"Bill to Ban Human-Animal Hybrid Creation Introduced in Congress"

An AmP shout-out to Rep. Chris Smith:

Yesterday, Rep. Chris Smith introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act, H.R. 5910, to ban the creation of part-human, part-animal hybrid beings. The legislation is timely as researchers are already tinkering with human-animal hybrid technologies. British scientists are actively perfecting the hybrid technique. On April 1, 2008 the BBC reported that, "Scientists at Newcastle University have created part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos for the first time in the UK." (LSN)

Bioethics: British team makes mixed human animal embryos

UK Times:

Embryos containing both human and animal material have been created in Britain for the first time, a month before the House of Commons is to vote on new laws to regulate the controversial research.

A team at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne announced tonight that it had successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs, in the first experiment of its kind in the UK.

The achievement will heighten debate over the ethics of human-animal embryos, as the Commons prepares to debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next month.

... [This research], however, has been vociferously opposed by religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic church. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of the Catholic church in Scotland, described the work last month as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.

My bioethics essay on this research: Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response (9/20/07)

My previous report on this story: Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months' (1/18/08)

Levada confirms CDF working on bioethics document

Briefly, from CNA:

"This morning, Pope Benedict XVI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to focus on "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics." More specifically, the Pontiff drew the teaching body of the Church’s attention toward issues associated with reproductive technologies, explaining that some of them violate human dignity."

...

Among the "new problems" that require a re-evaluation are "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning," Benedict XVI said.

CWNews expands:

The Pope defended the Church against critics who treat the faith "as if it were an obstacle to science." In fact, he said, "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences." The pastoral task for the Church, he explained, is to "enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings."

John Allen reports that this document will essentially be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987).

Allen also notes that the document may resolve a long-standing debate in bioethics:

Levada’s reference to frozen embryos suggests that the congregation may take up the controversial question of so-called “embryo adoption,” which has been much debated in pro-life circles in recent years. Essentially, one side believes that even though these embryos should never have been created, now that they exist, women should be encouraged to bring them to term, allowing them to develop as human beings. Another party, however, regards that as cooperation in a fundamentally immoral act, and worries that promoting adoption may simply encourage artificial creation of embryos.

The full text of the Holy Father's speech is available here on the Vatican website, in Italian.

California scientists create clones, earn swift Vatican rebuke

Associated Press:

Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

...

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute and Children's Hospital Boston called the new report interesting but agreed that "the real splash" will be when somebody creates stem cell lines from cloned human embryos.

"It's only a matter of time before some group succeeds," Daley said.

CWNews covers Bp. Sgreccia's response:

Reports of the first successful human cloning have drawn a quick protest from the Vatican.

Responding to a claim that the California-based Stemagen Corporation had produced a cloned human embryo, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said that such as step would be "the worst type of exploitation of a human being."

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Bishop Sgreccia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that human cloning would "rank among the most morally illicit acts" possible.

...

Samuel Wood, the chief executive of Stemagen, said that his company's research was aimed exclusively at stimulating medical research. Wood-- whose skin cells were combined with an ovum in the cloning process-- said that he is opposed to any research that would allow the cloned embryos to be born. "It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either," he said.

The reported success of the Stemagen cloning experiment has not yet been confirmed by other scientists.

I've said before and I'll say again, it would certainly be helpful in these situations if the Catholic response to these announcements was more than "this is unethical" and went onto explain the exact reasons - however briefly - why cloning is wrong. There is an answer and it deserves to be communicated.

Related links:

• Catholic Culture: Human Cloning
• Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference: Human Cloning
• Sr. Terese Auer: Cloning, A Catholic Moral Evaluation

Report: "Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months'"

UK Times:

Experiments to create Britain’s first embryos that merge human and animal material will begin within months after a Government watchdog today approved two research teams to carry out the controversial work.

Scientists at King’s College London and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne will now inject human DNA into empty eggs from cows, to create embryos known as cytoplasmic hybrids that are 99.9 per cent human in genetic terms.

