Documentary sources are used to examine the parliamentary evaluation of scientific research on human embryos which took place in Britain during the 1980s. Evidence is presented to show that there was a major change in the balance of opinion in the course of the long sequence of debates which ended with the passage of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act in 1990. It is suggested that there was a pronounced movement in favour of embryo research which was associated with a significant alteration in the social relationships between scientists and Members of Parliament and with a marked change in the way in which embryo research came to be morally justified. It is argued that the negotiations over embryo research in Parliament contributed to the clarification of the moral boundaries within which such research was to be confined and to the establishment of social mechanisms designed to maintain the integrity of these boundaries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Warnock, M. , 1985, A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology (Oxford: Blackwell).
2.
The social and political background to the parliamentary debates of the 1980s is examined in Yoxen, E., 1990, Conflicting concerns: the political context of recent embryo research policy in Britain. The New Reproductive Technologies, edited by M. McNeil, I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 173-199.
3.
Parliamentary Debates, 15 February 1985, Commons, Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, vol. 73, column 680. A second vote on Powell's Bill took place in 1986. This time the Commons rejected embryo research by a ratio of two to one.
4.
The major debates began in 1984 and ended in 1990.
5.
The sources used in this paper are: Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), House of Lords, 31 October 1984, Human Fertilization: Warnock Report, vol. 456, cols 524-593; 15 January 1988, Human Fertilization and Embryology, vol. 491, cols 1450-1508; 8 March 1989, Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, vol. 504, cols 1538-1580; 7 December 1989, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 513, cols 1002-1114; 8 February 1990, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 515, cols 950-990; House of Commons, 23 November 1984, Human Fertilization and Embryology (Warnock Report), vol. 68, cols 547-590; 15 February 1985, Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, vol. 73, cols 637-698; 4 February 1988, Human Fertilization and Embryology, vol. 126, cols 1202-1261; 2 April 1990, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 170, 914-990; 23 April 1990, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 171, cols 31-133 (London: HMSO).
6.
Mulkay M. , Ambivalence in the parliamentary debate over embryo research, unpublished paper.
7.
Department of Health and Social Security , 1987, Human Fertilization and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (London: HMSO).
8.
In the opening debate in the Lords, all but one of the 18 speakers opposed to embryo research argued explicitly, with Lady Saltoun, that the early human embryo has the same essential moral status as other, more biologically mature human organisms. In the opening debate in the Commons, 12 out of the 19 opponents of embryo research emphasized the same point. In other critical speeches in the Commons this point was present, but implicit. This remained a central criticism of embryo research throughout the debate. See Mulkay, M., 1994, Rhetorics of hope and fear in the Great Embryo Debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721-742.
9.
This issue is examined in detail in Mulkay, M., Ambivalence in the parliamentary debate over embryo research, unpublished paper.
10.
See also Crowe, C., 1990, Whose mind over whose matter? Women, in vitro fertilization and the development of scientific knowledge. The New Reproductive Technologies, edited by M. McNeil, I. Varcoe and S. Yearley (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 27-57.
11.
The changing conceptions of the IVF embryo employed in parliamentary debate are examined in Mulkay, M., 1994, The triumph of the pre-embryo. Social Studies of Science, 24 (in the press). For this reason, I have placed less emphasis on this strand of the debate in the present study, and have concentrated more closely on the theme of justification by reference to genetic control.
12.
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), House of Lords, 8 March 1989, col. 1574.
13.
This is revealed by comparison of Key's entry in Dod's Parliamentary Companion in 1985 with his entry in 1990.
14.
Rayner, M. , 1986, Experiments on embryos: stick to the facts. New Scientist, 108, 27 February, pp.54-55.
15.
The crucial debate in the Lords was on 7 December 1989, and that in the Commons on 23 April 1990. See Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 7 December 1989, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 513, cols 1002-1114; Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 23 April 1990, Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, vol. 171, cols 31-133 (London: HMSO). Although there were no contributions by scientists in the Commons, a number of speakers in the Lords were scientists of considerable repute. Parliamentarians received information about the pros and cons of embryo research from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology as well as from the lobbies.
16.
This is examined in Mulkay, M., 1994, Embryos in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 33-51.
17.
Peers set tone for Commons debate on embryo research . New Scientist, 125, 17 February 1990, p.19.
18.
See Mulkay, M., 1994, The triumph of the pre-embryo. Social Studies of Science, 24 (in the press).
19.
Mulkay, M., Embryo research and the slippery slope, and Ambivalence in the parliamentary debate over embryo research, unpublished papers.
20.
Only two paragraphs of the Warnock Report were devoted to the prevention of genetic defects, namely, paragraphs 12.15 and 12.16. See Warnock, M., 1985, A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology (Oxford: Blackwell).
21.
For a discussion of the importance of boundaries in the formation of science policy, see Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
22.
Department of Health and Social Security , 1987, Human Fertilization and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (London: HMSO), paragraph 37.
23.
An appeal to embryologists . Nature, 314, 7 March 1985, p.11.
24.
The pattern here broadly resembles the changes documented above in the distribution of parliamentary votes between 1985 and 1990. Nevertheless, in Parliament, the use of genetic control as a justification for embryo research had to be accomplished with much greater interpretative delicacy than in the Marplan questionnaire. See also Hawthorn, G., 1986, The sociology of `public morality'. Human Embryo Research: Yes or No?, edited by the Ciba Foundation (London: Ciba Foundation), pp. 152-163.
25.
Although the use of techniques for replacing defective genes in early embryos was not approved in the Warnock Report, there was no recommendation in that text that such techniques should be forbidden. The White Paper in 1987 stated that the Government believed that they should go beyond Warnock in prohibiting all such activities. See Department of Health and Social Security, 1987, Human Fertilization and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (London: HMSO), paragraph 36.
26.
For full details of the Government legislation and the restrictions placed upon embryo research, see Morgan, D., and Lee, R. G., 1991, Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990: Abortion and Embryo Research, the New Law (London: Blackstone).
27.
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority , 1992, Annual Report (London: HFEA).
28.
See also Yoxen, E., 1986, Unnatural Selection: Coming to Terms with the New Genetics (London: Heinemann).
29.
This combination of contrasting anticipations has also occurred in relation to recent developments in biotechnology, See Jasanoff, S., The politics of novelty in US and German biotechnology regulation, unpublished paper, Cornell University.
30.
The intervention on behalf of embryo research by the Royal Society is discussed in Deciding about embryo research. Nature, 342, 30 November 1989, p.461.
31.
Warnock, M. , 1984, Scientific research must have a moral basis. New Scientist, 104, 15 November, p.36.
32.
and Strathern, M., 1992, Reproducting the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the new Reproductive Technologies (Manchester University Press).
