Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have heard many stories today about the potential of mitochondrial replacement for women with mitochondrial conditions, possibly allowing them to have children without these conditions. But the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others have put forward the safety issue and the need to make sure that there has been a full investigation. This might seem like fantastic news, but just because the HFEA expert panel has not found evidence to say that mitochondrial transfer is unsafe does not amount to saying that the evidence proves it is safe either, as the potential risks of the techniques required are not yet fully understood.

The controversy surrounding genetically modified food comes to mind: it teaches us a number of important lessons. In a paper submitted to the “Science as Culture” conference in 2008, several academics asserted that

“the GM experience represents a warning, a cautionary tale of how not to assess an emerging technology and allay public concern.”

Clearly, there is some evidence to show that we need to look at this again.

The UK is the only country that is considering permitting these techniques. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration held hearings where concerns about the safety of the techniques were explored. Some even consider the lack of international consensus as a sign that the UK is moving too quickly, and I must admit that I, along with many others, share that view.

The Government have sought to justify ignoring the clear majority against the techniques on the basis that respondents to public consultations are from self-selecting audiences, but I say to the Government, “Ignore them at your peril.” It would be foolish to dismiss responses to public consultations on any subject in such a cavalier manner, but when we are dealing with concerns regarding the public safety of what is in effect a new biotechnology, and when the memory of the GM food debacle is still fresh in the public memory, the strategy is exceptionally foolish.

It is important that we consider these matters in their full detail. It is in this regard—mindful of the need to avoid at all costs any sense of rushing and of ignoring public opinion post the GM food saga—that difficulties surrounding the approach of the Department of Health are thrown into particularly sharp relief.

According to a poll conducted by ComRes in February, 35% supported the technique and 34% were against it, but in a matter of six months those figures changed to 18% in support and 46% against. That extraordinary loss of support in a very short period highlights that the cavalier approach of the Department of Health is very risky and dangerous.

At the very least, the Government should reassure the public by making it absolutely plain that they will not rush into laying any regulations before this House or anywhere else until all the pre-clinical experiments recommended by the HFEA in its three safety reports to the Secretary of State have been concluded. Only then will we be able to move forward.