Related:

• Bioethics essay: "Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response"
• Sep 06: Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids
• Sep 03: Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK
• June 27: Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Ed Peters asks some questions about Coriden's "Rights of Catholics in the Church"

There are some rather glaring problems in the monograph, it seems. Ed Peters writes:

Dr. James Coriden, professor of canon law at Washington Theological Union, is a prominent American canonist. His publications address many topics in Church law and I have invoked his authority often in support of points I wished to carry. Having just read, however, his 2007 monograph The Rights of Catholics in the Church (a work intended for a popular audience), I think some comments are in order. While Coriden's treatment of several topics raises questions in my mind, I'll limit these remarks to two with special interest to me, annulments and pro-life.

[Read the rest.]

Claim: "Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells"

This bioethics story has been getting a fair amount of coverage today so let's take a look at what it claims.

"Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells", the Reuters headline reads.

The procedure:

Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only eight or so cells.

The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother's womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

This process doesn't appear to be anything new, and the article admits that this method is already "sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases." The embryos that provide the stem cells in this process are brought about through in vitro fertilization, which is unethical in itself.

Also, the admission that the process "usually does not harm the embryo" implies that sometimes, in fact, it does. Experimentation cannot be done on an innocent embryo if it does not have that particular embryo's best interests at heart - you cannot sacrifice individual human lives for scientific progress.

So why are the proponents of this process claiming it is better than current techniques?

Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT's scientific director, said it provides a way to create mass quantities of embryonic stem cells without harming a human embryo. Current stem cell technologies require the embryo's destruction.

True enough, but the new process still involves bringing a human being into existence in a petri dish, possibly killing it by removing 1/8th of its cell mass, and dooming it to a frozen existence with - realistically - only a slim chance of ever being implanted at a future date into a womb.

The article also features a typically superfluous and needlessly inflammatory quotation:

"If the White House approves this new methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months. Too many needless deaths continue to occur while this research is being held up," Lanza said.

"I hope the president will act now and approve these stem cell lines quickly."

You know what also causes needless deaths? Hunger. But that doesn't mean every person who isn't actively fighting to eliminate hunger somehow intends or is complacent with starvation.

Reading through the rest of the article and the people it quotes, its continuous language of urgency and dogmatism ("scientists must continue to study true embryonic stem cells.") belies to me another example of researchers slightly tweaking an already-ruled-out technique and then rushing it through the examination process in hopes that the legal and ethical scrutinizers will miss what is actually happening.

Say what you want, my money is still on induced pluripotent stem cells (derived from adults).

Related: my Bioethics essay "Direct Reprogramming & the End of Embryonic Research"

O'Rourke and Hardt fail to make a canonical case against providing nutrition/hydration to PVS patients

From my father Canon Lawyer Ed Peter's blog, In the Light of the Law:

Bio-ethicist Dr. John Hardt and canonist Rev. Kevin O'Rourke are trying to use canon law against a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Responsum that upholds the basic right of patients in a "persistent vegetative state" to nutrition and hydration. I think their arguments are flawed. Here I summarize the events leading up to the CDF Response and then assess Hardt and O'Rourke's attempt to minimize its impact. [Read the full text.]

Related: "CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration" (Sep. 14th)

Breaking: New ethical source for stem cells discovered

It's very important news, and is being widely reported.

Updated: As promised, my commentary: "Direct Reprogramming & the End of ESCR"

Fr. Thomas Berg in NRO on Monkey Cloning

The world of stem-cell science was rocked Wednesday by news that researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, led by Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, had cloned embryos from rhesus monkeys and derived embryonic stem cells from the clones. Their work was published online in the journal Nature. For those opposed to embryo-destructive research, some might be thinking of yesterday as a kind of “black Wednesday.” I am inclined to disagree. In fact, history may well show us that November 14, 2007, marked a turning point in the battle against embryo-destructive research. [Click here for full text.]

