids and growth hormone are routinely (if illegally) taken by top athletes.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is already available for several dozen diseases. Nanodevices to destroy tumours could be available within a decade. Meanwhile, legislators fumble around in the dark.

It is not as if we lack a principle that can be used to tease out the moral implications of the new sciences. The proposition that public policy should be used to maximise aggregate welfare has been around for centuries and is central to the writings of Hume, Mill and other thinkers who helped to civilise the world. These pioneers would have had as little truck with those who resist embryonic stem cell research as they would with the feminists battling against voluntary egg donation.

It is often said that morality is failing to keep up with the pace of technological change. The truth is quite the reverse. “Public morality” — often dressed in the language of religious fundamentalism — is holding back scientific progress, something that will impose lasting damage on humanity.