Update on Life Issues - October 2024
Abortion
The general election
On Wednesday 22 May, in the pouring rain outside No
10 Downing Street, the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced
the date of the 2024 general election. It was to be Thursday
4 July. And by the following day the results were declared –
it had been a Labour landslide. Of the 650 seats up for
grabs Labour had won 404 with a whopping working majority of 167
allowing it to force through any of its proposed policies.
The Conservatives secured just 121 seats. But beyond their
political affiliations, just who are these new and old Members of
Parliament who make our laws that govern our lives?
There are currently 335 new MPs. What makes these newbies
tick? Nobody quite knows because they have yet to vote on
any bioethical issue. Will they and the returning MPs share
our values? A crude answer can perhaps be found in their
religious connections.
Only 60% of the 650 MPs officially sworn in at Westminster during
July chose to swear a religious oath of allegiance to the
Crown. That proportion is similar to the results of the 2021
census, which showed that 65% of UK adults have some religious
affiliation – we have therefore elected a Parliament, not only the
most irreligious in history, but also one more godless than the
nation. Of all MPs, 338 swore on the Bible, 14 on the Quran
and 3 on the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu scripture. The
remaining 40%, around 249 MPs, made an affirmation without any
reference to God. Almost half (47%) of Labour MPs affirmed,
compared with only 9% of Conservatives. After the 2019
general election, only 24% of all MPs chose a non-religious
affirmation. Is the UK and its Parliament becoming a more
secular jurisdiction? Is it more than just a falling away of
a cultural, nostalgic Christianity? It certainly seems that
Sir Keir Starmer ‘doesn’t do God’ as he becomes the first atheist
prime minster in decades.
What does all this mean for the pro-life cause? Here is the
good news. Several reliable pro-lifers, such as Sir Edward
Leigh, Carla Lockhart, Jim Shannon, John Hayes and Mary Glindon
were re-elected. The bad news is that many MPs with a
previously strong pro-life voting record lost their seats.
They include Fiona Bruce, Caroline Ansell, Miriam Cates, Sir Jacob
Rees-Mogg, Maria Caulfield and Sir Liam Fox.
Why the
concern? Because in this Parliamentary session these 650
new and old MPs will likely be voting on key bioethical issues,
such as the decriminalisation of abortion, more permissive
embryo experimentation and the legalisation of assisted
suicide. Indeed, as an ominous portent, the extremist
pro-abortion MP, Diana Johnson, who has led multiple attempts to
introduce a more radical abortion law up to birth, has already
been appointed as a Home Office Minister in the new Labour
Government. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer, has once again
declared himself in favour of permitting assisted suicide and
has promised to allocate Government time for a debate and a free
vote on the issue.
This is going to be a tough and testing Parliament. Are you
ready?
Abortion law changes
Earlier this year the abortion political lobby flexed its muscle
at Westminster. Those two Labour MPs, Stella Creasy and
Diana Johnson, tabled two extreme abortion amendments, even up to
birth. Thankfully, both failed. However, the abortion
commercial lobby, led by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service)
and MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes
International), spent huge sums of money supporting pro-abortion
MPs in their lobbying and campaigning efforts to try and force
through major changes to our abortion laws.
It is reported that BPAS has a yearly budget of over £50 million
and MSI has an even bigger fund of over £300 million.
Abortion is a big and profitable industry. And by vigorously
lobbying and campaigning for more extreme abortion laws the
industry intends to maintain and advance its trade. These
pro-abortion businesses, charities and organisations wield huge
financial clout.
By contrast, pro-life groupings are poor, even destitute. We
are the church mice of bioethical issues. The pro-life cause
has no commercial funding. It depends on individuals like
us. Do you give money to fight for the survival of the
unborn? Maybe it is time for many of us to review our
giving.
Yet money is not the only issue. More enthusiastic,
well-informed women and men are also needed. How will that
come about? Do you read, listen and watch, newspapers,
podcasts, TV and more to become better educated? For most of
us, it is like Isaiah 28:10, ‘ … a little here, a little
there.’ Abortion law is currently under threat of changing
for the worse, we should be for changing ourselves for the better.
Abortion in Scotland
What is wrong with Scottish people? For sure, they can be
loud and opinionated, but many have charming accents, especially
if they were brought up around Edinburgh (rather than
Glasgow). However, when it comes to abortion, there is a
Caledonian sector that is extreme in both word and deed.
Herein are two complaints. First, there are specifically
troublesome members of the Scottish National Party (SNP). On
Sunday 1 September, at the SNP’s 90th Annual National Conference
in Edinburgh, a motion was put forward by the Elgin SNP
branch. It was debated in session 11 under the title,
‘Enshrining the Right to Abortion in the Future Constitution of an
Independent Scotland.’
The strident agenda stated that, ‘Conference believes that women's
rights are human rights, and access to safe, legal abortion is a
fundamental aspect of healthcare and bodily autonomy. The
right to choose should not be subject to the changing tides of
political or judicial decisions but should be a guaranteed and
protected right within the highest legal framework of our
nation.’ And ‘Conference resolves that the SNP would call
for the right to abortion to be enshrined in the future
constitution of an independent Scotland, safeguarding women's
reproductive rights against any potential political or legal
regression.’
This motion was almost certainly driven by the recent developments
in the USA including the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade
and the subsequent loss of a national right to abortion.
And, in 2023, France, similarly fearing a possible loss of access
to abortion, took a proactive step by enshrining the right to
abortion in its Constitution. Spokesperson for Right To Life
UK, Catherine Robinson, commented, ‘The Constitution of a country
acts as its foundational document, defining, among other things,
the country’s basic principles of government and law. It is
deeply disturbing that this SNP resolution proposes to make ending
the lives of its unborn citizens one of those foundational
principles.’
Kim Marshall, a former SNP candidate, defended the motion, despite
concerns that it could alienate voters who hold pro-life
views. Apparently, a significant majority of SNP members at
the Conference voted in favour of this call for a constitutional
right to abortion. Thankfully, the party holds only 9 of the
57 Scottish seats in the House of Commons. And Scotland is
not about to become independent and so this contentious motion,
like the SNP and its membership, will likely wither.
The second complaint centres on the Abortion Services (Safe Access
Zones) (Scotland) Bill, which passed in the Scottish Parliament by
118 votes to 1 on 12 June 2024, became an Act on 22 July 2024 and
came into force on 24 September 2024. These so-called buffer
zones around clinics which offer abortion services are intended to
prevent any protests or vigils from taking place within a 200m
radius of the 30 abortion clinics around Scotland. See what
you have done, Scottish citizens? You have set a
sub-standard precedent because a few weeks later, on 31 October,
buffer zones will be enforced around a 150m radius of abortion
clinics in England and Wales under Section 9 of the Public Order
Act 2023. Even silent prayer may be under threat though it
has not been specifically listed as an offence under the new
rules.
Within the buffer zones, it will be a criminal offence to behave
in ways that could influence the decisions of women and staff to
access abortion services. Stopping women and staff from
entering the clinics or otherwise causing alarm, harassment or
distress will also be an offence. Anyone who breaks the new
Safe Access Zone laws could be fined up to £10,000 or an unlimited
amount in the most serious cases.
Scottish Green MSP Gillian Mackay, who originally tabled the Bill,
said it was a ‘pivotal moment for reproductive rights in
Scotland.’ However, opponents of the Act have claimed the
legislation infringes on their freedom of religion and
speech. Of course, there can be no excuses for deliberately
harassing or intimidating women on their way to abortion
clinics. Laws are already in place to punish such
behaviours. But the UK Governments’ response to clamp down
on people’s speech and beliefs is dangerous and misguided.
It will only serve to limit ordinary people’s civil
liberties. There are some people who wish to think and pray
silently outside such clinics. Why should they be forbidden?
From the Update on Life Issues (February 2023), ‘Some
pro-life activists argue that their work outside abortion clinics
has helped women seeking practical support. Some pro-choice
activists say the move will stop women being ‘harassed’. Is
this new law really censoring and silencing help for women in
delicate situations with vulnerable mindsets? Maybe.