Fr. Berg is the executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, which has issued a press release in response to the news. Media coverage from CNA and the AP.

November Mtg. of President's Council on Bioethics

... I'll be at tomorrow morning's session:

9:00 am
Session 5: Response to the Council’s White Paper, “Controversies in the Determination of Death” D. Alan Shewmon (Olive View- UCLA Medical Center)

I've read a draft of the PCB's statement on determination of death and it will be interesting to see what Dr. Shewmon has to say. There are still many issues that need to be resolved.

The state of Plan B and the CT bishop’s decision

This post will provide two services:

• As promised, it will present recent medical findings which make a compelling argument that Plan B does not, in fact, act abortifaciently
• Additionally, it will cite examples of a growing consensus among reasonable commentators that the recent decision of the Connecticut bishops was still not in the best interests of Catholic hospitals in the U.S.

Before I continue I must make this very clear: I am not claiming definitive knowledge about what I discuss. I am in the process of coming to decisions about the moral issues involved here, and I present below my current position on the questions - albeit a position that I have been researching and thinking through at some length. The main purpose of this post is to keep this debate in the public eye and not rest until we are satisfied with the conclusions that have been reached. That said....

First, the medical findings:

I have been corresponding with a practicing family physician who has reviewed the medical literature and concluded that levo-norgestrel as dosed in Plan B is probably not abortifacient, granted that it is very hard in this case to prove a negative. However, what is required here is moral certainty, not absolute certainty. There is the possibility, as yet undiscovered, that Plan B could act against an already-conceived human being. I think one of the problems in this debate is that previous reports, now contradicted, did claim to detect an abortifacient side-effect to Plan B in some cases. If those reports were in fact false, and had never been issued, we would be in a very different frame of mind when viewing this situation now.

First, some summarized background on the medical situation (and several facts you might not necessarily take into consideration immediately without prompting):

• A pre-implantation embryo is invisible, which means absolute moral certainty regardings its presence and survival is difficult to obtain
• While most oral contraceptives, when taken regularly, do in fact reduce the endometrial lining (typically from 5mm to even less than 2mm), Plan B apparently does not have enough time to begin reducing the lining of the endometrium. And since it is only administered once, nor does it have a chance to reduce the endometrial lining after implantation.
• There is also increasing evidence that Plan B operates primarily by preventing ovulation
• Furthermore, its secondary effect of thickening cervical mucus and altering uterine pH levels are also demonstrable
• One of the frequently-cited sources for the claim that Plan B acts abortifaciently has since been shown to have relied on unscientific methods for determining its findings
• Often people claim something to the effect that "clearly Plan B is an abortifacient because it says so on the label!" However, there is plausible reason to believe that this warning was placed on the label to avoid legal complications because the manufacturers did not know (and admittedly, probably did not care) whether the chemical effects the endomitrium.
• Other research into the effects of Plan B [like this notable one] seem to ignore the fact that Plan B, while similar to the contraceptive pill, does not have the same duration of time than the contraceptive pill has to deplete the endometrium.

Here is an extract of the physician's findings:

Plan B, levo-norgestrel does not appear to cause abortion by damaging the endometrium. A 1974 article and extrapolation from daily oral contraceptives have contributed to this common misperception.

Some “emergency contraception” such an IUD’s and mifepristone most likely do prevent implantation.

There is now good evidence that Plan B does prevent ovulation in some women. Plan B, given after ovulation has occurred, may still prevent some conceptions by making the uterine environment unfriendly for spermatozoa.

You can read the two-page summary of the medical findings (as well as a note regarding ovulation testing) in a Word Document here.

I think this short summary reveals that a very serious study of Plan B's effects needs to be undertaken to provide the Catholic medical community with the scientific data it needs to evaluate the morality of proscribing it to rape victims.

