On 5th September, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) decided that there was no “fundamental reason” to oppose research on animal-human hybrids. This acceptance of interspecies hybridisation, by the agency supposed to regulate the national usage of human embryos, marks an horrendous turn in the sorry history of research in human development.

What exactly the HFEA has accepted remains unclear, but the principle has been established. The nucleus from an adult human cell can be put inside an enucleated animal egg and allowed to develop for up to 14 days. There is no chance – at the moment – of the hybrid being implanted in any female, but an appalling image nevertheless lingers in the public mind. This is of a chimera, a creature neither fully human nor fully animal, but a monstrous amalgam of man and beast.

Many human activities are based on a fairly strict moral divide between animals and humans. It is acceptable to eat most animals, provided they are not poisonous (like the puffer fish) or culturally prohibited (like eating dogs or horses in the UK). Animals are farmed, reared for purposes such as milking or racing. Humans are not. Any attempt to introduce ‘human husbandry’ would rightly be condemned by every decent person.

Despite the promises of the scientists applying for the current research licences, the HFEA is not the cautious regulator it was intended to be. Rather, it has become an ‘open door’ for researchers into embryos and stem cells, with a track record of allowing almost any research. Licences for experimentation are rarely refused; those that are, are usually repackaged and nodded through. The worry is this: once principles like animal-human hybrids are accepted, British society will continue down an irresistible slide towards even more abhorrent experiments.

This is not the standard ‘slippery slope’ argument. In the absence of genuine controls over untrammelled and unrestrained science, the only real barriers will remain the consciences of individual scientists – not the safest of safeguards. This government remains ambiguous at best about the value of human life, so, with a clear majority in Parliament, little political restraint is exercised. The law is selectively interpreted by the HFEA and others to mean what they want it to mean. Indeed, in all likelihood, the animal-human hybrid actually takes the Authority way out of its legal sphere of powers anyway.

The British public are not in favour of animal-human hybrids. Polls which have shown evidence to the contrary are the result of misleading science fed to the respondent. Hypothetically, fewer people might disapprove if hybrids were definitely going to cure several debilitating illnesses, or even if such research was very likely to generate remedies – when given the true facts, of course. Instead, it is only possible that hybrids will lead to a cure, and even then better routes to other treatments exist. Even so, we remain opposed to all animal-human hybrid experimentation.

In all, the picture is bleak. The HFEA has laid down the principle and is unlikely to place real safeguards on the science. Yet another example of the liberalisation of science in the UK, and the reckless abandonment of popular ethical concern.

Share/Save