(Except clauses 4, 11, 14 and 23, schedule 2, and any new clauses or new schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners) - Clause 29
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I can see clearly what the Minister is saying. I said that this was a probing amendment and I was not wedded to it. I do not have strong views about the amendment, and a defence is not the ideal way to deal with this. However, it is necessary for the Committee to be certain about what is going to happen. I never spoke about “every researcher working with eggs”—which is what the Minister said—because obviously, if eggs are frozen, they are not in culture and they are not going to divide. I spoke about “every researcher who is dealing with eggs in culture”. Considering the situation, including this debate and what has been said in the Minister’s letter, it appears that those researchers will have to get a licence. I do not believe that that was the previous position—I know that it was not. There will be more licences, and regulation will extend. If regulation must extend as a by-product of a wider definition for other reasons then so be it, but it is important that researchers understand that.
Some researchers have a view on the matter. Those at Newcastle told me that it would be a disappointment to researchers that the spectre—as they put it—of the need to get a licence was going to hang over anyone working with eggs where the purpose did not involve fertilisation and so forth. At least now there is clarity about the Government’s position on that. The HFEA will have to work quickly before and after enactment, to ensure that everyone is clear.
One other area is not absolutely clear. The Minister has finished her contribution so I am not necessarily expecting a reply, but I would like her, and those reading the proceedings, to reflect on this. An egg is defined as a cell of the
“female germ line at any stage of maturity”.
If one has an embryonic stem cell that is pluripotent, at what point does that become an early stage bone marrow or germ line stem cell? It is pluripotent; in theory, from that embryonic stem cell, a cell from that line could be differentiated into a germ line cell—that is the point of them. There is therefore another question about at what stage people who are researching solely on stem cell lines—separate from the embryo work that another group may be doing—may themselves need a licence. The entity that they are working with may be heading with differentiation towards a germ line cell, and it may be considered to be captured. The storage of such cells is a licensable activity.
The point that I was making in tabling the amendment was that the breadth of regulation might well have increased, but it is not a question of scientists not knowing either the law or what they are doing. I was a little surprised by the Minister and do not think that she was serious when she said that I was arguing that senior scientists did not know what they were doing. The way science works means that it sometimes surprises people, and many discoveries are made through surprising and serendipitous findings, so no scientist is able to say in a protocol that something definitely will or will not happen. That is the nature and excitement of research. Clearly, any scientist working in this field has a responsibility to know and accept the law. When it is likely that an embryo, or something that could possibly be defined as an embryo, will be created, they will have to get a licence.
I do not want it to be left in anyone’s mind that scientists do not understand the law or are seeking to avoid it. It is just that there will now be extra regulation. If the Minister could reflect on the question about embryonic stem cells and when they become germ line cells at any stage of development, it might be useful to clarify that, because the HFEA will certainly have to.