As a side-note, I'm also hearing reports than Plan B's effectiveness is drastically below the near-100% figures claimed by the manufacturer (as low as 60%). We can probably expect pharmaceutical companies to eventually develop a "99%" effective pill that may include endometrial thinning as one of the mechanisms for preventing sustained pregnancy. Such a pill, on principle, would have to be resisted once it is scientifically demonstrated that it in fact has the ability to act against an already-conceived human being.

Now, a look at the the emerging consensus:

Having analyzed the recent medical findings on Plan B, we must now take a look at the prudential nature of the CT Bishop's decision from the standpoint of legal precedent, and therefore, within a wider context. After all, this decision did not occur in a vacuum.

As I said at the time, I believe the National Catholic Bioethics Center statement on this question is best. I will re-iterate here the conclusion that I came to in my commentary on the document:

While the NCBC understands the judgement of the CT bishops regarding the claimed moral neutrality, as such, of allowing Plan B, the NCBC also brings up the point that because a) it is immoral to violate one's conscience and b) this law does not allow an exemption of conscience therefore .... c) this law immorally legislates that people violate their consciences.

Simply put, a law which requires Catholic hospital employees to violate their conscience in the practice of their medical profession is unjust. Numerous commentators have agreed.

Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International had this to say:

"Acts of blatant coercion of Catholic consciences are already far advanced and will only continue unless the church is willing to stand up and rebuke the arrogance of these coercive measures and carve out strict realms of conscience which are unreachable by activist courts and corrupt politicians." {Source.}

The Catholic Media Coalition has been especially vocal about reversing the situation of compliance.

More recent related stories:

• Connecticut bishops' stand on emergency contraception draws criticism (CNS)
• Colorado Springs Bishop Says He Does Not and Would Not Permit Plan B in Catholic Hospitals (LSN)
• American Life League Urges Connecticut Bishops to Rethink Plan B at Catholic Hospitals (LSN)
• An Open Letter to the Bishops of Connecticut by Michael Augros of First Things
• A very illuminating historical look at this situation was published in The National Catholic Register.

From the proceeding I conclude:

• Medically speaking, it appears that prior claims regarding the abortifacient properties of Plan B, when administered once, are unable to be substantiated. Indeed, the best review of current research would seem to suggest that Plan B, when administered once, does not render the uterus inhospitable to new human life.
• That said, legally speaking, it is unjust for the Connecticut State Legislature to enact a law that a) contravenes the consciences of Catholic employees, b) legislates restrictions upon what testing may or may not be administered to rape victims and c) withholds pertinent information from these victims at a crucial time in their decision-making process.

As such, and in times such as these, we need to support the CT Bishops in reversing this unjust law.

Previous AmP coverage of this story - starting the day it happened - available here.

Constructive comments are always welcome. Emails receive greater attention and priority.

HPV Vaccine, as expected, results in unnecessary deaths

The story was covered in-detail back in February here. Today, almost 4,000 adverse reactions reported.

"Sperm donor, 72, to father his own grandchild"

The UK Daily Mail:

A man of 72 is to donate sperm to try to father his own 'grandchild'.

He has been cleared to provide the sperm to his daughter-in-law to allow her to become a mother.

Any baby born will be its grandfather's genetic child and a halfbrother or half-sister to the man it takes to be its father.

The case - believed to be the first of its kind in the UK - raises ethical questions about how well the child will cope with such unusual family circumstances.

How did the the Women's Clinic go about analyzing the morality of this decision?

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, codirector of the London Women's Clinic which is carrying out the procedure, said the couple and the grandfather had undergone extensive counselling.

"[She said]: ... advancements in fertility treatment have overcome a lot of taboos in science which means that people are prepared to consider all sorts of options."

"Obviously, the wife's mother-inlaw also had to be included in all of the conversations but she has no objections.

"Society has also changed its perceptions of what is and what is not acceptable."

Ah yes, society might not any longer find this kind of thing unacceptable. Full steam ahead!

And little by litte, that tune sung by Ray Stevens, "I'm my own Grandpa" becomes a little bit more feasible.

