by Gemma McNeilis
Britain’s international lead in stem cell research is being threatened because of a halt in funding, reveals Steve Connor, science editor at The Independent. Funding bodies such as the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council are reported to be refusing to finance new research into the creation of human-animal “hybrid” clones and existing projects have been run down to the point of closure.
It is only a year since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill became law. It was supported by both Gordon Brown and David Cameron and a number of eminent scientists and scientific bodies, including the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. So why has there been such reluctance to give funding? Steve Connor understands that grant applications may have been blocked by scientists on funding committees who are morally opposed to the creation of human-animal “hybrid” clones. In the US such research is banned from receiving federal government funding.
In an FT article written in November 2008 Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London , said: “The UK, through its firm commitment of public money to stem cell research, remains at the cutting edge of the science.” Does this current situation therefore threaten the wider message about Britain as a research-friendly country?
But it is not only a case of a shortage of public sector funding for this research. Prof Mason, who is on the UK Stem Cell Network steering committee has previously said that the lack of venture capital for the biotechnology industry has left the handful of small British companies attempting to commercialise stem cells very short of money.
Can it be ethical to prevent this crucial work? That is the question asked by Sophie Petit-Zeman, head of external relations at the Association of Medical Research Charities. She believes that hybrid embryo research shouldn’t get special treatment if something else can “better tackle our ills” but we shouldn’t use this pitfall as evidence to close the door “on what may yet turn out to be a crucial avenue of medical endeavour.”
Comments