A question from British Parliamentarian Lord David Alton revealed last week that 155 human-animal embryos were created and subsequently destroyed by scientists in the U.K. reports the Daily Mail. The experiments took place in three university laboratories over the course of the last three years.
The Human Fertilization Embryology Act legalized the creation of the human-animal hybrids in 2008. Following its enactment, the labs were granted licenses for the creation of “cybrids,” in which human DNA is implanted into animal cells, and “chimeras,” in which human cells are infused with animal embryos.
The experiments have ceased due to a lack of funding, but the researchers claim their work is crucial in the potential discovery of cures for plethora of diseases—a claim Lord Alton called, “emotional blackmail.”
“None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment,” he said. “Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.”
To date, dozens of cures have been discovered utilizing adult stem cells which do not kill a person in the early stages of their lives. Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, has resulted in the formation of tumors in trials and fallen well short of the promises made by proponents.
“On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too,” said Alton.
Just days before, a group of British researchers before Parliament insisted that there is no cause for alarm because the embryos must be destroyed before reaching 14 days old. The law’s purpose was to permit their creation and stipulate their destruction.
The scientists warned of “a small number of future experiments, which could approach social and ethically sensitive areas which should have an extra layer of scrutiny,” and issued a report calling for the formation of an advisory body to govern ethical decisions. However, Peter Saunders of the U.K.'s Christian Medical Fellowship responded that the governing body would not end the experimentation and might instead provide cover for expanding the research.
“[T]he group already regard as ethical things that many members of the public either reject or have severe misgivings about,” he said. “[M]y concerns are about what might be being slipped in under the radar. Giving extreme examples can be a clever way of creating an illusion of self-regulation in order to move the boundaries of what is ethically acceptable. In other words if you make it clear you are not asking for a mile then you may reassure people enough to smuggle several hundred yards whilst no one is looking.”
