British scientists were yesterday denied permission to create controversial human-animal hybrid embryos until doubts over the ethics and scientific value of the research are addressed.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said it was deferring a decision on whether to grant licences to teams from King's College London and Newcastle University until a wide-ranging consultation on the issue concluded in the autumn.
Scientists claim that stem cells from hybrid embryos will be vital to unravel the mysteries of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neurone diseases, and will pave the way for techniques capable of transforming skin cells from an adult into different tissues and organs. Opponents protest that the creation of embryos which are part human, part animal is abhorrent.
Last month, a government white paper outlining plans to update regulations included proposals to ban the creation of hybrid embryos. The government is due to produce a draft bill on the issue in March, which will be scrutinised by a select committee before being debated by MPs. Scientists believe it is possible to harvest human embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos, which are created by transplanting the genetic material from an adult cell into a hollowed-out egg. Attempts to produce stem cells using human eggs have so far failed, but with plentiful supplies of animal eggs, scientists believe they could perfect the technique.
The hybrid embryos would be more than 99% human, with small amounts of animal DNA bound up in tiny structures called mitochondria which provide energy for cells.
Experts met at the HFEA on Wednesday to discuss the issues raised and decided it was premature to issue research licences. Angela McNab, the chief executive, said in a statement: "This has proved complex and challenging as the law in this area is far from explicit and this area of research would be a significant step change in UK science ... There is not clear agreement within the scientific community about the need for and benefits of this science. The authority felt that it is important that we go through the issues and the science thoroughly and test the claims about the benefits of this research."
Stephen Minger, head of the King's College team, said: "We're happy for the consultation to happen if it means that the public and the HFEA are more informed about what we want to do. At last the HFEA have shown they're the regulators and not just government's poodle."
Josephine Quintavalle, of the lobby group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "Ethically we think this research is very unwelcome. This is about creating animal-human embryos and the question is, what has been created? I think the science has to be looked at very vigorously."
