Days from now, the bill for the revised Human Fertilisation and Embryology act will be finally get its verdict whether to permit or ban the controversial human/animal embryo. But that’s not all, the revised Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill also contains issue such as allowing ’savior siblings’, the need for fatherless figure and as a sidenote to cut down the abortion decision from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

What is legal and what is not

Currently, all people who are in UK is bound by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). This provide a strict guidelines on areas such as in-vitro fertilization, abortion and most importantly - research!
Basically in the act, it prohibits the storage of any embryo longer than 14 days and it also prohibits the implantation of animal embryo to human and vice versa. Granting of a license (and thereby, allowing you to carry out the research) is governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority. They are tasked to assess research proposals and making sure that those granted with licensed will be strictly follow the guidelines.

This hullabaloo started when a proposal was given to HFEA, dealing with usage of animal egg cell and human genetic material mixed together to create a hybrid stem cell. Certainly, the act do not cover such act but it raises many questions, which provoke the bill to be passed.

Hybrids and chimera

Before we proceed, it is important to make a clear cut of using the word - hybrid and chimera.

Hybrids are the result of breeding of two species of different taxa. This can be done between species of different sub-species, which is known as intra-species hybridization or between species within the same genera, which is known as interspecies hybridization. It is also possible to get a cross between two species of different genera, which is known as intergeneric hybridization. In rare occasion, we can also interfamilial hybrids. Basically, a hybrid requires a male and a female in order to be created. In most occasion, the resulting organism from hybridization is sterile due to failure to create a viable gametes.

Chimera, on the other hand, is a mixture of two genetically distinct zygote. Clearly, this is different from hybrids as it can happen between species of the same taxa. For instance, when a woman is destined to born twins but at rare occasion, these two zygotes can fused together and producing only one offspring. In the process of fusion, there could be a problem. If the zygotes have different sexes, the fusion could lead to form an individual with two sets of genes, a male-specific and female-specific; thus forming a hermaphrodite. If the zygotes have the same sex, then that should be alright.

I would not really quantify the animal/human mixed together to form an embryo as hybrid. Since it doesn’t really entail the use of a male of different taxa to create an offspring from a female of another taxa.

So what does the bill says?

Basically, the scientists wanted to create a mixture of animal and human to form embryo that can be used for stem cell research. To do this, the animal egg cell’s genetic material (primarily the nucleus) is taken out and then replaced this by a human nucleus (And we all know that the nucleus actually is where DNA, the genetic material, is found…). The resulting cell will then be a allowed to grow and after around 6 days, they can harvest embryonic stem cells (ESC). Because ESCs are undifferentiated cells, they can be directed to form a specific differentiated cells, such as cells for heart and thereby produce a heart tissue.

The embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells (that is with pluripotential) that can give rise to a specific unipotent tissue or cell lines (Picture from wikipedia)

The bill, if passed, would allow researchers to use this method. But it is still prohibited for the admixed embryo to develop beyond 14 days and it will be illegal to implant the embryo to humans or animals.

Arguments against the admixed embryo

Most of the arguments against the creation of such embryo came from religious group. They claimed it is highly unethical and unnatural. The teleological approach that every individual has its own purpose and that purpose need to be fulfilled opposes the idea of gene movement. It is even more unethical the human identity be transferred or mixed with another species. This also concerns with an unnatural practice. They claimed that there is no way in nature that two different species are mixed together. Thus, this prohibits humans to artificially mix together a human and animal. The creation of the admixed embryo threatens the ‘web of life’, as we are now adding in new species rather than letting the nature takes it own course.

Others, such as the PassionforLife Group, said that such ethical and unnatural action is off-limits to humans. It is time for the government to set a limit to what scientists can do. They further argued that even if it is doable, it doesn’t mean it has to be done.

Scientific heroic action?

Scientists are very firm in claiming that admixed embryo is the way to go. With embryonic stem cells from admixed embryo, it can better recapitulate the disease in question as well as to provide treatment. Some of the diseases that can be studied are Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. And because ESC are undifferentiated cells, many other molecular/cell signalling pathway can be elucidated when it is induced to a specific cell line. This would certainly aid in understanding on the nature of cancer cells.

Currently, scientists rely on ‘rejected’ in-vitro fertilised eggs. IVF is a process used in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), wherein, fertilization occurs outside of the body of the mother. IVF selects out the genetically impaired fertilised eggs (and thus, ‘rejected’ IVF eggs) and the fertilised egg that is diagnosed as ‘normal’ will be implanted to the mother’s womb. Such availability, however, is scarce.

Scientists cannot also rely on donation of human egg cells like that of sperm donation as the human has a fixed number of oocytes after adolescents.

Savior Siblings

Savior siblings are embryos that are created (through PGD) that’s been selected specifically to treat his brother or sister’s genetic illness. The selection will be based upon tissue match and cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord were obtained to be used as ESC for the treatment of the disease. Such provision will only be allowed in the case where the sick child don’t have any other treatment means other than using ESCs from his brother/sister.

