'Human embryos aren't patentable' – European Court 

A decision of the European Court handed down this morning upholds the dignity of human beings from conception, and confirms that processes that entail destruction of human embryos cannot be patented. No patents may be granted on the use of human embryonic stem cells where those stem cells have been obtained by destroying embryos. 

"We are delighted that the Court has made clear that human embryos are not to be treated as mere raw materials for research." said Dominica Roberts, Chairman of the ProLife Alliance.  "Perhaps this will encourage scientists to divert their efforts to seeking more cures with adult stem cells. Use of adult stem cells is not only entirely ethical but has so far proved much more effective."

The European Court was interpreting an EU Regulation on patenting (98/44). This states that "uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes" shall not be patented.  

For more comment, ring the ProLife Alliance 0207 581 6939 or Dominica Roberts direct on 01344 422902.  See also the European Court Press release here. 

ProLife Alliance

18 October 2011

The full judgment can be found online here (click on Brüstle)

In future these subjects must be “treated with a level of impartiality adequate and appropriate to the content, taking account of the nature of the content and the likely audience expectation.”

This should prevent for example programmes in effect advertising assisted suicide, by showing over and over again the same few unrepresentative people sich as Debbie Purdie, and ignoring the tens of thousands of vulnerable patients who strongly wish the law to continue to protect them.

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

Among the 21 men and women in the trial, aged between 20 and 53, 17 had improved on a scale of disability after three years. A futher trial involving 100 people is expected to get underway soon.

Many people will see this as great news for stem cells in general – and not recognise that this is success story for adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The truth is this – there is a way forward that does not involve embryonic stem cells – if bone marrow stem cells are effective in neurology for MS, then why not for stroke?

The Metro in particular ends its very good report with a brief paragraph stating that “Earlier this month, ReNeuron has got the go-ahead to do the world’s first trial using stem cells to repair brain damage in stroke victims” – completely failing to mention that the ReNeuron trial is using cells from an aborted baby and is therefore highly controversial, compared to the universally accepted and supported practice of using bone marrow stem cells.

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.

In addition, the ProLife Alliance called for research to be conducted using ethical sources of adult stem cells from blood, bone marrow, skin, hair and other tissue not involving the destruction of human embryos.

We pointed out at the time that umblical cord blood is thrown away in hospitals every day and could be used in research. We also warned that embryonic stem cells are far behind adult stem cells, which have been used in blood marrow transplants for decades. We warned that basic preliminary research had not been done with embryo research, and that it appeared likely that embryonic stem cells would never be able to be used in transplants as they had a tendency to grow out of control. We warned that if embryo research was allowed it would channel funds away from more promising and completely ethical adult stem cell research and far from helping, it would delay cures for patients.

At the time, much of the media jumped on the embryo research bandwagon, reporting that embryo research would lead to cures for every known condition, despite the clinical evidence showing that adult stem cell research was in fact ahead of embryonic stem cell research. The media often failed to report that adult stem cells existed and the prolife position was often erroneously reported as being against medical research, rather than in favour of ethical stem cell alternatives.

Fast forward ten years, and one of the UK’s leading stem cell researchers is reported in the Times Education Supplement to have attacked the UK’s bias for embryo research, which has led to umbilical cord stem cell research being neglected and underfunded. Professor Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at Newcastle University and an expert in adult stem cells, has left Newcastle and moved to France to open the world’s biggest institute devoted to cord blood and adult stem-cell research at the University of Lyon.

He has criticised the hype from both the media and the Government around embryo research which has led to Newcastle University prioritising embryonic stem-cell research above work with adult stem cells, despite the more immediate clinical benefits offered by his work. He said: “You would barely know that adult stem cells exist at Newcastle. (France) is very supportive of adult stem cells because they know that these are the things that are in the clinic right now and will be more likely in the clinic. A vast amount of money in the UK from the Government has gone into embryonic stem-cell research with not one patient having been treated, to the detriment of (research into) adult stem cells, which has been severely underfunded.”

Professor Anthony Hollander, professor of rheumatology and tissue engineering at the University of Bristol is also quoted in the same article saying: “We desperately need more funding for adult stem-cell research because with these cells we really can make a difference to patients’ lives, and we can do it now, not in ten years’ time as is promised for embryonic stem cells.”

