In July last year the Obama administration issued guidelines allowing federal funding for embryo-destructive research in spite of a 1996 law passed by Congress which explicitly banned the spending of taxpayers’ money on research involving the destruction of human embryos.

Lamberth argued that the authorities had tried to circumvent the 1996 law by making a distinction between work that involved destroying human embryos and work that involved embryos that were already available, such as leftover embryos from IVF treatment for which permission for research purposes had been granted. However Lamberth argued that this was a false distinction because the law plainly prohibits the expenditure of federal funds on “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed”, regardless of whether this occurred before or after the researchers got their hands on the embryos.

The case was brought by two scientists worried that opening up federal funding to embryonic stem cell research would imperil their own work using adult stem cells, an ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research which has produced 100 cures to date.

The Obama administration has announced that it will appeal the injunction.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said:

“We are delighted that the law banning federal funding for embryo-destructive research is being upheld in the US. This is an important victory which vindicates the outrage that millions of Americans feel that their money could potentially have been used for such destructive purposes. The next step is to end all funding for embryonic stem cell research which to date has not produced a single cure, as opposed to the many resulting from adult stem cell research.”

life of the human embryo, to coincide with the 60th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the United Kingdom supports this initiative.

The European Union is the only vehicle for receiving such a petition from European citizens and this is primarily addressed to the President of the EU, but it is intended to send copies to the Council and Commission as well.

We ask you to participate either by signing online (see form below) or by downloading and printing the petition here to collect the signatures of your friends.

Please only sign the petition if you are a UK resident and if you haven’t already signed this petition. Please send completed signature pages to:

ProLife Alliance

PO Box 13395

London SW3 6XE

The ProLife Alliance will ensure that all online and paper signatures are forwarded to the President of the European Union. We must act immediately as it is intended to present all signatures after the forthcoming European Elections.

European Online Petition:

‘In favour of life and human dignity’

To the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission, the President of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, the Secretary General of the UN and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

We the undersigned European citizens, consider that

We affirm

We request

EDM 144 FIRST EVER TRANSPLANT OF COMPLETE ORGAN GROWN FROM ADULT STEM CELLS04.12.2008

Amess, David

That this House notes with regret that the triumph of the first-ever development and transplant of a complete organ, a windpipe, grown in a laboratory from adult stem cells was not announced until after the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008; further notes that the stem cells were obtained from Claudio Castillo, the patient herself, avoiding any risk of rejection and the life-long need for immuno-suppressant drugs; further notes that the stem cells were sent to the UK and grown in a Bristol University laboratory; further notes that the University is a world centre for excellence in adult stem cell research presently using such techniques in clinical trials for the treatment of cystic fibrosis; recalls that in 1990 scientists promoting embryo research made huge promises of treatments which could be achieved, but that all such work has so far proved futile; regrets the departure of adult stem cell pioneer, Professor Colin McGuckin and his team of researchers from the UK to establish the largest adult stem-cell research centre in the world at the University of Lyon; further notes that they attribute their departure to the fact that in the past decade so much Government money has been used for embryo research which has produced nothing, while so little was given to adult stem cell work which in contrast has proved so successful; and calls on the Government to do more to foster research into treatments for desperately ill patients and boost the reputation of UK science.

Not only is this an appalling abuse of the basic principle of consent, but it is being rushed through by the Government in a completely underhand way. The amendment has been inserted into the Bill without any debate, and Labour MPs will be forced to vote in support of this on a three line Government whip.

Will wasn’t treated for a long time because of his gestation. I held him in the delivery suite for 7 hours with no intervention as we waited for him to die.

The hospital took him down to the Special Care Baby Unit at 7 hours old. But Will wasn’t actively treated until he was 36 hours old and that was after I had been told that he really had no chance of survival and if he did survive he would be severely disabled.

If Will had died as he was expected to he wouldn’t have even been classified as a live birth but as a late miscarriage which meant that I wouldn’t have been able to register his birth and death.

Will is now nearly 10 years old, has no disabilities or after effects whatsoever and is among the brightest in his class. If he can survive, then so can others.

Liz Goddard

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.