Arguments against Savior Siblings

Certainly followers of Kant’s deontological ethics would despise such action. For them, it is not right for humans to be used as a means to an end. Humans should not be treated like commodities and be used to satisfy the need of another.

Disability rights group further on stating that savior siblings will be a step to eugenics and subsequently genetic discrimination. PGD is a way of belittling more genetically impaired people. Selecting out makes these ‘abnormal people’ a useless or lower form of humans.

There is also the issue of consent. An individual has the right of himself. Deliberately taking anything from the baby without his or her consent is much like stealing an organ from an adult human. Obviously, a baby cannot decide on this issue, as such, it is not allowed to take on such action.

It can also emotionally affect the savior sibling as being just a savior sibling for his older brother/sister, and not really as a child. There could be the potential feeling of inferiority and unacceptance.

I need a hero

There are some diseases that can only be treated by replacing of a diseased tissue with a matched tissue. Again, resources are limited. The only way to get a good match tissue is from the close relative of the diseased person. The closest we can get is to undergo PGD, select for a match in IVF egg, provide ESC to the diseased child and give birth to the new baby without any detrimental effect.

My thoughts

I grew up with a belief on Christianity and I do believe in morality but I am also trained to think scientifically, that is to understand the natural world and find an answer to the detrimental sicknesses. As much as possible, I try to reconcile my moral belief with my scientific obligations. I do think these two things can be compatible in some ways.

First is the issue of ethics and natural in developing admixed embryo. The majority had spoken. I looked at various polls and more than 80% actually despise the idea of admixed embryo. This, as it is termed, the ‘yuck factor’. Just the thought of it makes them puke. But for me, that is not a good basis for such argument. Not because something is ‘disgusting’, it is not good. This can also apply to ‘natural’. If it is not natural, then does it follow it is not good?

But what is disgusting? What is unnatural? Those are terms that cannot be quantify is easily. As Wittgenstein would point out, there is always been a problem of communication. The words that I say might be interpreted in other ways. Disgusting. It’s a relative term. Perhaps, I am not disgusted as because I understand the whole process. I witnessed cells. I understand genes, DNAs, RNAs, proteins and even the process on how they are make, how they are produced and how they can be used. In what way can an animal cell mixed with human DNA disgusting? A cell is a cell. Scientists never claim that they would use the admixed embryo to produce a sphinx, a mermaid or a tikbalang. (Why the heck we have these kind of myths and folklores? Why do we LOVE them in arts and literature when in fact, we should be DISGUSTED?) Scientists just will be using this cell to obtain ESCs and after that the embryo will be destroyed.

The issue of natural. I mentioned earlier, chimera do exist in nature. So what makes admixed embryo unnatural? Is it because we never actually see nature doing it? But what we can see is not exactly we is happening. Or do we forget that it is not natural for humans to take on some transplant from a different animal, ie pig’s heart? Why the opposition in admixed embryo? And why not curse first the transplantation process? When does making of car, airplanes and trains part of nature? Is it natural? Why are we not disgusted with such ideas? Is it because they are USEFUL? Can’t admixed embryo be USEFUL? Why allow the use of hearing aid? Why allow the use of fake teeth? Are they natural as well? To put a finger on admixed embryo is to first establish the consistency of the use of natural term. Heck, it is not even natural to do farming or cooking.

I would take the consequentialist approach in this kind of dilemma. Allowing scientists to work on such research will certainly help in understanding of many diseases and find cure. Just imagine how many people will be saved after this. How many those who are suffering (and sharing the suffering) will be eased because of sacrifice of ANIMAL egg cells! Not because I believe in such action, I am no longer following any moral principles, in fact, I do understand the sanctity of life that the church preach. And to be consistent with that is to understand that science by using this technique can ease pain, prolong LIFE and make life of people with these diseases more tolerable. Scientists are not gods and I don’t consider them to play like gods. I would think that God makes scientists do this because that is His will. Jesus never forgets those who are sick. He helped them. He prioritised them. And He, in my knowledge, do not preach against using animals for our own sake. In fact, the book of genesis started the story of men with God placing Adam as a dominion and caretaker of all animals and plants.

The research of many scientists are always hindered by technology and approval of the society. Perhaps, still the public mistrust the science community. Despite of vigorous public demonstration, science still fails to get through to people that whatever the scientific community is doing is for the greater good and not for useless Frankenstein experiment. It is tough. Perhaps, communication is still lacking. Distribution of knowledge is still not enough. The words like cloning, stem cells, preimplantation still scare people. It takes two to tango as they say, and people should learn to take effort in listening to science before making a decision; in the flipside, science should clearly explain what is happening in the lab.

The only resolving point that I can see in here is that admixed embryo should be pushed through but with very strict guidelines allowing only a few research group to take in part. Alongside of this, the outcome of any experiment should be documented well and be relay to the public.

Believe me, it’s for everyone sake. You might not know, the outcome of this admixed embryo will be benefit you in the future. And if you still hold on to your disgust and unnatural scare, then you are free to say no to the treatment. But spare others, others who want and need it.