In his selective use of scripture to argue against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Dr Andrew Fergusson (your report, 20 May) raises the biblical statement that we are made in God's image, although he admits there is no consensus on what this means.
However, he seems to imply the likeness is physical and not necessarily spiritual and this raises some fundamental and profound issues. He quotes the Bible as saying there should be no mixing of "kinds"; this is potentially extremely damaging because
it is to this theological strain that the racial policies of extremist faux "Christian" groups such as the Ku Klux Klan address their warped views.
One might wonder if Dr Fergusson also embraces the view that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that both Testaments of the Bible are literally true, when this is demonstrably not so.
If Dr Fergusson is a doctor, he must have had his faith in a creator God tested many times, particularly during conception and birth. Surely he must realise this is an entirely natural process with no links to any external supernatural agency, and the introduction of a scientific technique designed to use a tiny part of this process to the benefit of mankind should be lauded rather than rejected.
BRIAN ALLAN
Keith Street
Alloa, ClackmannanshireAgainst the background of the debate in the House of Commons, your recent editorial comment (19 May) that "relief of suffering ranks above abstract theorising" is certainly relevant, but this is a questionable antithesis. Although Gordon Brown gave his approval, no evidence has been adduced that the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos is certain, or even likely, to lead to cures for Alzheimer's disease or other motor-neurone diseases.
The notion that individuals involved in what is labelled scientific research have no moral responsibility for what they do is dangerous. This was demonstrated by the horrendous "scientific" experiments carried out by the Nazis. These were justified on the grounds of social Darwinism: assuming victims were genetically inferior, and therefore unfit to survive in a competitive world. This assumption was fortified by the fact that the victims, like unborn babies, were completely defenceless.
(DR) DAVID PURVES
Strathalmond Road
EdinburghThe headline of your leader refers to "abstract theorising", while the second paragraph admits "there are deep moral issues to be considered". Which is it? Moral and ethical philosophy is hardly abstract theorising.
When it comes to ethics, in claiming the high ground, you take one word of Cardinal Keith O'Brien's homily out of context and flourish it as characterising his, and the Church's, stance.
In fact, there is no proof that hybrid embryo stem cells will produce any better outcomes that normal stem cells. The evidence from the United States is to the contrary, that normal stem-cell research has produced cures or treatments for some 80 conditions while embryo cell research has produced none. Abstract theorising? I don't think so.
GERRY LYNCH
Lanark Road
Edinburgh The decision in the Commons to allow the hybrid embryo is an abomination. The scientists may argue that it will be 99.99 per cent human. But what if it fails to produce the stem cells they seek? Will they then argue for an increase in the percentages?
As we all know, scientists are constantly trying to move forward. Just look at what splitting the atom has done – atomic bombs and Chernobyl. This is only the start of their research in this field, however, and nobody knows where they will stop.
MICHAEL DONALDSON
West Avenue
Airdrie, LanarkshireThe full article contains 606 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