Christians can pray silently and undemonstratively
elsewhere. Is there some unhelpful self-satisfaction about
being present where the action is? This is a minority
issue. Where are the thousands of Christians rather than the
dedicated few who stand in the rain? What does that say
about our understanding of abortion and this sort of public
protest activity? Are we complicit or cowardly?’
‘Whatever the arguments for and against standing outside abortion
clinics, the approval of buffer zones has more sinister
connotations. First, it regards trespass where no intent to
trespass exists. The non-demonstrating public may freely
‘trespass’ within buffer zones. Only those who seem to be
praying, or leafleting, or engaging with likely abortion clinic
clients will be barred. Second, it infringes public
engagement, stopping, for example, any opportunities for
conversation. Are we no longer allowed to chat freely with
fellow citizens? Third, it militates against free
speech. If conversation is banned, what about silent
prayer? What about freedom of religion? What about a
person’s private thoughts? Where next, what next?
Street preaching is already under attack. Is the poor
Christian, who prays as he walks to the supermarket, or as he digs
his garden, likely to be muzzled? Of course not, you
say. Really? Why are you so sure?’
People of Scotland, consider these two complaints. First,
there is a small group of extremists among you who wish to
institutionalise abortion in a Scottish Constitution.
Second, your Parliament has overstepped the abortion line.
It has exceeded its powers and sought to encroach upon and ban the
thoughts and opinions of others, including you. This cannot
be right.
IVF and
ARTs
Opposing IVF
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has been highly controversial even
before the world’s first ‘test-tube’ baby, Louise Brown, was born
in July 1978. The Roman Catholic church has long been a
prime opponent on at least three grounds. First, IVF
separates the procreative goal of marital sex from the goal of
uniting married couples. Second, IVF treats children as
products rather than as gifts. And third, IVF inevitably
destroys human embryonic life. However, while the Roman
church opposes IVF, it does not oppose exploring treatments to
help with infertility – there are licit means to enhance fertility
and overcome obstacles to conception.
Those are the official, staunch and implacable position statements
of the Roman Catholic church and its 1.3 billion adherents.
Now, what about the Protestant churches and their 1 billion
members? There is, and never has been, such a clear and
agreed position on IVF. Take, for example, the largest
international grouping, the Anglican Communion, with its worldwide
membership of 85 million. To say it is confused in both
doctrine and practice is a huge understatement. Frankly, it
is as disunited on IVF as on most other bioethical issues.
This is so disheartening.
But here is some heartening news. With some 13 million
members in 47,000 churches, the largest Protestant denomination in
the USA, the Southern Baptist Convention, has at last nailed its
IVF colours to the mast. At its annual meeting in June at
Indianapolis some 10,000 delegates voted overwhelmingly to oppose
the use of IVF. The relevant resolution asserted that ‘human
being’ includes ‘frozen embryonic human being’. It declared
that ‘though all children are to be fully respected and protected,
not all technological means of assisting human reproduction are
equally God-honoring or morally justified.’
The catalyst for this bold assertion was the Rev Dr R Albert
Mohler Jr, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
in Louisville, Kentucky and, according to Time magazine, ‘the
reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the
US.’ Mohler stated that the Alabama Supreme Court got it
right in its 16 February ruling on IVF when it said that human
embryos should be protected as human life. In other words,
Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn
children regardless of their location, whether in a human uterus
or in a freezer used during IVF procedures. The background
to this lawsuit was outlined in the ‘USA and Elsewhere’ section of
the Update on Life Issue (June 2024) here.
What now? The anti-IVF declaration by the Southern Baptist
Convention should galvanise other Protestant evangelical groupings
to oppose IVF. And it will push individuals to question
their own stance on IVF. So, where do you stand? That
notwithstanding, the bioethical mantra still stands – IVF is best
avoided.
IVF trends in the UK
On 18 July 2024, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
(HFEA) published its annual set of data and trends associated with
the UK fertility sector. The document is entitled Fertility
Treatment 2022: Preliminary Trends and Figures and indeed
most of its figures relate to 2022. Here are some of the
report’s main points.
During 2022, most fertility service activities increased on
pre-pandemic levels from 2019. In 2022, around 52,500
patients had IVF treatments at HFEA licensed fertility centres in
the UK. IVF cycles (fresh and frozen embryo transfers)
increased by 8,000 to almost 77,000 cycles from around 69,000 in
2019.
However, the average age of first-time IVF patients has now risen
to over 35 years, even though the success rates are known to
decline with age. There is therefore a large gap in the
average age that women in England and Wales gave birth to their
first child. According to ONS figures, this was 29.2 years
for natural conceptions compared with patients accessing IVF for
the first time at 35.1 years.
Average IVF pregnancy rates using fresh embryo transfers increased
nationally to 31% per fresh embryo transferred in 2022, up from
21% a decade before in 2012. The highest birth rates (not
pregnancy rates), at 35%, were among young patients, aged between
18 and 34. Among older patients, aged between 43 and 44,
this rate dropped to only 5%.
Multiple births from IVF treatments, with their well-known health
risks to both mothers and babies, fell from 28% in the 1990s to
their lowest ever level at just 4%. The cost-of-living
crisis, plus Covid-19 troubles, and increased waiting times within
the NHS, have been among the factors that have resulted in a
decline of NHS-funded IVF. In 2012, 40% of treatment cycles
were funded centrally compared with only 27% in 2022.
New ova and sperm donors, including those from abroad, increased
by 21% from 2019 to 2022, however UK-based sperm donors decreased
by 11%. Some 90% of all IVF patients were in heterosexual
relationships. The number of IVF patients in female same-sex
relationships increased by 35% from 1,628 in 2019 to 2,200 in
2022. The number of single patients undergoing IVF increased
by 82% from 1,953 in 2019 to 3,548 in 2022.
The take-home message? If you really, really must try IVF,
do it while young, and expect it to be largely a failure as well
as costly, both financially and emotionally. Otherwise, the
bioethical mantra still stands – IVF is best avoided.
Two AIs and ARTs
This will test the extent of your bioethical ancestry –
this is an ageist segment. Decades ago, one type of assisted
reproductive technology (ART) was AI, artificial insemination,
also known as IUI, intrauterine insemination. According to
the HFEA, AI ‘is a type of fertility treatment in which the better
quality sperm are separated from sperm that are sluggish,
non-moving or abnormally shaped. These sperm are then
injected directly into the womb. It is most commonly used by
people who are using donated sperm in their treatment, including
single women and female couples, but can also be used by some
heterosexual couples.’ It is regarded as more natural than
IVF, but it is less successful.
Move on about 70 years and now, in 2024, the abbreviation, AI, has
adopted another entirely different meaning, namely artificial
intelligence. And a recent research project has examined how
well such an AI system can select IVF embryos most suitable for
transfer compared with those chosen by an embryologist’s eye.
Researchers from 14 fertility clinics in Australia, Denmark,
Sweden and the UK compared pregnancy rates and outcomes from
embryos selected using either a deep learning AI system, known as
intelligent Data Analysis (iDA), or using the standard assessment
of the morphology of the embryo by embryologists. The work
was published as ‘Deep learning versus manual morphology-based
embryo selection in IVF: a randomized, double-blind noninferiority
trial’ by Peter J Illingworth et al., and published in Nature
Medicine (2024, 9 August).
In the study, iDA was used to review the same embryonic data as
assessed by an embryologist, and to score each embryo out of
ten. The embryo transfer procedures were then randomly
allocated to the two arms of the study of 1,066 patients, with
half having the embryologist-selected embryo transferred, and half
having the embryo which scored highest using the AI system.
The clinical pregnancy rates (the detection of a foetus by
ultrasound) were compared between the two groups. The
results were not significantly different, with the AI system
slightly lower at 46.5% compared to 48.2% in the
embryologist-selected group. Overall, the AI system selected
the same embryos as an embryologist 69% of the time.