Claim: "Assisted Suicide Won't Up Deaths for Vulnerable Groups"

HealthDay reports:

Legalizing doctor-assisted suicide does not lead to a "slippery slope" of excess deaths among the vulnerable poor, uninsured, elderly or other patients, according to a U.S. study in the October issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.

A long treatment of the question of euthanasia by the American Psychological Association concludes: "Given the current state of the discourse on assisted suicide, it seems premature for the discipline of psychology to take a stand supporting or opposing assisted suicide."

Yes, some questions are much more difficult to answer without universal moral principles.

I think it would be beneficial to devote next week's bioethics essay to the topic of euthanasia. Stay tuned.

NCBC publishes statement on Connecticut Bishop's Plan B decision (with commentary)

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has published a statement on the Connecticut Bishops' decision to allow the use of Plan B without an ovulation test in cases of rape. The NCBC is, in my opinion and many others, the foremost institution on Catholic bioethics in the United States. Their quarterly journal is widely-read and highly regarded. I have read this journal extensively for various courses and have drawn on it heavily for bioethics papers and research.

I have always agreed with their positions and reasoning. I further take this statement to be normative for my own opinion about this matter, with the comments I include below. To fast-forward and summarize my conclusion: I believe that this document both a) is willing to admit the validity of the Bishops' prudential decision while simultaneously b) claiming that the law is essentially immoral because it requires health care workers to violate their conscience.

That said, I would encourage anyone who has been following this story closely to read the statement in its entirety.

I'll now excerpt the most important passages [my comments in brackets]:

... This is a complex moral matter and does not lend itself to brief explanation. This difficulty was rendered all the worse by inaccurate reporting and inappropriate, indeed misleading, terminology.

These are good initial observations, which I have previously voiced.

... The state does allow a pregnancy test. However, this test can have nothing to do with the sexual assault. This test only identifies a conception that had taken place before the assault. It takes an embryo 5 to 7 days to make its way down the oviduct and implant in the womb.

Correct. The pregnancy test does not provide the information needed by the health care workers or victim to make a fully-informed ethical decision.

... In other words, [under this new law] the physician would have to administer a drug preventing ovulation even if ovulation had already occurred. Frankly, that makes no medical sense. The state was preventing a physician from exercising his or her best medical judgment about a procedure he or she was considering.

Yes. The new law requires that health care workers not perform a scientifically-relevant and morally-necessary simple test.

... A second objection centered around the fact that the medication(s) might prevent an implantation if a conception had occurred. To intend and to do such a thing is immoral. However, there was considerable debate among medical and drug experts whether or not the drugs actually had that effect. And everyone agreed there was no test even to know whether a new life had been conceived.

In a situation of doubt, it is not prudent to forgo testing which might aid an honest decision-making process.

Finally, attention should be drawn to the fact that the Federal Drug Administration includes the intra-uterine device as “Emergency Contraception” which is a misnomer since it is known to have an abortifacient effect.

I had not heard this before, but I have heard that the FDA protocols often fall well-below standards acceptable to Catholics.

Unlike the state of Colorado, for example, the state of Connecticut would not allow physicians to exercise their best medical judgment and provided no conscience protection to physicians or hospitals to refuse to administer the drug when requested.

The crux of the matter: this law inhibits Catholic hospitals and workers to exercise good medicine and their conscience. This is a very dangerous precedent to allow in general.

The Connecticut Catholic bishops and hospitals, under strong protest, have allowed a new protocol to be used that was developed by Catholic health care institutions. Furthermore, they made it clear that if a test were ever developed that allowed one to detect a conception after an assault, and if it became clear (as is not yet the case) that the medication(s) would work as an abortifacient, they could no longer accept the protocol. Finally, the Connecticut bishops pointed out that the Doctrine Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had studied this matter for years and could not come to the conclusion that the protocol previously allowed by the Connecticut bishops (the ovulation test protocol) would have to be used by all Catholic institutions.

