Lessons from Britain’s Cybrid Debate

Science policymakers in the United States can learn from the ultimate resolution of an intense debate that raged in Britain over the past year concerning the creation of human-nonhuman cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. These so called “cybrid” embryos offer a promising new way to continue embryonic stem cell research despite an egg shortage and to address ethical concerns associated with egg donation. Yet misconceptions in the British media almost derailed cybrid research.

Cybrid embryos are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, in which the human DNA from a skin cell is transferred into an enucleated rabbit or cow egg. These embryos are 99.9 percent human and 0.1 percent nonhuman. Ian Wilmut, a biologist instrumental in the cloning of Dolly the sheep, explains in a recent Technology Review interview that most people approve of such research if they understand its purpose. The misfortune of providing sufficient explanation, he laments, is the loss of needed research time.

A loss of research time, however, is better than a complete prohibition of research without deep consideration of public opinion. That almost happened in Britain, where the debate initially resulted in the December 2006 release of a white paper from the British government proposing a ban on such research, caused by public outcry motivated by a knee-jerk reaction from an “overzealous media portending half-human creatures.” Ten months later, however, the ban was finally lifted—after an extensive public debate, many sessions of discussion held by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, and the release of documents intended to reassure the public.

A similar debate can be expected as this research occurs in the United States and is further highlighted by the U.S. media. As U.S. scientists currently working on SCNT develop an interest in using nonhuman eggs rather than human eggs—researchers at Harvard and the University of California, San Francisco are developing SCNT technologies, but are not using nonhuman eggs—they can take a page from the media playbook of their counterparts in Britain.

British officials judiciously informed their citizenry, sought opinions after the research was explained, and subsequently approved this research. The Bush administration presently condemns SCNT research and the federal funding of it without sufficient consideration of public opinion, as was done in Britain.

So the first question is: How can the U.S. scientific community help inform the administration and the mainstream media that blocking this field of research is not in the best interests of the American public? And the second question: What can our current administration learn from the approach of the British government?

Technology Review notes that the Bush administration has suggested so-called reprogramming technologies, in which the “cellular clock” of adult cells is turned back to generate stem cells, as the bridge to moving away from embryonic stem cell research. Wilmut expressed his endorsement of reprogramming technologies, but the potentiality of cybrids, however, is worth serious consideration by the U.S. public and government.

U.S. scientists need to get busy framing the issue in the media before the debate is distorted by those few opposed to embryonic stem cell research in search of new ways to misinform the American public. Beth Kohl covered this very issue at the Huffington Post a few weeks ago.

Comments on this article

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.