However, the selection of the embryos using AI was ten-times
quicker than selection by embryologists. It therefore seems
that use of this deep learning tool for embryo selection will not
radically change the outcome of IVF treatments because it mostly
chooses the same embryo as the embryologist would.
Nevertheless, having a reliable, automated tool of this sort may
make embryology laboratories more efficient and consistent.
Perhaps, as feared by some, AI really could take over repetitive,
time-consuming and subjective tasks and make skilled employees
redundant. As if IVF is not overly impersonal already.
And already you know the mantra.
Euthanasia and Assisted
Suicide
Assisted suicide in the Commons
Oh dear, this is such a miserable topic to write (and read)
about. The issue was pushed up the agenda last year when the
TV presenter Dame Esther Rantzen announced that she had joined
Dignitas, the assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. Words
from our Prime Minister give no comfort. Earlier this year,
Sir Keir Starmer stated, ‘I am personally in favour of changing
the law and I can give you my commitment … that if we are
privileged enough to win the election, we will make time for this
vote.’ Then on an LBC Radio interview this summer he
maintained, ‘I will double down on that commitment [on assisted
dying] – we will allow time for a private member’s bill, and there
will be a free vote.’ Starmer was a prominent supporter of
the issue the last time it was voted on in the Commons nine years
ago – and defeated 330 v 118.
It is an issue that has split the Labour party. Wes
Streeting, the MP for Ilford North and the current Secretary of
State for Health & Social Care has said the ‘time has come’
for a debate on the subject. However, Streeting has his
reservations and has declared, 'I am not sure as a country we have
the right end-of-life care available to enable a real choice on
assisted dying.’ Moreover, the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of
State for Justice and MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Shabana Mahmood,
has stated, ‘I don't intend to support it ... once you cross that
line, you've crossed it forever. If it becomes the norm that
at a certain age or with certain diseases, you are now a bit of a
burden … that's a really dangerous position.’
Indeed, these doubts and fears were reflected in a poll conducted
this summer by Whitestone Insight. It found that more people
than not (46% v 36%) thought that assisted suicide, even if
desirable in principle, is not ‘a practical and safe option to
implement in Britain.’ The truth is that most people are
ambivalent and harbour serious concerns about assisted suicide.
So here is the question – will there be a vote in the House of
Commons on assisted suicide as early as next year?
Maybe. Already potential bill sponsors are appearing.
One such is Jake Richards, Labour MP for Rother Valley. He
was selected in the private member’s bill ballot in
September. He missed out on a top seven spot, which would
have guaranteed him a day’s debate, but he was drawn in 11th
position, meaning he is likely to secure some Parliamentary time
on a Friday sitting to debate a bill of his choice. It is
expected that would be granted next year. Richards has said,
‘I’ve campaigned for reforms to assisted dying laws for many
years, and immediately upon finding out my name had been picked I
was determined to bring this bill forward. He now expects
the Government to give time in the Commons to change the 1967
Suicide Act, which he has called ‘the archaic law’. Other
ballot winners are being ‘leaned on’. The successful MPs
will introduce their chosen bills to the House of Commons on
Wednesday 16 October.
Assisted suicide in the Lords
And there is more. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is the former
Labour justice secretary and a persistently determined advocate
for assisted suicide which he has described as ‘the UK’s next
great social reform’. In July, he introduced his own private
member’s bill, entitled, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill
Adults Bill, in the House of Lords. It is similar to his
previous four bills that aimed at changing the law and permitting
terminally ill adults, with six months left to live, the option of
an assisted suicide. Falconer has stressed that this current
Bill would have strong safeguards, including the person must be
mentally able to make the decision, two doctors must approve the
procedure, along with the consent of the High Court. It will
be debated and voted on at its Second Reading on Friday 15
November.
However, opposition to the Bill comes not only from the general
public, but also specifically from disability rights
organisations. Major disability groups, including Disabled
People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Not Dead Yet UK, have been vocal in
their opposition. For example, DPAC recently held a protest
at Westminster urging the new Labour Government to reject any
moves towards legalising assisted suicide.
Not Dead Yet UK has also expressed deep concern about the Falconer
Bill, stating, ‘Like many disabled people, we are conscious that
attempts to build legalised suicide into healthcare can be
profoundly discriminatory – if a non-disabled person wants to die,
their doctor does not give them the means to kill
themselves.’ They added, ‘We want the same care and respect
to be given to terminally ill people if they are suicidal.’
Instead of legalising assisted suicide, the group lobbies for
improving access to palliative care and addressing the underlying
issues of dignity and feelings of being a burden. They also
argue that the Bill’s proposed safeguards will fail to protect
disabled people, saying, ‘In reality, these safeguards are
virtually impossible to implement effectively.’
A recent poll, commissioned by the disability charity SCOPE, has
shown that the majority of people with disabilities (64%),
including nearly three-quarters of young disabled people, are
concerned about legalising assisted suicide. Many worry it
could lead to pressure on disabled individuals to end their lives
prematurely.
Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, commented,
‘It should come as no surprise that no major disability advocate
groups in the UK support a change in the law to introduce assisted
suicide.’ She emphasised that Parliament has consistently
rejected Lord Falconer’s proposals, and that the focus should be
on palliative care, not assisted death.
Ross Hendry, CEO of Christian Action, Research and Education
(CARE), rightly maintains that assisted suicide ‘undermines human
dignity and puts vulnerable groups at greater risk of abuse and
harm.’ He added, ‘UK politicians should ensure that
investment and infrastructure are in place to ensure high-quality
palliative care for all people. The UK has huge work to do
in this area, given a chronic underfunding of this aspect of
healthcare. We’d also emphasise the need to enhance suicide
prevention, and work towards a society where all lives are
considered.’
Assisted suicide on the Isle of Man
Sweet, little offshore island, home of TT races and stubby-tailed
cats, semi-independent as a British Crown Dependency,
self-governing country and not part of the UK. How could
you? How could you approve a law that would give terminally
ill Isle of Man residents the right to choose to end their
lives? You and your MHKs (Members of the House of Keys) are
guilty of having made a terrible mistake.
Here is the back story. In Manx law, under section 2(1) of
the Criminal Law Act 1981, assisted suicide is unlawful. It
is an offence, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment, akin to
section 2(1) of the UK’s Suicide Act 1961. Nevertheless,
proposals to approve assisted suicide go back at least to February
2015, when MHK Juan Watterson sought to introduce a private
member's bill aimed at changing Manx law. That motion was
rejected by 17 to 5.
It was not until 2022 that Dr Alex Allinson, GP and MHK for
Ramsey, brought his Assisted Dying Bill 2023 to the House of
Keys. Its stated purpose was ‘To enable adults who are
terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified
assistance to end their own life; and for connected
purposes.’ In effect it proposed that terminally ill,
mentally competent adults should be able to request assisted
dying, subject to approval from two independent doctors.
Alex Allinson, believes the proposed legislation would give
‘choice, autonomy and dignity.’ Opponents have variously
described it as ‘irresponsible’, ‘unworkable’ and ‘unsafe’.
On 24 May 2022, MHKs voted by 22 to 2 to allow its
introduction. On 27 June 2023, it received its First Reading
in the House of Keys, the lower House of the Tynwald, the Island’s
Parliamentary assembly.
On 31 October 2023, the Bill passed its Second Reading by 17 to
7. It has since been debated in its so-called critical
Clauses stage. On 7 and 14 May, two key changes were
approved. First, MHKs voted (14 to 10) to increase the
required residency period on the Island from one year to five,
amid concerns that it could encourage so-called ‘death
tourism’. Second, MHKs supported (15 to 9) a change to allow
those with a prognosis of less than 12 months to live, the right
to die, rather than six months as originally proposed.
The Clauses stage continued throughout June 2024. MHKs
rejected by 14 to 9 an amendment to postpone the debate until
after the summer recess in November. They also voted down
further amendments to postpone debates on other clauses.
