IT was a calculated act which the leader of Scotland's Catholic Church knew would light the blue touchpaper.
Comparing the Government's plans to Dr Frankenstein's experiments and describing them emotively as "a monstrous attack on human rights, hu
man dignity and human life" was never going to pass over quietly.
The battle lines were drawn as soon as the text of Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Easter sermon at St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh was released in advance to the media.
In the political storm that has followed, the actual content and intended purpose of the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill have almost been forgotten.
If the Government gets its way, as it is expected to do, the Bill will do several things. It will pave the way for so-called "saviour siblings", children born with the help of genetic screening specifically to cure a sick brother or sister.
It will also scrap the legal requirement for a father to be registered ahead of IVF treatment, allowing lesbians and single women to become sole, legal parents in their own right.
Most controversially, however, it will allow the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos – Cardinal O'Brien's "monstrosities".
In practical terms, what this means is DNA being taken from the skin cells of someone with a serious neurological disorder, such as Parkinson's disease. At the same time, the DNA is removed from an unfertilised animal egg. The two parts are then merged together.
The stem cells that can then be produced are the basis for research into a range of serious neurological disorders.
Scientists point out there is no mixing of animal and human DNA and the resulting embryos are more that 99 per cent human. Laboratories would have to destroy the embryos after 14 days and it would be illegal to plant them in the womb.
Gordon Brown has always been strongly supportive of the Bill, which would allow scientists in the UK – including many in Edinburgh – to continue their internationally-pioneering work.
Dr Paul De Sousa, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Regenerative Medicine at Little France, says: "It is difficult to obtain enough human eggs for medical research.
"These issues have been blown out of proportion. The Catholic Church are doing the public a disservice by using such emotive language, talking about monsters being created.
"The intention of the Bill is to regulate and act as a safeguard against abuses. We need to be looking at meaningful legislation, and look at what we are trying to achieve here."
Britain has always been at the forefront of stem cell research and has been responsible for much of the worldwide progress. Other countries such as Canada, France, Germany and the US have already banned the creation of hybrid embryos.
Scientists warn that unlike countries with tighter restrictions on research, the liberal environment of the UK has led to many firsts – including the world's first test tube baby and first cloned animal – and that allowing the use of hybrid embryos for research would keep Britain leading in these fields.
Among the conditions being studied in the UK are serious spinal injuries, motor neurone disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and Huntington's disease.
SCIENTISTS at Edinburgh University, whose Institute for Stem Cell Research is a world leader, have been working on leukaemia diagnosis, new cancer therapies and the potential of stem cells for mending broken bones.
The problem is the scientific community is coming up against an article of faith within the Catholic Church.
The Church strongly believes these experiments are going beyond the limits of human understanding, messing with the sanctity of human life.
Cardinal O'Brien has received strong support. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has joined the criticism of the Bill, while prominent Catholic MPs including Defence Secretary Des Browne and Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly are reportedly threatening to defy Gordon Brown.
The argument comes down to two diametrically opposed definitions of an embryo. Is it simply a clump of cells, which may or may not have the ability to grow into a living thing, or is it a being with a soul?
But from that one simple question spring a myriad of moral dilemmas.
For instance, if the research is banned in this country, but goes ahead abroad, leading to a cure for, say, cystic fibrosis, could any parent deny that treatment to their child?
It is a moral maze which will ultimately be solved by simple parliamentary arithmetic. MPs will be allowed a free vote on the three most contentious issues in the Bill – the hybrid embryos, saviour siblings and IVF clauses.
All the expectations at the House of Commons are that our democratic representatives will back Gordon Brown, though he is likely to rely on those outside the Labour Party to see this through.
The full article contains 858 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
