To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 8 January (HC Deb, cols 267–8), whether the published evidence regarding differences between human and macaque eggs and early embryos reveals that macaque eggs are more sensitive than their human counterparts to proposed manipulations for replacing mitochondria; if not, how the data indicating that macaque zygotes do not survive the pronuclear transfer process well suggest that human zygotes might fare any better; when the further advice from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s Expert Panel about the safety and efficacy of those techniques will be publicly available; and what consideration they have given to discussion of the safety of undertaking such techniques in humans by international regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that its Expert Panel considered the issue to which the noble Lord refers and reached the view of the appropriateness of models using macaque eggs on the basis of published research, as referenced in its report of March 2013 that can be found on the HFEA’s website at:
Additional information about survival rates was set out in the Written Answer provided by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health to the hon. Member for Enfield Southgate, David Burrowes, on
The HFEA has also advised that it is in contact with the Food and Drug Administration in the United States about this issue.