Further details of the Bill were approved including amendments to
increase its safeguards by adding further offences to protect
against the possibility of coercion as well as an opt-in model for
doctors who wish to be part of the service. In addition,
MHKs voted 19 to 4 in favour of limiting the Bill to
self-administration of the life-ending medications by the patient
rather than involving a doctor, and thus they restricted the Bill
to assisted suicide rather than the possibility of
euthanasia. On 9 July 2024, the House debated whether to
subject the Bill to approval by referendum – that amendment was
lost by a single vote, 12 to 11.
On 23 July it was reported that the Bill had passed its Third
Reading as MHKs voted 16 to 8 in favour. It now progresses
to the Legislative Council, the Upper House of the Tynwald, for
further debate and scrutiny over the summer recess, which runs
until October.
It could then be passed, amended or rejected. If the former,
the Bill could receive Royal Assent as soon as next year, followed
by consideration of how the legislation will be implemented.
Assisted suicide deaths could potentially become available for
Manx residents as soon as 2027. Thus, the Island could
become the first part of the British Isles to pass assisted
suicide legislation – it could have serious implications for the
UK mainland.
The opinions of Manx residents have been mixed, even
polarised. In 2021, Dignity in Dying, the UK’s largest
assisted dying organisation, reported that an opinion poll had
found that 87% of residents backed a change in the law on assisted
suicide. By October 2023, a survey commissioned by Dignity
in Dying found that 66% of 1,200 residents supported the Bill with
53% indicating ‘strong’ support. In April 2023, according to
results from the Manx Government’s own consultation, 49.6% of
respondents disagreed with the proposed regime, with 49.0% in
support. A survey by the Isle of Man Medical Society
reported in October 2023, that 74% of the 108 doctors who
responded were against the introduction of the proposed
laws. Moreover, the survey reported that 34% of doctors
would consider leaving the Island if the new legislation was
introduced.
If this Manx Bill becomes law the door is pushed open, just a
little, for similar legislation in the UK and elsewhere.
That would be a wretched landmark day for us all. The
doctor-patient relationship of respect and trust would be
broken. The ethics and practice of wholesome
Hippocratic-Christian medicine would never be the same.
Healthcare workers as dedicated healers would become life
terminators. The elderly, disabled, poor, frail, sick and
vulnerable would be at even greater risk. Second-rate
end-of-life care would become commonplace. The inevitable
trend in politics, ethics and practice would be from ‘soft’
assisted dying to ’hard’ euthanasia. None of this would be
praiseworthy or commendable.
Genetic Technologies
Guidelines for SCBEMs
New biological technologies, especially those with potentially
dangerous consequences, require robust regulations, sometimes
including ringfencing to curb their uses. Take as an
example, all techs that use (and inevitably destroy) human
embryos. Your bioethical alarm bells should now be ringing
loudly. And likewise for stem cell-based embryo models, or
SCBEMs. These are three-dimensional biological structures
grown from stem cells that can mimic some aspects of human embryo
development. They have been used by scientists over many
years for a range of research purposes.
In some countries such controversial research is like the Wild
West – anything goes. The UK has a little more mellow
outlook. Yet SCBEMs are problematic because they behave like
human embryos, but they are not human embryos. This type of
research needs strenuously regulating. Something needs to be
done.
And, in July 2024, UK researchers took the first required
step. They published a voluntary code of practice for
scientists working with these human-embryo models. The
25-page document is entitled, ‘Code of Practice for the Generation
and Use of Human Stem Cell-Based Embryo Models.’ It is
intended to support the development of best practice for the
generation and use of human SCBEMs for research in the UK.
Unsurprisingly it is something of a gallimaufry. For
instance, it prohibits implanting SCBEMs into the uterus of a
living person or other animal. That is good. However,
it does not set a time limit on how long these models can be grown
in the lab. That is bad. It is reminiscent of the
various erstwhile prohibitions on, for example, reproductive
germline editing, human hybrid production, plus the 14-day
rule. Look where they are today! Such bans and
seemingly robust regulations in biological experimentation have a
predictable tendency to go soft with time. Scientists plead,
’If only we could go a little further, a cure is just around the
corner.’
This is dangerous ground. For example, on p. 7 the Code
admits, ‘A key difficulty, given the current state of SCBEM
research, is that much is still unknown, in particular about
whether at least some SCBEMs could ever have developmental
potential equivalent to that of a human embryo.’ Moreover,
the Code is bioethically feeble. Again, on p. 7, ‘This
current lack of knowledge itself has ethical implications.
Arguably, it implies the need for a cautious approach pending
further knowledge: one which recognises the benefits the research
may bring, but which balances this with the need to monitor the
progress of that research carefully in light of ethical, legal and
public attention to and concern about the entity that SCBEMs
model, namely the human embryo.’ Yes, this is indeed
dangerous ground.
Overall, the Code is a worthy attempt to prohibit, limit and
regulate SCBEM usage. It needs strong words, and it contains
some. But we have been here before. For instance, 40
years ago, the controversial Warnock Report (1984) was
published. It sought to regulate aspects of human embryo
research, even though embryo destruction has always been the
certain outcome. Yet Warnock also failed on other
fronts. Above all, it signally failed to determine the
legal, ethical and biological status of the human embryo.
How can governance be determined if the entity to be governed is
unspecified? Is such asininity going to be a model for the
regulation of SCBEMs?
He Jiankui, again
You may remember He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who, in 2018,
was jailed for three years, fined three million yuan (£330,000)
and fired from his university job for illegally using CRISPR to
gene edit the DNA of three babies in the hope of giving them
resistance to HIV. They were the first gene-edited human
babies ever born and their birth caused a firestorm of
controversy. He Jiankui had crossed the bioethical red line
forbidding gene editing for reproductive purposes, the so-called
germline genome editing that passes on genetic mutations to future
generations.
In 2022, after serving his time and paying his fine, he was back
in the lab. JK, as he prefers to be called, has never been
shy of promoting himself and has recently given interviews to the
MIT Technology Review and the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun
newspaper. He has moved to Hainan, China’s southernmost
island province, and started work there at a private laboratory in
Sanya City, with funding from unnamed Chinese and US companies –
though he has refused to identify these sources precisely.
This time, he is working on using gene-editing technology to cure
various inherited conditions like Duchenne muscular dystrophy
(DMD) and familial Alzheimer’s – his mother has the latter.
He has fatefully said, ’So I’m going to have Alzheimer’s too, and
maybe my daughter and my granddaughter. So I want to do
something to change it.’
At present his work is limited to adding modified genes to a
living person’s somatic (non-reproductive) cells, but he wants
again to work on human embryos. In the online discussion
organised by the MIT Technology Review, he stated that, ‘So my
goal is we’re going to test the embryo gene editing in mice and
monkeys and in human non-viable embryos. We’re going to stop
at human non-viable embryos.’ The aim is to prove whether or
not the genetic precursors for Alzheimer’s can be prevented from
being passed down to the next generation.
JK is still enamoured with gene editing. He believes his
current basic research will be finished within two years.
But the next phase – human trials – will be somebody else’s
problem. Moreover, JK has said, ‘I believe society will
eventually accept that embryo gene editing is a good thing because
it improves human health. So I’m waiting for society to
accept that.’
Meanwhile in July, and pertinent to He’s research, China's
Ministry of Science and Technology issued new guidelines
concerning the ethics of human genome editing research.
According to the China Daily, ‘The guidelines reinforce a strict
ban on altering germ cells and embryos where alterations may be
inherited by future generations. Moreover, research on
somatic (non-reproductive) cells should only be carried out in
order to prevent or treat disease – specifying that special
attention should be paid to whether it might trigger alterations
in germ cells. In other words, the new guidelines confirm
that, ‘At present, any clinical research involving germline genome
editing is irresponsible and not permitted.’ Indeed,
implanting an edited embryo into a human in China, as He did, is
now a crime subject to up to seven year’s imprisonment.