In the last ten years not one patient has been treated with embryonic stem cells, but in this time, many patients have been treated with adult stem cells. Scientists have regenerated heart tissue using bone marrow stem cells, repaired spinal cord using nasal stem cells, used blood stem stem cell transplantation to treat diabetes patients, and to repair damaged retinas, restoring sight to the blind. Isn’t it time that the Government stopped embryo research and channelled all funding into ethical umbilical cord and other adult stem cell research? And isn’t it time for the media to acknowledge that the prolife position is not just ethically but also scientifically sound?

1. Lord Winston is asked if there is a consensus on the rights of the embryo.
Lord Winston replies that he asked some people at a talk he recently attended (no mention of number of people or why they attended) if they support embryo research if there is a chance of finding cures, and they agreed. It is incredible that a scientist would extrapolate from this tiny biased sample that this is indicative of public opinion! Lord Winston himself acknowledged straightaway that he had asked a loaded question. In fact it was also a massively misleading question as it suggests that embryo research is going to lead to cures and it suggests that there is no alternative – untrue again. This is exactly why a proper platform for those who oppose embryo research and support ethical alternatives such as adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research is needed.

Lord Winston failed to mention that the Wellcome Trust commissioned a series of focus groups which were a lot more rigorous, which proved the exact opposite, that people opposed research on embryos when asked.

Lord Winston went on to say that under the law a child does not have full human rights until the child is born -completely untrue, as even under the Abortion Act, the appalling piece of legislation which allows the destruction of 200,000 babies a year in the UK, abortion is only allowed up till 24 weeks under specific grounds, and the limit is a massive issue of debate with polling indicating that the vast majority of people are uncomfortable with the abortion of highly developed babies up to six months old. Later in the interview, Lord Winston completely contradicts himself by talking about the rights the embryo has at 14 days.

2. The interviewer says he was recently at a meeting of Eurostem which is trying to produce ethical guidance on the use of human embryos and the one thing they couldn’t get consensus is the status of the embryo. Could Lord Winston think of any way to take onboard the concerns of religious groups and still be pragmatic?
This was a golden opportunity for Lord Winston to say any number of things. Those who believe in the right to life of all human beings will always oppose all destruction of human embryos but in a democratic society, at the very least the consensus should be to restrict the number of embryos used in research. Equally, it would be fair to say no research proposals will go ahead unless it is clear that they are scientifically valid when reviewed by a committee representing those of prolife views (unlike the current practice of the HFEA saying yes to everyone), or no embryos would be used in research until ethical alternatives are exhausted, such as adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells. This would be completely in line with the ethical principle in scientific research that you don’t test on human beings until you have exhausted all alternative avenues and proved that the treatment is likely to have a beneficial effect when used in humans. No one could really argue with this. If there is an alternative to using embryos, such as umbilical cord stem cells or adult stem cells, then why on earth aren’t we using it? Lord Winston didn’t say any of these very reasonable things, he said instead, that it doesn’t matter about taking onboard the concerns of those who are opposed to research.

One final point, a consensus on the status of embryos is possible. All we have to look to is the Declaration of Human Rights, the right to life is absolute and accepted universally – it’s clear that the embryo is the first stage of a human life, without which none of us would be here. Lord Winston does mention the right to life, but says that it is fine to kill in defence, what honestly does that have to do with the defenceless embryo?

No one who opposes the destruction of embryos is quoted, the only person allowed to comment is the IVF doctor who developed the test, who has a vested interest in its promotion. There is no mention of the fact that many of these conditions are now treatable or that these embryos could enjoy four or five decades before suffering from these late onset conditions. By promoting, not simply reporting this development, The Times isn’t fulfiling its democratic duty to inform the public. Failing to emphasise the negative aspects of embryo testing and destruction is totally unfair to parents who are being sold embryo testing and encouraged to opt for destruction of that embryo, under the incredible guise of helping the child.

As one of the most respected broadsheets in the UK, reporting on a major area of ethics – the creation and destruction of human life, who should live and who should die, why is no one quoted who opposes this? The ProLife Alliance has always supported treatments and cures and opposed the destruction of embryos. Why can’t we channel the hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted on embryo research and expensive IVF cycles on the NHS paid for by the taxpayer, into either developing treatments for these conditions or giving patients existing treatments which work but are denied to them on cost grounds?

And why is the most obvious point not made – pretty much the entire population of the UK is going to suffer from one of these conditions at some point during their life so why destroy embryos which are not much different than the rest of us?

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.