House of Lords debate adds little to the stem cell discussion

This week in the UK House of Lords, the lords and ladies gathered to discuss an issue which they have visited a number of times before: embryo stem cell research. This time, peers were discussing a report from a House of Lords Select Committee set up to consider the issue after a vote in the Lords in January 2001. Although the Lords voted in favour of embryo stem cell research, a last-minute amendment ruled that a Select Committee be set up to consider the issue. That committee reported in February 2002 and the House of Lords debated the report last week.

Reading over the Lords' discussion and the report that prompted it (see Recommends for a link to the debate), it is difficult to see what the Select Committee has added to a public debate which started with an HFEA consultation back in January 1998. The committee came to the same conclusions as its predecessors and, as such, did nothing to undermine the embryo stem cell research regulations which were passed in the Lords in January 2001. The extra year between the regulations and the report did, however, have the effect of stalling research. The HFEA waited until the publication of the House of Lords report until it issued its first licenses under the new regulations. Once the report appeared and expressed its support for research to go ahead, licenses were issued immediately.

The patients who might one day enjoy the fruits of stem cell research certainly haven't benefited from the year-long delay. So who has? Staunch opponents of embryo stem cell research, such as Lord Alton, have used every opportunity to stall regulation, perhaps in the hope that they can use the time gained to win support for their arguments. But this hasn't happened, nor will it. Perhaps anti-embryo research campaigners ought to stop using parliamentary tactics and judicial procedures to hold back important research and accept that public and parliamentary opinion does not support their view of the world.