And what about those twins, Lulu and Nana, and the other gene
edited baby that were He’s downfall? There was some fear
because the targeted gene, CCR5, can also affect
intelligence. But according to JK, ‘They are perfectly
healthy and have no problems with their growth.’ The twin
girls, now aged at least 5, are both attending nursery
school. JK also revealed that the other baby born in 2019
was a girl. He confirmed that, ‘I'm proud to have helped
families who wanted healthy children.’ Indeed, he is giving
one of the adults, now a single mother, some financial support.
OK, so JK got his comeuppance for transgressing bioethical and
scientific boundaries. And the three girls are apparently
well, even thriving. As JK has said, ‘They were healthy and
are living a normal, peaceful, undisturbed life.’ But the
girls’ outcomes could have been so very different, and indeed may
yet be so. Whatever, the whole farrago remains reckless and
rather creepy.
But will germline genome editing be forever verboten?
Probably not. A recent survey showed that 30% of people
would edit their children’s genomes to improve their offsprings’
chances of attending a top university. Children as
commodities, ‘pick and mix’ offspring. Help us!
Haemophilia B gene therapy
The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
has recently approved a new gene therapy for haemophilia B.
Hemgenix (etranacogene dezaparvovec) is now available in eight
specialist UK centres where it will be used to treat adults with
moderately severe and severe haemophilia B. This is a
genetic condition caused by the partial or complete loss of factor
IX, a protein essential to produce blood clots. The therapy
uses an engineered virus to ‘infect’ a patient’s liver with the
gene required to express the factor IX clotting protein.
Approximately 2,000 people in the UK have the bleeding disorder
and it is reckoned that about 250 patients will benefit from
Hemgenix as it helps to reduce the frequency and symptoms of
painful bleeds. Current haemophilia B treatment involves
infusions of factor IX once or twice a week. These treatments can
cost the NHS about £150,000 to £200,000 per patient per year for
life. By contrast, Hemgenix is administered as a one-off
infusion lasting for just one to two hours.
NICE originally rejected approval of Hemgenix because of
uncertainties about its long-term effectiveness and high
cost. However, a deal has subsequently been negotiated with
the therapy’s manufacturer, CSL Behring, to bring down the
official cost to £2.6m per treatment.
Elliott Mason is 34 and has severe haemophilia B. He spent
29 years needing frequent infusions of factor IX, but five years
ago he took part in the Hemgenix trials. He has confirmed,
'My results were fantastic – it's been amazing for me. I get
tested every six months and so far, I haven't needed any factor IX
injections. He now ‘feels cured’ and the gene therapy has
given him a ‘new lease of life’. He further acknowledged
that, ‘I don't think you can go through something like that for 29
years, for it to completely disappear and not change someone
mentally and physically.’ Wonderful news!
However, relevant research questions continue. For example,
in a trail of 54 men given Hemgenix, two patients still needed
factor IX injections. Why? Moreover, there is the
question of the Hemgenix’s long-term effectiveness. And
because haemophilia is mostly passed from men to their daughters,
who act as carriers, this genetic inheritance is not solved by
Hemgenix therapy – can it therefore be regarded as a proper
cure? Nevertheless, here is a genuine example of seemingly
successful somatic gene therapy. Give thanks with a grateful
heart!
Stem-Cell Technologies
The 2002 paper retracted
In Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream, Lysander says,
hoping to comfort Hermia, ‘The course of true love never did run
smooth.’ And sometimes science travels rocky roads too.
Here is such a most regrettable example. In 2002, the
premier science journal, Nature, published a paper
entitled, ‘Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from
adult marrow’ by Yuehua Jiang et al., Nature
(2002, 418: 41-49). The research team from The Stem
Cell Institute, University of Minnesota Medical School was led by
Catherine M Verfaillie.
As the article’s Abstract stated, ‘We report here that cells
co-purifying with mesenchymal stem cells – termed here multipotent
adult progenitor cells or MAPCs – differentiate, at the single
cell level, not only into mesenchymal cells, but also cells with
visceral mesoderm, neuroectoderm and endoderm characteristics in
vitro. When injected into an early blastocyst, single MAPCs
contribute to most, if not all, somatic cell types. On
transplantation into a non-irradiated host, MAPCs engraft and
differentiate to the haematopoietic lineage, in addition to the
epithelium of liver, lung and gut. Engraftment in the
haematopoietic system as well as the gastrointestinal tract is
increased when MAPCs are transplanted in a minimally irradiated
host. As MAPCs proliferate extensively without obvious
senescence or loss of differentiation potential, they may be an
ideal cell source for therapy of inherited or degenerative
diseases.’
In other words, the article importantly claimed that a type of
adult stem cell extracted from bone marrow of mice, called
multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs), could, under certain
circumstances, contribute to nearly all the major somatic cell
types of the body, including brain, heart, skin, blood and lung.
The report of this discovery in 2002 generated excitement because
no other adult stem cells had shown such potential, similar to
that of embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the findings
supported the claim that MAPCs 'engraft' in the bone marrow.
Specifically, they settle and integrate into the bone marrow,
which is the body's factory for producing blood cells. Once
engrafted, these adult stem cells can start generating new,
healthy blood cells, potentially helping treat diseases affecting
blood and the immune system, such as leukaemia.
Then, some 22 years later, this very article was retracted by Nature
on 17 June 2024. The Retraction Note (Nature, 2024,
630: 1020) states that, ‘The Editors have retracted this
article because concerns have been raised regarding some of the
panels shown in Figure 6, specifically:
• the lower half of Figure 6a (CD45/β-gal)
appears to be identical to the upper half of Figure 6e
(Gr-1/β-gal)
• the upper right corner of Figure 6m appears to
have two regions that are duplicated within the upper right corner
itself
The original images for Figures 6a, 6e and 6m could not be
retrieved by the authors; therefore the Editors no longer have
confidence that the conclusion that multipotent adult progenitor
cells (MAPCs) engraft in the bone marrow is supported.
Given the concerns above the Editors no longer have confidence in
the reliability of the data reported in this article.’
Science does indeed sometimes travel rocky roads.
Retractions of articles have been growing – in 2009, there were
less than 1,000, whereas in 2023 there were nearly 14,000.
Not all retractions are caused by flawed science and some
researchers consider that retraction can be part of a healthy
scientific process. But what about other articles that have
already cited the retracted article? This 2002 paper has
been cited almost 5,000 times, yet there is no mechanism to
automatically alert the scientists who cited it.
Of course, the article in question has been closely examined by
various scientific authorities. There has been general
agreement that while some minor errors occurred, ‘there was no
scientific fraud.’ For instance, Professor Verfaillie, the
team leader, was cleared of academic misconduct by the University
of Minnesota, but criticised for insufficient oversight of the
work. However, the retraction now makes Jiang et al.,
2002, the most-cited retracted paper ever. That is not the
sort of accolade Verfaillie and her colleagues were seeking.
Or, as Shakespeare did not write, ‘The course of true science
never did run smooth.’
Stem cells to blood cells
Human stem cells, of the type that are used for blood stem-cell
transplants, have been grown in a bioengineered gel designed to
mimic their natural, cultural medium, bone marrow.
Researchers at the University of Glasgow have developed a method
of culturing a specific type of human stem cell found in bone
marrow, known as long-term haematopoietic stem cells (LT-HSCs), in
a jelly-like gel which better mimics their natural
microenvironment. This encourages these notoriously
difficult to culture cells outside their in vivo niche to
replicate, rather than differentiate to other cell types or
die. This protocol potentially provides an enhanced source
of these very low abundance LT-HSCs for drug testing and
treatments for blood disorders, including leukaemia.
The work entitled, ‘Bioengineered niches that recreate
physiological extracellular matrix organisation to support
long-term haematopoietic stem cells’ by Hannah Donnelly et al.,
was published in Nature Communications (10 July 2024).
