“12.1 There is a number of specific techniques and procedures involving the use of human embryos which have caused much public anxiety. Many of these have not yet reached the stage where they are practical possibilities. We believe that our recommendations for the regulation of research will allay much of that anxiety, as it will be the duty of the proposed licensing body (13.3) to keep these and other new techniques under constant review; indeed, in some instances our proposals will preclude certain developments altogether. It is important, however to consider whether further restrictions are required, although it must be borne in mind that we cannot foresee all possible developments.”
“49. It is argued that the greatest potential benefits of research involving human embryos lie in the prevention of congenital disorders. Studies of eggs, sperm and early embryos may lead to ways of preventing some chromosomal abnormalities developing. Also, in the future, those who support research envisage the development of techniques including embryo biopsy which might allow the very early detection of embryos which had single gene or chromosome defects which would result in seriously abnormal babies. In the UK some 7,000 babies a year (about 1 per cent of all babies) are born with an obvious single gene inherited defect. Pre-implantation ‘diagnosis’ could ultimately result in some fall in that number.”
“1. Male infertility is the sole cause in about 30 per cent of cases of infertility and it is a factor in some others. 2. The technique of embryo biopsy could extend the use of IVF from treating infertile couples to those at risk of passing on an hereditary handicap. It would involve the removal and culture of one or two cells from an embryo still in vitro and need not affect the subsequent development of the embryo. It could, however, give the possibility in some instances of rejecting defective embryos in favour of healthy ones and reducing the number of requests for abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality. Attempts are also being made to develop non-invasive techniques for detecting defective embryos.”
“29. The key distinction in the debate surrounding embryo research appears to be between the use of an embryo with the intention of achieving (with that embryo) a successful pregnancy leading to a healthy baby; and its use for other reasons (eg improvement of knowledge about disease). Those who are opposed to all research involving human embryos argue that procedures which lead to the destruction of the embryo or which make it unsuitable for transfer to a woman should not be permitted in any circumstances. Procedures which do not damage the embryo, or which are actively beneficial to it, do not give the same cause for concern even though such procedures may form part of what some would regard as a programme of research (for example the observation of embryos developing in different nutrient fluids prior to transfer to a woman.) 30. The Government therefore proposes that the alternative draft clauses which will be made available to Parliament should be along the following lines: It will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman: or those carried out to ascertain the suitability of that embryo for the intended transfer. Except as part of a project specifically licensed by the SLA, it will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman or those carried out to ascertain the suitability of that embryo for the intended transfer.”
“No person shall place in a woman – (a) a live embryo other than a human embryo, or (b) any live gametes other than human gametes.”
“A licence cannot authorise – (a) keeping or using an embryo after the appearance of the primitive streak, (b) placing an embryo in any animal, (c) keeping or using an embryo in circumstances in which regulations forbid its keeping or use, or (d) replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo.”
“A person who - (a) contravenes section 3(2) … of this Act, or (b) does anything which by virtue of section 3(3) of this Act, cannot be authorised by a licence is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years …”
“No person shall – (a) bring about the creation of an embryo, or (b) keep or use an embryo except in pursuance of a licence” except in pursuance of a licence”
“A licence under this paragraph cannot authorise any activity unless it appears to the Authority to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of providing treatment services.”
“1(1) A licence under this paragraph may authorise any of the following in the course of providing treatment services – …. (d) practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose” (d) practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose”
“In this Act – ‘treatment services’ means medical, surgical or obstetric services provided to the public or a section of the public for the purposes of assisting women to carry children.”
“The highest is that contained in the Act itself. As is apparent, for example from section 3(2) and (3), the Act prohibits certain activities absolutely, a prohibition fortified by a potential penalty of up to ten years' imprisonment (section 41(1)). The next level of control is provided by the Secretary of State, who is empowered to make regulations for certain purposes subject (so far as relevant here) to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament (section 45(1), (4)). Pursuant to section 3(3)(c) the Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting the keeping or use of an embryo in specified circumstances. The third level of control is that exercised by the Authority. Section 3(1) prohibits the creation, keeping or use of an embryo except in pursuance of a licence, and the Act contains very detailed provisions governing the grant, revocation and suspension of licences and the conditions to which they may be subject: see, among other references, sections 11-22 of and Schedule 2 to the Act. A power is also conferred on the Authority to give binding directions: sections 23-24.”
"In interpreting an Act of Parliament it is proper, and indeed necessary, to have regard to the state of affairs existing, and known by Parliament to be existing, at the time. It is a fair presumption that Parliament's policy or intention is directed to that state of affairs. Leaving aside cases of omission by inadvertence, this being not such a case, when a new state of affairs, or a fresh set of facts bearing on policy, comes into existence, the courts have to consider whether they fall within the Parliamentary intention. They may be held to do so, if they fall within the same genus of facts as those to which the expressed policy has been formulated. They may also be held to do so if there can be detected a clear purpose in the legislation which can only be fulfilled if the extension is made. How liberally these principles may be applied must depend upon the nature of the enactment, and the strictness or otherwise of the words in which it has been expressed. The courts should be less willing to extend expressed meanings if it is clear that the Act in question was designed to be restrictive or circumscribed in its operation rather than liberal or permissive. They will be much less willing to do so where the subject matter is different in kind or dimension from that for which the legislation was passed. In any event there is one course which the courts cannot take, under the law of this country; they cannot fill gaps; they cannot by asking the question 'What would Parliament have done in this current case - not being one in contemplation - if the facts had been before it?' attempt themselves to supply the answer, if the answer is not to be found in the terms of the Act itself."
“practices designed ….. to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose”
“15. … (c) Parliament was aware of the possibility of genetic testing by embryonic biopsy and, in the light of that knowledge, provided that a licence could authorise “practices designed to …. determine whether embryos are suitable” to be placed in a woman: see Sch. 2, para. 1(1)(d). ….. (e) But there are some activities which Parliament placed beyond the reach of regulations. …. [Sch. 2 para. 1(3)] ensures that any such [genetic] testing must be carried out for the purpose of assisting women to carry children (e.g. by screening out embryos with a genetic defect) and not for any other purpose – for example, to allow parents to choose a male or female child or (to take another more extreme example) to choose a baby with a preferred eye or hair colour.”
“Public anxiety about these techniques centres, not so much on their possible therapeutic use, but on the idea of the deliberate creation of human beings with specific characteristics. This has overtones of selective breeding. We regard such techniques as purely speculative but believe that any developments in these fields are precluded by the controls we have already recommended. ….”
“We would go further. We recommend that the proposed licensing body promulgates guidance on what types of research, apart from those prohibited by law, would be unlikely to be considered ethically acceptable in any circumstances and therefore would not be licensed. We envisage this guidance being reviewed from time to time to take account of both changes in scientific knowledge and changes in public attitudes.”
“We believe that our recommendations for the regulation of research will allay much of that anxiety, as it will be the duty of the proposed licensing body (13.3) to keep these and other new techniques under constant review; indeed, in some instances our proposals will preclude certain developments altogether.”