Science lobby equally guilty

May 1, 2008

As a scientist, a Jewish atheist and a supporter of abortion rights, I have no brief for Cardinal Keith O'Brien. But every charge that Gerard Kelly makes of the Cardinal can be laid at the door of the science lobby, and with interest (Leader, 17 April).

Take "manipulation of the political debate". How about the Newcastle scientists' publication by press release of their creation of hybrid embryos?

Or how about "rhetorical thuggery"? Nothing O'Brien has said can compare with the effusions of invective aimed at scientists who publish uncomfortable data, such as Andrew Wakefield (MMR/autism) and Arpad Pusztai (GMO food safety).

The science lobby has, on the hybrid embryo question, persistently misled the public over matters of basic scientific fact. They have insisted that "cytoplasmic hybrid" embryos are "really" or "essentially" human, even though the majority of their molecular components will come from the animal egg.

Even when Sir Ian Wilmut, the initial champion of human-animal hybrids, has abandoned hybrids in favour of the obviously scientifically and ethically superior alternative of induced pluripotent human cells, the science lobby continues to insist that human-animal hybrids are "vital medical research".

Avoiding dealing with critical voices from the Left and the environmental movement results in the vast majority of people, who feel distinctly uncomfortable with human-animal hybrids but who do not want to be labelled as religious obscurantists, unable to get their doubts heard.

David King, Director, Human Genetics Alert.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October

Sponsored

Featured jobs

Lecturer in Marketing

Edinburgh Napier University

Resource Planner

Bpp University

Faculty, English

Khalifa University

Junior Research Fellow for the Research Project

Vellore Institute Of Technology

Knowledge Exchange Manager, Innovate

Royal Holloway, University Of London