The Relevance of the Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology to Biotechnology

Abstract

To a hard-headed, industrial biotechnologist, preoccupied with fermentation yields, patent law and cash flow, the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock Report) may not seem particularly relevant1. Three lines of argument weaken that view. First, ‘test-tube babies’ and ‘genetic manipulation’, of whatever kind, are connected in the public imagination. Controversy and uncertainty in one field may well influence the acceptability, appeal or public image of the other, despite the technical differences between them. Second, the actions of Lady Warnock’s Committee are an excellent example of consensus building in British scientific and medical policy-making. It is not impossible that regulatory issues in biotechnology could at some point become contentious again. If that were to happen, attempts to manage such controversy would take a similar form. Moreover, the idea of a Licensing Authority, which is the proposed regulatory solution for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) owes something to the example of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group (GMAG), as it does also to the licensing of animal experiments by the Home Office. Third, although biotechnology and external human fertilisation are, in general, very different kinds of activity, there are nonetheless technical links between them. For example, some of the hormones used to induce ovulation prior to IVF have been made by recombinant bacteria.KeywordsCash FlowHuman EmbryoSperm DonorSurrogate MotherLicense AuthorityThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.