Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Debate between Graham Stringer and Julian Huppert

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is pleasure to speak in this debate, and I pay tribute to the work of so many, but particularly the Lily Foundation and the Wellcome Trust which have done a huge amount to prepare for this debate, to educate the public, to support Members of Parliament and to support some of the research.

I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you or others in this House have met people with serious mitochondrial disorders, but those disorders are absolutely awful. Cells fail to function, and people can get seizures, strokes, blindness, deafness, heart failure, lung failure and liver failure. Most of the people afflicted will not survive to adulthood. There is no treatment and no cure, and about 1 in 6,500 babies born will suffer from something like this. I would hope everybody in this House would want to stop that, and I simply do not understand how opponents of this can argue that they want to continue to inflict that sort of suffering on so many children, because that is the consequence of not finding a way to treat these disorders.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) expressed concern that there may be consequences for people who are helped in this way. Her first example was, I think—I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong—lower fertility. Now, that is possible—we will not know until we try it on people—but if I had a choice between a hideous disease that was likely to kill me before adulthood or the possibility of lower fertility, I know which one I would choose.

We also heard the comparison to eugenics. This is fundamentally different. Mitochondrial DNA is very different from nuclear DNA. It has a very different history, and it is a fascinating history—I used to work on mitochondrial DNA and other nucleic acids so I have some interest in this. This is not the same as eugenics, as the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) explained well—it is good to have him in the Chamber, even if he is not in his former place.

We have heard arguments about multiple parents and the idea that this approach means that somehow there are three parents, but there are clearly two parents. I have not heard people say that if someone is given an organ donation and they have someone else’s organ inside them, they then have four parents because they have a lot of different DNA inside them which could interact. I think—I would hope—that all of us support organ donation, because it has saved many, many lives. Why should we not allow what is, in effect, mitochondrial donation?

We have heard the view that we should wait for there to be much greater safety. My mother had breast cancer a couple of years ago and she wanted to choose which of the two most modern treatments she should have. She wanted to know what the life expectancy was and whether she would live for 15 more years with either treatment. The answer was, of course, that we do not know, because with the most modern treatments we have not waited 15 years to find out. But I do not think any of us would say that we should not use any single cancer treatment that has been used this century because we do not know whether someone will live for 15 years after having it.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree completely with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that the motion would be better if it was asking for these enabling regulations to be hurried up? They will take into account, as much as one can, all the safety issues, and by delaying them we may be condemning more children to horrible diseases that could be prevented if we hurried this process up.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I would improve the motion in a number of ways. I would not try to characterise Lord Winston’s position as being fundamentally different from what it is. I would also say that we need to have these regulations so that the tests can be done and so that we can go ahead with clinical trials and find out what happens in humans. I hope that the Government will introduce the regulations promptly. It has been useful to have this airing of views, but it will be helpful when we have the regulations before us to have that debate. This House will then be able to vote on whether or not to adopt the regulations.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Graham Stringer and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I hear with interest what the hon. Lady says, although if that is already happening, I am not quite sure what her new clause would achieve. Perhaps a worked example to give some sense of the numbers and costs involved would make the case more persuasive for me. Perhaps there will be time later—at a future date, as the Bill progresses—to understand exactly what is proposed. I would personally be interested to understand that, but at the moment I do not feel I have enough of a handle on it to support the hon. Lady’s proposal.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree on this, but I would like to understand his position a little more thoroughly. Is it his contention that constraining capacity in the south-east will reduce the number of flights, or will it in fact increase the number of flights—as is my contention—as people fly to other European hubs?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.

Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point that was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.

We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.

Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.

It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.

My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an

“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.

That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.

A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.

There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.

Science Research

Debate between Graham Stringer and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comment. Indeed, that was my next point, so it was very helpful. We do have a problem. I used to teach students, and they were concerned about debt. We can discuss to what extent it is a debt and so forth, but they were concerned. The issue of whether to go on to relatively low-paid PhD positions is a real concern. Furthermore, I welcome the fact that PhDs are changing from being typically three years long—or at least paid for for three years, although they normally overrun—to four years long. Although that gives a more rounded experience by the end, however, it also means that people are delaying serious earning potential for a lot longer, and I worry about how that fits with the increase in debt.

There are issues about the quality of PhD programmes. I was recently told that one university has given out one PhD in the past seven years. Although I have not verified that figure, I would be concerned if we had institutions that gave so few PhDs, because there would be questions about the quality of such qualifications. There is also a problem with availability in some subjects, and some very good students struggle to get positions or funding. We therefore have problems attracting people to do science-based PhDs.

If those who go on through PhDs, having sacrificed many years of earning potential, want to stay in academia, they will look for a post-doctoral position, but we have a big bottleneck in terms of the availability of such positions. Even if someone gets one, such positions tend to involve very short contracts—two or three years are typical. That causes problems getting money for the next position. It takes such a long time to find money for the next job—I will come back to this later—that a lot of postdocs do not have the freedom to focus on their work. The fellowship schemes that exist are fantastic, partly just because they allow postdocs to focus on their work.

