I have been shocked by the backlash of ‘ethical’ and ‘religious’ pundits to the Hybrid Embryo research who’s fate is currently being determined in the House of Commons. Simply put, the research is to examine degenerative diseases and requires the combination of human and animal cells mixed within embryonic stem cells. These embryos will not become mature or allowed to develop within a long time frame. Much like stem cell research the embryos are no more than simple cells where the genetic changes can be closely examined to help fight diseases such as Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s.

The general argument from the clergy and from ethical zealots is that we are ‘tampering with nature’. An example of many of these ill-informed opinions I think is summed up in this truly dangerous knee-jerk reaction from people such as Rebecca Bradbury from Exeter who says on BBC have your say:

This has just confirmed my fears…humans have become so arrogant that they are playing God. We have diseases for a reason; to stop the population becoming so large the earth can not sustain the numbers. I can not see any good reason why hybrid embryos are created in the first place, it is leaving the door open for the unscrupulous to exploit and potentially cause irrevocable damage to the human race. When are scientists and the government just going to leave nature alone?

This is a perfect example of the twisted mirror that the anti-science conservatist lobby adopts as an argument against scientific progress. So lets look at what Rebecca actually states:

1. Humans play god.

Now I’m not sure that Rebecca has quite grasped the idea that it is surely pure arrogance to assume that she knows these seemingly invisible barriers that mankind should not cross. What exactly determines when man becomes ‘arrogant’ or attempts to become what she considers ‘god’. She obviously knows the limit that we should not cross and this is it. Hardly an arrogant assumption is it?

2. Diseases for a Reason and Natural Balance

Diseases have no reason. They exist due to a number of environmental and genetic factors. The human race has successfully rid ourselves of a huge swathe of diseases over the last 100 years and we will continue to do so as long as people suffer with terrible afflictions.

The Earth with science is quite capable of supporting many more multitudes of people as long as we are careful not to ruin our habitat beyond a livable threshold. There is NO ‘natural balance’ in nature. Nature represents a constantly shifting, changing and developing system that may accommodate humanity or not. Science generally tips the balance in our favour and it is politics, money and greed that drive science into becoming a destructive force, not science itself. Maybe Rebecca would like to return to the more ‘natural’ Medieval period where peoples lives were incredibly short, hard and disease ridden?

3. No reason for research.

Often people who punt the ‘no reason’ argument have not informed themselves of the very research they are witch hunting. If Rebecca had bothered to read the papers she would realise that this research is to investigate whether particularly awful diseases can be cured. Simple. She even acknowledges this in her previous sentence.

4. Unscrupulous Use.

Now this is when the arguments against research become simply absurd. What do people think will happen, clones of hybrid humans and tigers roaming around killing people? Nazi style camps holding mutants that will need to be contained as the human race plummets into some zombie style survival episode? What exactly is this ‘damage’? Again another loaded sentence full of hyperbole.

5. Leave Nature Alone.

If we had adopted this idea we would never have developed civilisation or risen above our competitors to carve out our niche within what is an intensely hostile environment. Real survival which many of us do not have to face on a day to day basis is not a pleasant experience. Starvation, disease, short brutal lives with no justice system, no government, no sanitation, no food stocks, no culture and no survival. If we left nature alone this is exactly the world we would be living in, no future, no hope, no progress. The human race would indeed be short lived and Rebecca would not have the privilege to assault intelligent minds with such banality.