And another thing:
Even now the Prime Minister has relented, and allowed his MPs a whip-less vote on the Embryo Research Bill, for Catholic MPs that does not necessarily mean more freedom. Instead of being whipped by the high-priests of the Labour Party, the beleaguered Catholic MPs now face being told how to vote by apparatchiks of the Vatican machine instead. Worse, the penalties for defying The Church are presumably much harsher than the opprobrium the awkward squad receive every time they rebel over a Foundation Hospital. We’re talking eternal damnation here! Some freedom.
Author: Robert (Page 236 of 328)
My second point about the Embryo Research Bill controversy is one of irritation. The issue of whether Gordon Brown should have allowed Labour MPs a free vote was portrayed in the media as a battle between the Prime Minister and the dark forces of Catholicism. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor vocally insisted on a whip-less vote.
In the binary world of most political reporting, the result of this was that taking moral issue with he Embryo Research Bill was seen as the preserve of Catholicism. However, it is perfectly possible for atheists to have moral objections to the Bill too. The idea that morality can only derive from revealed religion is a great meme that needs to be challenged. The idea that atheism and secularism can be equated with the cold, amoral march of science is equally bad, but its a connection that Cardinals and Popes keep making. They should be challenged on this point.
At last Gordon Brown has found his way out of the ridiculous political cul-de-sac he had wandered into with regard to this embryo legislation. A few thoughts on the ethics and politics of the issue.
First, I think we can all agree that the debate has been clouded by hyperbole and hysteria. The legislation as it stands does not give scientists license to create their own little Island of Dr Moreau. As I understand it, human genetic material is not being spliced with other species to create Greek-style chimeras. Instead, it is proposed that human DNA will be inserted into animal cells, which are free of that animal’s genetic material.
I think it is important to make the distinction between two scientific-moral considerations here. The first concerns the identity of a set of genes: whether it is morally permissible for scientists to alter that gene, and whether its identity changes when they do. The second consideration is how the gene (regardless of whether scientists have altered its sequence or not) is allowed to develop, and for how long.
A cell is made up of many things. In addition to DNA genes there are mitochondira and other structures which allow the cell to produce energy and function properly. But we know that it is in the DNA that the potential for life is stored. Genes are the instructions for life, while other matter inside the cells are tools for releasing that potential. It is only in the DNA that identity rests, and that identity will remain regardless of where it is placed. So it seems to me that the current ethical controversy falls into the second category described above.
I think the animal cell is a sort of ‘surrogate’ that bears a similar relationship to the duplicating genes as a surrogate mother would to a baby that she carries. Although a surrogate mother is essential for the development of the foetus into a baby, the instructions by which the baby grows are supplied from elsewhere. The genetic link between the biological mother, father and child remains unchanged. Likewise with this proposed microbiological technique: The genetic link remains secure. Scientists are not ‘playing God’ by altering genetic material. Like surrogacy, all we are doing is allowing existing genetic material to grow in a new environment. If it can lead to medical breakthroughs in cancer treatment or Altzheimers, then it should be allowed.
Of course, “it’s just a surrogate” has moral limits too. My stomach would turn at the thought of allowing such cells to develop into a foetus or a child, just as it would if someone were able to grow a human baby inside a non-human surrogate (say, an organgutang or a Huxley-esque vat of goo). Future ethicists may not be so squeamish.
I attended the Next on 4 event this morning, where Jon Snow hosted the launch of Channel’s 4 ‘strategic blueprint’. They are placing an emphasis on digital technologies in order to capture young audiences, and have launched a £50 million public service digital media fund.
Crucially, they are cutting their overseas aquisitions budget by £35 million, meaning less US shows. I wonder how this will affect the channel’s ratings over the next few years – surely the popular American dramas and comedies are a key draw?
Chief Executive Andy Duncan also announced that Channel 4 would be facing a £100 million funding gap by 2012 (the year of the digital switch-over), which they would be looking to make-up from public subsidy. The argument is that Channel 4 has recieved, in the form of a free analogue licence, about £150 million in public subsidy per year since it lauched. The channel would now like to see that subsidy continue in other forms. When challenged, Duncan argued that this figure was not some accounting sleight-of-hand, but represented a real edge that allowed them to run the channel in the way they should. Clearly, the money for this will have to come from one of two sources – the government’s central coffers, or the licence fee, but Duncan and his collegaues were relucant to suggest which this might be. In the coming months, we’re likely to see either (a) an ugly scrap between the BBC and Channel 4 over funding, or (b) an ugly scrap between publicly funded organisations on one hand, and commercial broadcasters on the other… over funding. Channel 4 were keen to talk simply about their unique position, but I don’t really see how a conversation can be had without constant reference to the BBC. They need to explain where they expect their new money to come from, and fast.
The conflict stems, of course, from the difficulty in quantifying the benefit of publically funded broadcasting. Often, discussions over public service broadcasting are couched in terms of a polite threat: “Pay the licence fee, or you’ll lose Life in Cold Blood“; “Fund us, or we’ll cancel Cutting Edge and replace it with Celebrity Big Brother’s 100 Greatest Moments“. When put in these terms, or when we consider the unpleasant prospect of the Murdoch-owned media dominating TV news, its easy to see how the arguments for public funding find favour. Though there are occasional controversies (like the Big Brother Race Row, or the BBC’s role in the David Kelly affair), I think the threat of back-to-back Love Island keeps the public and policymakers on-side.
However, a case could also be made that subsidies have the effect of shouldering smaller, regional and TV programme makers out of the market. In this analysis, it is less clear that the public (and our culture as a whole) is being served. Rather than constantly chasing the latest digital technologies, and ensuring every other show has its own blog and podcast, Channel 4 and the BBC simply need to prove that they are fostering the development of such regional talent. If they can do that, then I think they’ll be able to persuade government to give them the funding they ask for.
Cross posted at The Progressive.
A couple of quick constitutional questions.
First, as I understand things, there has always been a parliamentary convention that The Lords would not block legislation sent over from The Commons, if the content of that legislation was contained within a manifesto pledge.
I wonder, could this principle apply in reverse? Thinking about the current row over an EU Referendum, perhaps the Lords has a duty to block legislation that is contrary to a stated manifesto pledge? Indeed, where better than the highest court in our land to rule on whether there is a substantive shift in power?
Personally I’m a Europhile of sorts. I think there are some projects, like tackling climate change, where it is probably advantageous to pool sovreignity. But the EU’s reputation for bureaucracy undermines it, and this messing about over referendums is a sitting duck for the Euroscrotics.