That uncertainty—that hopping from one short-term contract to another—has real issues for gender balance. We talked about the gender balance at earlier stages, but there is an issue at the post-doc level as well. Women in general do not like this process, and it is a real disincentive for them.

Once people finally make it through the post-doctoral position, they may be fortunate enough to get one of the few academic positions available. That will finally complete the process, but the steps at every stage make it harder to attract and keep people.

So far I have talked only about domestic students. Of course we do not get all our scientists from Britain. We get a huge number from overseas, and that is essential. Science is a global activity. It does not make sense to say that Britain should supply all the skills it needs for science. We cannot draw up barriers. I have been very concerned about the Government’s proposed immigration cap, and many hon. Members will know about concerns that have been expressed. The cap causes problems; it makes it hard to get good quality people from outside. There are many stories of people not coming, and others of people who have made it clear that they would not have come under such a system. Venki Ramakrishnan is one example. We have heard some instances already, and I have heard of students not being given visas to come to Cambridge for a four-day conference, because the UK Border Agency was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that they would not require benefits while they were here. Given that they had already paid the fees for a four-day conference I think that it would be safe to assume that they would have come to the conference and then gone again. There is increasing concern from the university of Cambridge that we cannot get PhD viva examiners from outside the EU, because that is classified as work. We do not want to stop that activity. I find it bizarre that the cap includes exemptions for elite sports people and ministers of religion, but not for doctors, scientists or engineers, who contribute much more to our economy.

Another issue is people—just as people. When I talk to representatives of high-tech companies around Cambridge, I find that many of their concerns are not just about the things we have discussed already. The No. 1 concern that people talk about in Cambridge is housing—the cost of affordable housing there, by which I mean affordable for science researchers, and not in the sense that was used in the rather ill-informed debate that we had in the House yesterday. People also talk about transport problems and how to get where they want to go. They talk about the problems of finding good education for their children, and the issues of the environment that they live in. Those issues affect scientists and their choice to continue working in this country rather than moving elsewhere.

Money, of course, is another factor, and scientists, like all people, are motivated by money. We had a freeze on the total science budget, as has already been discussed—the £4.6 billion. That is good news. It is not as good as it could be. Other countries, such as Germany, invest more in their science funding. However, it is helpful, and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister in particular for getting the last £200 million that came into the science budget on the Sunday night just before the comprehensive spending review. I share hon. Members’ concerns about lack of knowledge about the capital budget. A comment was also made about long-term security, and I have in the past asked the Minister for Universities and Science whether we can have at least a 10-year funding horizon, because science projects often take that long.

There are also problems with the cycle of allocation of money by research councils. I am well aware of the Haldane principle and would not dream of telling research councils how they should operate. They did not give me the grants I deserved and I am sure that they will continue not to give people the grants that they deserve in future, but the real problem is the slow pace. An application goes in, and it takes six to nine months, typically, to get a response. If people are on contracts of one to two years, that is a huge amount of time for them not to know the result. Success rates are phenomenally low. Academics apply for grant after grant, driving up the number of applications that must be studied, and filling up the system. There must be a way to run the system faster and more efficiently.

We need financial support from industry, and good relations with it. Cambridge is fortunate because we have an excellent cluster. One of the features of that is to do, again, with people. People can work in industry or academia and can move between them. Scientists are often married to other scientists, so both partners can have jobs in the same area, with the same level of security. We have a number of successful spin-outs. Research and development tax credits were also mentioned. They play a critical role in supporting industry systems. Companies have highlighted that time and again as essential.

I support the moves for greater procurement by small and medium-sized enterprises. A detailed analysis by entrepreneurs in Cambridge shows that if there is a client when someone sets up a company, it works. It is much better to have a client. The success of silicon valley has been largely due to Government procurement with small start-up companies, really giving them the initiative to go. However, the issue is not only public. I think that Max Perutz was responsible for the excellent comment:

“We’ve got no money, so we’ve got to think.”

[Hon. Members: “It was Rutherford.”] I am grateful that so many hon. Members can correct me on that: my thanks to them. The sentiment stands, none the less. It is the freedom to think that makes a difference. We cannot predict which research will be world-shattering. We cannot say that lasers or the internet will be the thing that matters. DNA was first discovered in pus, and was a curiosity. It was believed to be the way in which phosphate was stored by the body. It was completely uninteresting; and now it leads to all the advances in genetics, health and biotechnology. We cannot predict such things, so we must allow academics the freedom to explore. There is a false split between pure and applied research, which I am very concerned about. Pure research often leaps into applications and I am very concerned about the increasing drive to impact. It does not make sense to ask people to estimate the economic impact of a piece of research.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he agree with Professor Cox who said when he came to the previous Select Committee on Science and Technology that he found it impossible to know what to put when assessing impact? It is not do-able.