Stem-cell transplants can be used to treat a range of blood
disorders, such as leukaemia and sickle cell disease. These
procedures require the patient's bone marrow stem cells to be
depleted using chemotherapy, followed by replacement with
immunologically matched donor cells. However, there is
currently a greater clinical demand for these stem cells than can
be supplied. One of the major difficulties of stem-cell
transplants is that the LT-HSCs most crucial for ensuring
long-term donor cell engraftment are present as only a tiny
percentage of the bone marrow cell population. Moreover,
they tend to differentiate rapidly. Therefore, having a
robust physiological extracellular gel as a matrix for culturing
and retaining these cells outside the body could increase the
number of successful transplantations. Well done Glasgow
University bioengineers!
Bend and stretch
According to Canadian researchers, physically bending and
stretching stem cells can direct them to differentiate into
particular cell types.
Because stem cells can replicate and develop into all types of
somatic cells, they are useful research tools as well as potential
treatments for diseases of cell loss, such as Alzheimer's and type
1 diabetes. Traditionally, scientists have used various
chemical signals to direct stem cells toward a particular cell
type, but research at McGill University has demonstrated that
mechanically manipulating stem cells can have a similar effect.
The work entitled, ‘Nuclear curvature determines Yes-associated
protein localization and differentiation of mesenchymal stem
cells’ by Ajinkya Ghagre and his colleagues was published in Biophysical
Journal (2024, 123: 1222-1239).
The McGill research team investigated how mechanical stimuli can
guide stem-cell differentiation, as their use in regenerative
medicine depends on how precisely they can become their target
cell type. For their research, the scientists used mouse
mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs), which can generate bone, fat and
blood cells. Specialist microscopes were used to study the
shape of the MSCs and the nuclei inside, as well as the location
of Yes-associated protein (YAP). YAP is a mechanosensitive
protein, that can relay mechanical information to the nucleus.
The team found that in MSCs with very round nuclei, YAP would
remain outside the nucleus and the stem cells would become bone
cells. Whereas, when the researchers compressed the MSCs,
their nuclei would elongate, YAP would then enter the nuclei, and
the stem cells would become fat cells.
Like all radical discoveries in medicine both intensive and
extensive work is required to transfer potential treatments from
laboratory to clinic. It is therefore likely to be several
years to assess if bending and stretching stem cells can be used,
for instance, to aid bone regeneration treatments in patients
after traumatic incidents or those with osteoporosis. The
next steps for the McGill team will involve translating their
research from 2D single cell layers to 3D cultures in order to
assess how stem cells respond to mechanical stimuli in the human
body.
Miscellaneous
Come dine with me?
I’ve just come back from a shopping trip and to my chagrin I did
not wash my hands immediately. Gone are the lessons and
practises of those Covid-19 days when, it was through the front
door and without delay to the kitchen sink for a rigorous
20-second handwashing session timed by singing two rounds of
‘Happy birthday’.
But how can I be sure that this hot water and soap treatment is
enough? Have those 99.9% of bacteria, especially those
pathogens, been killed. I think my routine mostly works
because I suffer very few doses of D&V throughout the
years. Those nasty foodborne illnesses mostly occur from the
spread of pathogens, primarily bacteria, like Salmonella,
Campylobacter, Escherichia coli and Listeria
and viruses, like Norovirus or Hepatitis.
.
OK, that is me hygienically justified, but what about other
people? I am particularly concerned about the staff of
restaurants. It is not just the legendary ‘patching’ of our
plates of food, it is also the chefs’ and waiters’ grubby hands
and insanitary habits that cause me concern. After all,
eating out is sometimes followed by upset tummies and worse.
And it is not always that occasional oyster to blame for such
gut-rot. In fact, sickness from food may be more common that
we realise.
Look to the USA, where more people, eat more food, and eat out
more often. A recent Report from The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) entitled, ‘Estimates of Foodborne
Illness in the United States.’ I hope you are not about to
embark on your dinner. The Report estimates that foodborne
illnesses affect roughly 48 million Americans each year. A
total of 128,000 are hospitalised and 3,000 die from such bug
infections. Most (64%) of these cases can be traced back to
restaurants.
Globally the situation is staggeringly worse. According to
the World Health Organization (WHO), each year worldwide, unsafe
food causes 600 million cases of foodborne diseases and 420,000
deaths. A third of the deaths occur among children under 5
years of age. The WHO estimates that 33 million years of
healthy lives are lost due to eating unsafe food globally each
year, and that number is likely to be an underestimate.
The good news is that these illnesses are largely preventable, at
least in the rich West. At home, we are in charge – we are
the culprits. Eating out – others are the spreaders.
The CDC estimates that 90% of foodborne illnesses are directly
related to poor hand washing or hygiene practices. In the
USA, already there are federal guidelines for how often and when
food workers should wash their hands. So how can this queasy
situation be improved, monitored and enforced? While
restaurants display ‘Now wash your hands’ signs and organise staff
training, some method, protocol or tool is needed to actually
validate that hands were washed, properly.
Enter the PathSpot HandScanner. In 2017, Christine
Schindler, a biomedical engineer, created this device that checks
freshly-washed hands of food workers and alerts them if invisible
contaminants remain. The PathSpot HandScanner is mounted on
a wall next to the hand-washing sink. After scrubbing their
hands, employees place them under the scanner. If it signals
green, they are cleared to return to work. If it shows red,
they must rewash and rescan.
These Scanners are now being used by a range of food service
providers, including restaurants, grocery stores, food
manufacturing and packaging facilities. Some call it ‘a
handwashing lie detector’ or ‘a co-manager’. But as
Schindler says, ‘People want to eat somewhere where they’re going
to be protected, where the people serving the food are also
confident, clean, safe.’ Too true. But there is one
drawback. If you, like me, were thinking of buying one for
your kitchen, probably forget it. PathSpot HandScanners are
available on a subscription basis from between $50 and $175 a
month. You can buy a lot of soap and hot water for that sort
of money.
Come dine with me? Yes, and I will first scrub up and leave
those foodborne pathogens down the drain.
Block my IL-11
Inflammation is bad. Researchers have long known that
chronic inflammation contributes to diseases associated with
ageing. As the body grows older and accumulates damaged
proteins and other molecules, the immune system often sees these
as signs of a possible infection. This can trigger
inflammatory responses that might cause further damage and
contribute to diseases, such as cancer and autoimmune disorders,
including type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease
and multiple sclerosis.
Laboratory mice lived longer when a protein that promotes
inflammation, known as IL-11, was blocked. In middle-aged
mice blocking this protein boosted metabolism, reduced frailty and
increased lifespan by about 25%.
This recent research, undertaken at the Duke–National University
of Singapore Medical School, has been published as ‘Inhibition of
IL-11 signalling extends mammalian healthspan and lifespan’ by
Anissa A Widjaja et al., in Nature (2024, 632:
157-165).
The researchers tested a variety of samples from young and old
mice and found that IL-11 was consistently more abundant in older
mouse tissues, including skeletal muscle, fat and liver
tissue. When they deleted the gene that codes for the IL-11
protein, some mice had improved healthspans and lived up to 25%
longer than mice with normal levels of IL-11. The team also
obtained similar results when, for 25 weeks, they used an antibody
against IL-11 to block the protein in mice who were 75 weeks old,
roughly the equivalent of 55 years for a human.
Humans also possess IL-11. Although the research team tested
for these health benefits only in mice, could blocking IL-11 in
humans offer hope for a longer and healthier life?
Currently, the field is crowded with numerous other rejuvenation
interventions. However, in the past, so many potential
therapeutic candidates have shown promise in animal models only to
disappoint in human clinical trials.
The anti-IL-11 responses reported here were similar to those seen
in some studies where mice were treated with rapamycin, a
prominent drug in the anti-ageing field. However, rapamycin
has been linked to unwanted side effects. So rapamycin may
be beneficial for extending lifespan, but not healthspan, whereas
a drug that blocks IL-11 may be good for both healthspan and
lifespan.
