Editorial
Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Corbis
UK guidance on human–animal hybrid research
For Home Office Guidance on the use of Human Material in Animals Advice see https:// www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/491496/ Animals_Containing_Human_ Material_Final_Guidance.pdf For the Academy of Medical Sciences report Animals containing human material see http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/ policy/policy-projects/animalscontaining-human-material/
Last week, the Academy of Medical Sciences in the UK welcomed the publication of new guidelines by the Home Office on the use of animals containing human material (ACHM) based on the Academy’s recommendations in their report published in 2011. This research involves the introduction of human DNA sequences, cells, or tissues into animals to create animal models of human diseases to enable their study more accurately, where alternative approaches are not morally or ethically possible, or are insufficient. In addition to determining the function of human genes, these hybrids can even be used to develop or produce therapies. ACHM research has been going on for years. However, prompted by the moral, ethical, and practical challenges that rapid advances in the science of “humanising” animal tissues would bring, the Academy was quick to respond and very helpfully classified experiments into categories. They concluded that some types of research were ethically sensitive or off limits for now, and would require the establishment of a national expert body to review continuously and advise on these types of research
as knowledge grows. Moreover, it is also essential to create a robust and adaptive regulatory system. It is disappointing and unclear why the Home Office took 5 years to issue this guidance. Thankfully, science is rather good at self-regulation, and no disastrous accidents are known to have happened in that time. Worryingly, the Home Office has appointed the Animals in Science Committee—an independent nondepartmental public body (but sponsored by the Home Office)—as the national expert body for ACHM research. However, this committee mainly focuses on the protection of animal science and welfare, and might not be appropriate or have the multidisciplinary expertise needed to address issues on the protection of human science and the public acceptability of ACHM research, which is equally if not more important. What is needed now are activities that will engage the public so they are informed and understand this complex and innovative research area, why it is important and how it will be used, and the moral and ethical issues that surround it in the future. The Lancet
Mike Kemp/In Pictures/Corbis
UK welfare reform: disastrous for the poorest children
For the report see http://www. fph.org.uk/uploads/APPG_on_ Health_in_All_Policies_inquiry_ into_child_poverty_and_ health_2.pdf
718
The UK Government has an ambitious plan to reduce deficits in the UK’s economy. However, this quest for recovery might be at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society. Last week, the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Health in All Policies released the findings from their inquiry into the effects of the proposed Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015–16 on child poverty and child health. The Bill sets out several changes to the UK welfare system, including reducing the benefit cap, freezing some benefits for 4 years, and restricting the amount of support provided by child tax credits—changes that will hit the poorest people the hardest. The Bill will also repeal most of the UK Child Poverty Act 2010, which set out to eradicate child poverty by 2020; in fact, the Bill has removed all child poverty reduction targets. The APPG’s findings showed that increased levels of child poverty directly worsen children’s social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes, and the risk of infant mortality. Asthma, obesity, smoking, teenage
pregnancy, and mental health disorders such as selfharm are also more prevalent in children from less affluent families. The elimination of UK child poverty would save the lives of 1400 children aged younger than 15 years every year. However, the combined effect of the changes proposed by the Bill would significantly reduce the income of thousands of already struggling families, increasing child poverty and exacerbating the many risks to children’s health and wellbeing. The APPG’s recommendations include removal of the proposed benefits cap and reversal of the restrictions placed on child tax credits. It also recommends a full assessment of the cumulative effects of the Bill. We are not surprised by the APPG’s findings, but are concerned by them, and the fact that child poverty targets have been removed. We support their recommendations and hope that the government will stand by its promise to support the most vulnerable groups in the UK. The Lancet www.thelancet.com Vol 387 February 20, 2016
Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Corbis
UK guidance on human–animal hybrid research
For Home Office Guidance on the use of Human Material in Animals Advice see https:// www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/491496/ Animals_Containing_Human_ Material_Final_Guidance.pdf For the Academy of Medical Sciences report Animals containing human material see http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/ policy/policy-projects/animalscontaining-human-material/
Last week, the Academy of Medical Sciences in the UK welcomed the publication of new guidelines by the Home Office on the use of animals containing human material (ACHM) based on the Academy’s recommendations in their report published in 2011. This research involves the introduction of human DNA sequences, cells, or tissues into animals to create animal models of human diseases to enable their study more accurately, where alternative approaches are not morally or ethically possible, or are insufficient. In addition to determining the function of human genes, these hybrids can even be used to develop or produce therapies. ACHM research has been going on for years. However, prompted by the moral, ethical, and practical challenges that rapid advances in the science of “humanising” animal tissues would bring, the Academy was quick to respond and very helpfully classified experiments into categories. They concluded that some types of research were ethically sensitive or off limits for now, and would require the establishment of a national expert body to review continuously and advise on these types of research
as knowledge grows. Moreover, it is also essential to create a robust and adaptive regulatory system. It is disappointing and unclear why the Home Office took 5 years to issue this guidance. Thankfully, science is rather good at self-regulation, and no disastrous accidents are known to have happened in that time. Worryingly, the Home Office has appointed the Animals in Science Committee—an independent nondepartmental public body (but sponsored by the Home Office)—as the national expert body for ACHM research. However, this committee mainly focuses on the protection of animal science and welfare, and might not be appropriate or have the multidisciplinary expertise needed to address issues on the protection of human science and the public acceptability of ACHM research, which is equally if not more important. What is needed now are activities that will engage the public so they are informed and understand this complex and innovative research area, why it is important and how it will be used, and the moral and ethical issues that surround it in the future. The Lancet
Mike Kemp/In Pictures/Corbis
UK welfare reform: disastrous for the poorest children
For the report see http://www. fph.org.uk/uploads/APPG_on_ Health_in_All_Policies_inquiry_ into_child_poverty_and_ health_2.pdf
718
The UK Government has an ambitious plan to reduce deficits in the UK’s economy. However, this quest for recovery might be at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society. Last week, the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Health in All Policies released the findings from their inquiry into the effects of the proposed Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015–16 on child poverty and child health. The Bill sets out several changes to the UK welfare system, including reducing the benefit cap, freezing some benefits for 4 years, and restricting the amount of support provided by child tax credits—changes that will hit the poorest people the hardest. The Bill will also repeal most of the UK Child Poverty Act 2010, which set out to eradicate child poverty by 2020; in fact, the Bill has removed all child poverty reduction targets. The APPG’s findings showed that increased levels of child poverty directly worsen children’s social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes, and the risk of infant mortality. Asthma, obesity, smoking, teenage
pregnancy, and mental health disorders such as selfharm are also more prevalent in children from less affluent families. The elimination of UK child poverty would save the lives of 1400 children aged younger than 15 years every year. However, the combined effect of the changes proposed by the Bill would significantly reduce the income of thousands of already struggling families, increasing child poverty and exacerbating the many risks to children’s health and wellbeing. The APPG’s recommendations include removal of the proposed benefits cap and reversal of the restrictions placed on child tax credits. It also recommends a full assessment of the cumulative effects of the Bill. We are not surprised by the APPG’s findings, but are concerned by them, and the fact that child poverty targets have been removed. We support their recommendations and hope that the government will stand by its promise to support the most vulnerable groups in the UK. The Lancet www.thelancet.com Vol 387 February 20, 2016
