UK defers decision on human animal hybrids

A decision on whether to further liberalise the UK cloning laws to allow the use of enucleated animal eggs as vehicles to create human embryos has been deferred to allow time for a public consultation on the subject. The regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), said it needs to consult because the law is far from explicit and human animal hybrid research would be a significant step-change in UK science.

Two universities have applied to the HFEA for licenses to carry out such work using rabbits’ and cows’ eggs. The rationale for using animal eggs is that it would both allow scientists to hone their cloning techniques without wasting the scare resource of human eggs, and could provide very important models of human diseases for use in drug discovery. No stem cells derived from embryos produced in this way could be used as the basis of human therapies.

The issue of whether or not to grant these licenses has got caught up in a wider review of the UK’s fertility laws. More than 500 respondents to a consultation on the wider law had objected to extending the law to allow the use of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning.

On the other hand the UK’s reputation as the international leader in stem cell research could be compromised by a ban.

There was also a question mark over whether or not the matter was within the HFEA’s jurisdiction. 

UK scientists in the field have been lobbying hard for the licenses to be granted. On Wednesday 45 of them, including three Nobel Laureates, wrote a letter to The Times newspaper, noting that the objectors to the research are in general the same people who object to all research involving human embryos.

In the event the HFEA decided it does have the right to rule on the matter, but also said there should be a consultation on this issue specifically.

“The issues around hybrid and chimera research are unique and different from mainstream human embryo research,” said Angela McNab, Chief Executive of the HFEA in a statement. “They have proved challenging but as the independent regulator we have a duty to judge this work under the current law.”

The HFEA decided that there needs to be a public debate and consultation as to whether, in principle, licenses for these sorts of research could be granted.

“From the evidence considered so far this issue is far from black and white,” said McNab.

“There is not clear agreement within the scientific community about the need for and benefits of this science. The [HFEA] 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.”

“In the light of this, the authority felt it would be wrong to make an immediate judgment on these complex and controversial matters before we have built up a proper body of evidence.” 

The consultation is expected to be completed in the autumn, and the HFEA will then consider applications for a license.