Nevertheless, these recent results are sufficiently striking to
warrant further investigations. For a start, various
anti-IL-11 drugs should be tested in mice from diverse genetic
backgrounds and across several laboratories. Yet, if
promising candidates are revealed, a major problem arises.
How can they be assessed for their impact on human lifespan in
clinical trials? Such trials would necessarily be long and
expensive and perhaps confounded by other longevity factors.
Ageing research can be exciting, but also daunting.
The brain and religion
This is a topic not many readers will have thought much about – me
too. A helpful article by Partrick McNamara and colleagues
from several US universities and entitled, ‘Neuroscientists must
not be afraid to study religion’ appeared in a July edition of Nature
(2024, 631: 25-27). The following is a synopsis of
this novel meeting of religion and science. We need to
understand current thinking, stretch our minds and identify future
trends. Don’t we?
Apparently, around 85% of the global population identifies as
religious. Of course, we immediately ask what is meant by
‘religious’ and can easily become testy when others control the
definition. But hang in there.
The overarching verdict of McNamara et al., is that
‘religious or spiritual beliefs and practices can improve people’s
health and well-being; increase social cohesion, empathy and
altruistic behaviour; and protect people against cognitive decline
or substance abuse. But also, throughout history, religion
and spirituality have amplified conflict, polarization and
oppression.’
Yet ‘Despite the manifest importance of faith as an influencer of
human behaviour, neuroscientists have tended to steer clear of
studying how people’s beliefs affect their brains and vice versa.’
Why are we reticent? Is it fear of questioning powerful
religious institutions? Or fear of promoting a particular
religion? Or fear of engaging in an unscientific
enterprise? Whatever the reasons these authors now ‘call on
scholars from diverse disciplines to help establish a rigorous
field: the neuroscience of religion. Our goal is not to
debunk or promote religion or spirituality, but to understand the
neural mechanisms underlying their effects.’ After all, what
we think, feel and do are ultimately controlled by our brain plus
our belief system, even including the atheist’s supposed
non-belief. So brain and religion inevitably go together
just like love and marriage, or that horse and carriage.
What is known so far? Consider, for example, the work of US
anthropologist George Murdock (no, I hadn’t either). He has
documented rituals directed at supernatural agents, or beliefs in
magical powers, or supernatural agents in 168 cultures. Such
works provide basic knowledge and tools for neuroscientists.
Then there is the Mystical Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ),
originally developed in 1969 by the US psychiatrist Walter Pahnke
and updated in 2012. He used a classification of mystical
experiences derived from thousands of religious narratives, mainly
collected between 1900 and 1950. Using the MEQ, researchers
can judge if reported experiences mention a positive mood, or
‘blissful state’, inner peace, or connectedness with others, a
transformed sense of self, and so on. Factors are graded and
those with a high score are deemed religious or spiritual.
The MEQ and other psychological metrics have been used with
brain-imaging techniques that allow neuroscientists to map the
neural activity associated with all sorts of cognitive, social and
emotional processes. Trends are starting to emerge.
During the 1990s, mainstream media picked up on reports of a ‘God
spot’ in one region of the temporal lobe. Back then,
so-called religiosity was sometimes drastically heightened in some
people with temporal-lobe epilepsy. More recently
brain-imaging studies have shown that religious and spiritual
experiences and practices, such as prayer, are associated with
neural activity in multiple networking regions in the brain.
Further evidence for brain-religion connectedness is provided by
brain lesions, such as those resulting from a stroke, or the
removal of brain tumours. The temporoparietal cortex has
been noted as a particular neural network involved in
self-awareness and social cognition linked with religious or
spiritual beliefs and practices. Other analyses, using
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), indicate that people
who regularly engage in spiritual or religious practices have
measurable differences in their brains.
In a large 2023 study, researchers analysed neuroimaging and
behavioural data from around 40,000 participants from the UK
Biobank cohort. They found that connectivity in and between brain
regions involved in self-reflection and in emotion regulation was
greater in people who regularly engage in religious practices than
in those who regularly engage in sports, or in those who regularly
engage in social activities. These variations in
connectivity patterns between the three groups are strictly
correlative. Whether religious experience contributes to
certain connectivity patterns, or whether people who have certain
connectivity patterns are predisposed to affiliate with religious
groups, is an interesting topic for future research.
Brain-imaging studies conducted over the past decade indicate that
psychedelic drugs modulate activity in several specific brain
regions. These are the very regions that are also modulated
during religious and spiritual experiences or practices, and that
are associated with capabilities in social cognition. Most
psychedelic drugs are known to affect neural pathways that are
modulated by serotonin, the neurotransmitter that affects mood,
cognition, learning, and so on. Altering the activity of
circuits that are normally regulated by serotonin signalling can
affect people’s sense of self, their feelings of connectedness
with others, and the likelihood that they will report an encounter
with a supernatural agent. Indeed, the reported effects of
psychedelics indicate that many people have what they describe as
religious or spiritual experiences after taking these drugs.
In one survey, around 28% of the participants reported that they
were atheists before taking the drug – only 10% said that they
were atheist afterwards.
Such fascinating neuroscience-based findings have emerged despite
there being very few researchers working on these topics.
McNamara et al. call for more investigators, more funding
and more approaches, as seen in the three-year Cognitive
Neuroscience of Religious Cognition (CNRC) project. For
instance, artificial intelligence (AI) could be used to identify
brain-activity patterns associated with thinking about religious
or spiritual concepts, or the performance of a religious task or
practice. Large language models (LLMs) and other
computational tools could analyse vast swathes of text to
systematically examine subjective reports of religious and
spiritual experiences. And virtual reality (VR) offers one
way to create experiences in a controlled setting that might be
similar to those considered to be religious or spiritual in the
real world.
McNamara and his colleagues are not maintaining that VR or
psychedelic-induced mystical experiences are equivalent to
religious experiences. Nor do they think that experiments
involving such interventions could ever adjudicate religious
statements, such as that a supernatural agent exists. But if
VR techniques and pharmacological manipulations can evoke
experiences in the laboratory that have much in common with
religious or spiritual experiences in the real world, then
brain-imaging or brain-stimulation techniques could be used to map
the neural activity associated with such experiences.
Likewise, systematically altering the environment could identify
the conditions under which certain individuals report experiencing
an encounter with a supernatural agent.
In closing. What is the mere evangelical Christian to make
of all this? Should we dismiss this neuro-stuff as
hocus-pocus and want nothing to do with it? That would be an
understandable, but limp, response. So far, brain-religion
research has undeniably shown that human affections, religious or
otherwise, can light up certain areas of the brain. That is
no big deal. What else would you expect ‘feelings’ to do?
Three conclusions can be drawn. First, if religiousness can
similarly be evoked by the Holy Spirit or psychedelic drugs, then
there must be ‘true’ as well as ‘false’ religion. Their
roots are like chalk and cheese, supernatural and natural,
transcendent and absurd. Second, Christianity is not merely
a rag-tag collection of religious ‘feelings’. It is true
religion because it rests upon propositional truths – they are the
touchstone of true religion. They remain standing whether
you believe them or not. So come on neuroscientists, tell us
more. Don’t be afraid to study true religion. And that
call also applies to electricians, pilots, students, pensioners,
children and more. Third, this brain-religion literature has
a tell-tale hole. Where is the Triune God? In the
article by McNamara et al, ‘God’ is mentioned just once,
and that in a derogative sense. ‘Jesus Christ’ and the ‘Holy
Spirit’ are entirely absent. What does that tell you?
For sure, not much about Christianity.
It is said that increasing numbers of people in high-income
countries are leaving traditional religious affiliations.
Whereas in low-income countries, religious traditions are
remaining strong or even expanding. And meanwhile, more
young people around the globe, classed as Gen Z (those born
between 1997 and 2012), seem to be embracing highly traditional
religious affiliations, such as reformed Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism.
Perhaps such demographic movements really do call for a greater
need for proper studies of brain-religion. They could tell
us more about understanding the human brain and thus, human
life. Why should we be afraid of true truth?
