Embryology

House of Lords written question – answered on 30th March 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool Crossbench

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the likely impact for British researchers of the Opinion of the Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-34/10 (Brüstle v Greenpeace); and whether the definitions employed by the Advocate-General accord with those in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended).

Photo of Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

The legal opinion of the Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-34/10 (Brüstle v Greenpeace) will assist the judges who have yet to rule in this case. Although influential, the Advocate-General's opinion is advisory and does not hinder the Court. As such, the opinion itself currently has no impact for British researchers.

The concept of a human embryo set out in the Advocate-General's opinion at paragraph 1 19, first indent, is consistent with the definition of human embryo in Section 1(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended). The Advocate-General is clear that the definition of a human embryo is given only for the purpose of interpreting directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. UK researchers will still have to work within the definition set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended).

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.