Agreement of People website

Sign here if you support the campaign for a real democracy


Our blogs


 

AWTW FacebookAWTW Twitter

Your Say


 

 

The hidden unholy alliance

The backlash from senior religious figures against the human fertilisation and embryology Bill before parliament should not be allowed to obscure their medieval, anti-science viewpoint on the one hand and the government’s close connection with biotech corporations on the other.

Cardinals and bishops throughout the land used Easter to launch ferocious attacks on the government for refusing – so far – to allow a “free vote” in the Commons. Cardinal O'Brien, Scotland's most senior Catholic cleric denounced what he called "Frankenstein" experiments and called the Bill’s proposals a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life". The Church of England joined the fray in the form of Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham. He saw fit to denounce the government for “pushing through, hard and fast, legislation that comes from a militantly atheist and secularist lobby”.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, has called for Labour MPs to be granted a free vote, saying: "I think Catholics in politics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions, so have other Christians, so have other politicians.” Three Catholic cabinet ministers are taking their cue from the Pope’s man in Britain – Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly (a member of the highly secret, far-right Opus Dei sect) and Defence Secretary Des Brown – and are threatening to leave the government.

They oppose the Bill because it allows the use of cloned embryos in the very early moments after fertilisation, which they claim is a form of murder. The Catholic Church’s opposes abortion on similar grounds. In fact, the use of stem-cell therapies, which is what the tiny balls of cells (which in no-way can be called human beings) are used for, has already been proved beneficial in treating Parkinson’s disease. The Catholic Church and other opponents of scientific knowledge want to cash in, as always, on people’s fears and ignorance of the hidden processes by which a human being arises from just those clumps of cells.

There is an entirely justified fear and distrust of another unholy and hidden alliance – that between politicians of all parties and the global corporations whose interests dominate scientific and medical research of all kinds. Brown’s main concern is that biotech corporations will be left behind by their competitors if the Bill doesn’t go through. How they steal an advantage is another thing. Only recently GlaxoSmithKline was forced to admit that it had covered up the fatal effects of Prozac on young people by refusing to place internal research in the public domain.

The secrecy surrounding patents of new medicines, the use of wide swathes of the population as guinea pigs for new drugs, the premature prescribing of new products due to pressures from corporations on the medical profession – in short, the wholesale entry of market forces into the National Health Service have all contributed to fears of unchecked experimentation.

In our book, A World to Win, we document the way in which the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council is dominated by commercial interests, in particular companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zenica, Unilever and United Biscuits.

At present, the choice is between leaving the questions of scientific research to a toothless parliament in hock to corporate interests, who will secretly experiment on people, or endure new forms of moral intolerance and anti-science, parading under the banner of “freedom of conscience”. There has to be another way. The row over this Bill shows the urgent need for a science that is financed and controlled with the interests of society as a whole at the centre of research rather than the balance sheets of Big Pharma.

Corinna Lotz
AWTW secretary
25 March 2008

Dulwich Daisy says:

The research priorities are driven by profit, and the public is neither involved nor consulted. In the UK most clinical research is funded by the NHS, or at least has a significant input of money from the NHS. And yet the people who fund the NHS - us - have no say in how the research priorities are agreed. If the research agenda was democratised it would look very different from it does now. So many diseases are environmental in cause, and adaptations and changes in the environment - for example reduced working hours particularly for manual workers, a healthier environment for children, ban on polluting forms of transport etc. - would make a greater difference than medical interventions. But there is no profit to be made from that kind of healthcare. For example whatever claims the biotech companies make, stem cell-based gene therapy for Parkinson's disease is still a very long way away. But there is plenty of evidence of environmental causes of the death of dopamine producing neurons which is the cause of the disease. Herbicides and pesticides are implicated amongst other issues. Only by taking health research out of the hands of profit=driven corporations and into democratic control will we have research priorities that are really about human health.


Corinna says:

Fiona, thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately giving a free vote, as Brown has now done, to our esteemed Cabinet ministers and other MPs so that they can supposedly obey the dictates of their "consciences" (have they got any?), will not prevent the abuse of scientific research that you and many others are rightly concerned about. How are we going to bring science out of the corporate shadows and into the light for all to see? That's the underlying question we have to address, whatever the outcome of the vote in parliament.


Fiona says:

The whole debate has been conducted in a very emotive way, to the extent that it can hardly be called a 'debate' at all. However I am deeply suspicious of scientists and pharma companies and their motives, not only for profits but in the "let's see how far we can push this" sense. All biochemists have to do it appears to me, is to create something, a clone, a human-animal embryo, whatever and then claim that this new technique may lead to a cure for Parkinsons, MS, cancer etc. Any doubts expressed by the great unscientific public about where it may actually lead if unquestioned, is dismissed scornfully by the scientific community as ignorant and anti-progressive. "Unchecked experimention" could indeed be the outcome. I think many people are genuinely concerned and not just because of the church's Frankenstein scare-mongering. A free vote should be allowed.


Comments now closed

Your name

Your E-mail (we will not publish your E-mail)