USA and Elsewhere
Trump v. Harris
Yes, the USA is at it again. On Tuesday 5 November, it is
time to vote for the next President of the United States of
America. It is Trump v. Harris, ex-President Donald
John Trump v. Vice President Kamala Devi Harris.
What a pair, what a choice! Even their running mates, JD
Vance and Tim Walz, have been described as ‘unusually
weird’. Do any of these leaders have the moral depth and
intellectual strength to tackle the problems facing the US?
Or does a country get the leaders it deserves?
The race to the White House looks to be tight. For the last
few months, it has been about 45% v 47% in favour of Harris in the
seven so-called swing states. And it is these, such as
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona, that will probably decide the
result.
And how do the two contestants shape up bioethically? ‘Weird
again’. Harris has historically and consistently been an
extreme supporter of women’s reproductive rights, specifically
abortion rights, meaning open access to abortion, on demand, and
up to birth. Central to her campaign has been an unalloyed
championing of legislation that would enshrine reproductive rights
nationwide. If elected, the Harris-Walz duo would be the
most radically pro-abortion presidential ticket in American
history. If elected, the Democrats would press to restore a
federal abortion law across all states, similar to Roe
v. Wade, and so ditch the more restrictive pro-life laws
currently in place across many states.
Her campaign website states that abortion will be rebranded as
‘reproductive freedom’ and vows that as President, ‘she will never
allow a national abortion ban to become law. And when
Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom nationwide,
she will sign it.’ A President Harris may even have the
opportunity to appoint progressive, pro-choice judges to the
Supreme Court. Harris is clearly intent on making the USA a
more dehumanised USA.
Do you doubt her pro-abortion credentials? In December 2023,
the White House issued a press release demonstrating that Kamala
Harris has been making abortion a top priority. It stated
that, ‘Since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, the Vice
President has held more than 50 convenings in at least 16 states
while bringing together hundreds of state legislators, state
attorneys general, health care providers, faith leaders, students,
and advocates who are on the frontlines of the fight for
abortion.’
Also, in a first for a sitting president or vice president, in
March 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris toured a Planned
Parenthood abortion clinic in Minnesota. While here she told
waiting reporters, ‘What we want is to put back in place the
protections the Supreme Court took away, which is to codify, put
into law, the protections of Roe v. Wade, that's what we
want.’ Oh yes, Kamila Harris is a deeply, deeply
pro-abortion person.
On the other hand, the once outspokenly pro-life Trump has
recently struggled to present any consistent bioethical
message. When, during his Presidency, he appointed three
conservative judges to the Supreme Court, he became the darling
trooper of the pro-life movement. Those appointments were
pivotal in overturning the constitutional right to an abortion,
the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade. Moreover, during his
time in the White House, he issued clear pro-life statements on
abortion and IVF.
Recently, instead of the push for a federal ban on abortion he has
stepped back and said that abortion law should now be decided by
individual states. Then he ruled out reinstating a law under
which distributors of mail-order abortion pills could be
prosecuted. And during August, he pledged to provide free
access to IVF. ‘We want more babies’, he declared and, ‘Your
Government will pay for – or your insurance company will be
mandated to pay for – all costs. We are pro-family.’
‘Words, words, words’, as Hamlet said to Polonius.
Green-lighting abortion and subsidising embryo-destructive IVF –
these are the policies of a confused, confusing and pro-abortion
man. Some experts say Trump’s abortion wavering could still
cost him the election.
Clearly, there are now no pro-life presidential candidates in this
race. So here is the big question – who do evangelical
Christians and ‘the morally-sensitive’ vote for? Either way,
the pro-life cause in America, so energised a few months ago by
the rulings in Dobbs and Alabama, is now in turmoil.
Only in America
Every year, just as in the UK, the US political parties have a
knees-up. We call them Party Conferences and they occur
every September for about three days. They are generally
staged, dull affairs and can be tedious to the point of
mind-numbing. By contrast, the Republican and Democratic
parties in the US have four-day National Conventions, razzmatazz
circuses with media stars, old statesmen, live and loud music,
plus whooping and cheering and voting.
This year, from 19 to 22 August, the Democratic National
Convention (DNC) was held in Chicago. It was four days of
sugary politicking that only Americans can start and
sustain. This Convention was extra special because it was a
presidential nominating convention – Harris and Walz were
officially elected by the delegates.
The agenda was long, but front and centre were abortion and
women’s reproductive rights. What else would be
expected? Some delegates even proudly wore golden ‘abortion’
badges. This was the Democrats displaying their
long-standing policies. But this year, what was new and
unexpected were the offers of free abortions. Planned
Parenthood, the US’s abortion giant, had deployed an abortion bus,
or as they called it, ‘Our mobile health clinic’. On board,
they were offering drug-induced abortions. It was also
handing out so-called emergency contraception, the abortifacient
morning-after pill, free and without an appointment. And for
the gentlemen, there were free of charge vasectomies.
The stunt did not go without outcry. One of the largest
pro-life organisations, the Susan B Anthony Prolife America,
responded to the news with a press release labelling the DNC as an
‘Abortion Convention’. It stated that ‘The Democratic
National Abortion Convention puts the extremism of the Democrats
on full display. The days when the Democrats insisted
abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare' are history.
Today's Democrats under the Harris-Walz ticket are officially the
Shout Your Abortion Party.’
And there was more. A number of pro-choice demonstrations
took place. For example, a giant, 18-foot-tall inflatable,
shaped like an intrauterine device (IUD), was displayed and dubbed
‘Freeda Womb’. And during a pro-choice protest, several
women marched down the streets dressed as abortion pills.
Meanwhile, the Democrats took the opportunity of the DNC to
outline their priorities through their new ’24 Democratic Party
Platform’ document – 91 pages of policies. The word
‘abortion’ is mentioned 13 times in the document.
‘Reproductive freedom’ and ‘reproductive health’ are mentioned an
additional 14 times. And on other cultural issues, the term
‘LGBT’ is mentioned 37 times, ‘Donald Trump’ 150 times, and ‘God’
is mentioned once.’
Poland and abortion
In mid-July, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s coalition
Government failed to pass a law that would have decriminalised
abortion. It was a close result – Parliamentarians voted 215
in favour and 218 against with two abstentions. Phew!
The day was saved largely by members of the Polish People’s Party
– a conservative faction within the ruling alliance but with a
base of mostly rural voters. They had previously made clear
they did not support the extreme measure. Even so, it would
have been unlikely that President Andrzej Duda, an ally of the
nationalists, would have signed the bill because he had already
pledged to veto most aspects of Tusk’s liberal agenda.
During 2023, Tusk had run a successful election campaign on a
pledge to restore so-called women’s reproductive rights. The
previous nationalist administration, the Law and Justice party,
which had governed since 2015, had imposed one of the European
Union’s most restrictive anti-abortion laws.
Tusk’s proposed decriminalisation legislation sought to scrap
criminal liability, including potential prison sentences of up to
three years for those helping women seeking to terminate
pregnancies. Among other measures it would also have lifted
a prohibition on private individuals providing emergency
contraception pills. The Polish people presumably wanted a
change and a more liberal approach to abortion. Now Poland
has it. Tusk and his pro-abortion allies went for broke with
a shot at decriminalisation. It did not work.
Many readers will be well aware that a similar campaign to
decriminalise UK abortion law is currently afoot at
Westminster. The MPs’ names to watch are Stella Creasey and
Diana Johnson. Decriminalisation may be a big word, but it
is also a big deal. It would technically shift abortion from
a criminal offence to a mere medical issue. It would allow
abortions for any and every reason, no sanctions, no checks – just
ask.
What can we learn from Poland? We are now nearer to
decriminalisation. Poland has a governing coalition with a
small majority that supports the checks and balances of true
democracy. By contrast, the UK now has a Government with a
huge majority that creates a sterile democracy because it can
likely win any of its policies. The UK’s pro-life cause
could soon be in serious danger.