I'm not sure here that it is necessary for the Connecticut protocol to be universally-applicable to other hospitals for it to constitute the moral course of action. The logic of the document in this paragraph is not quite clear to me. Just because the USCCB did not endorse the details of the previous CT protocol does not mean that the protocol was deficient. It simply meant that their prudential decision was well-founded enough, at the very least, to avoid challenge.

In matters that have not yet been decided definitively by the Holy See, The National Catholic Bioethics Center has refrained from adopting one or another position on a disputed question. However, in the matter of protocols for sexual assault, there is virtual unanimity that an ovulation test should be administered before giving an anovulant medication. The protocol the NCBC has supported requires the ovulation test because it provides greater medical and moral certitude that the intervention will have its desired anovulatory effect.

I think it is clear from this paragraph that the NCBC would have preferred the CT bishops to not abandon their previous requirement of an ovulation test (i.e., language such as "virtual unanimity"), but they do not state this explicitly here. Furthermore, their reasons for thinking the law is unjust are a bit more nuanced and the grounds for their reservations are more novel than the discussion have taken into account up to this point. But let's read on....

The NCBC objects strongly to state mandates, such as those passed by Connecticut and Massachusetts, that do not allow health care professionals and facilities to exercise their best medical judgment and which do not protect the consciences of all parties. We also object to state mandates that do not allow the victim of sexual assault to have all the information necessary for a medical intervention so that she might make an informed judgment.

This argument also seems to tend towards resisting the law. Indeed, what they are proposing here is that one might resist the law on principle alone, because it violated the consciences of Catholic hospital doctors and employees and furthermore acts against the interest of the victim.

However, the NCBC understands the judgment of the Connecticut bishops that the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act. However, it is immoral to violate one’s conscience, including the corporate consciences of health care agencies, and the unwillingness of the state to allow an exemption of conscience makes the law unjust and onerous.

Back-to-back "However's" tend to set off warning bells in my mind that an author is trying to have it both ways. I think the first line here about the CT decision is acknowledging, for instance, that strictly-speaking the CT bishops have not acted against any specific moral norm. However, the second line formulates a premise upon which the law could be challenged because "it is immoral to violate one's conscience" ... and as such, the law is "unjust and onerous."

Conclusion: While the NCBC understands the judgement of the CT bishops regarding the claimed moral neutrality, as such, of allowing Plan B the NCBC is also bringing up the point that because a) it is immoral to violate one's conscience and b) this law does not allow an exemption of conscience therefore .... c) this law immorally legislates that people violate their consciences.

This conclusion prompts the next question, which this statement does not address: is it moral to accept a law that is immoral for the proportional good of allowing Catholic hospitals to continue treating rape victims? I think that's what the discussion must now explore.

As I've promised before in previous posts, I still hope to publish a summary of the medical details regarding Plan B by the end of this week (waiting for more input). Previous coverage of this issue can be found here:

• Bp. Lori issues clarification on CT Plan B decision
• Follow-up: Connecticut Plan B Bill goes into effect today
• Statement: Connecticut Bishops On Plan B and Catholic Hospitals
• Breaking: Catholic Bishops in CT to allow Plan B?!

Moving farther still from normal human reproduction

What, removing slices of ovarian tissue, freezing them for years, then stimulating them with hormones into growing ovum to be fertilized in a petri dish sounds a bit unnatural? Well, you have a few years to decide.

Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids

CWNews:

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life has said that the British decision to approve creation of "hybrid" human-animal embryos is "a monstrous act against human dignity."

Speaking to a Vatican Radio audience, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said the British government had "crumbled with confronted by requests from a group of immoral scientists." The government had backed away from plans to outlaw the research on hybrid embryos under heavy pressure from researchers.

In England, meanwhile, the director of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship charged that decision to approve hybrid-embryo research, made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), was "shocking abuse of power." Andrea Minichiello Williams observed that Parliament had been studying the question, and preparing for a vote, when the HFEA "completely usurped the democratic process" by claiming the authority to approve the research.