In an age when the term "mother" is merely a biology-based social construct, it seems anachronistic to talk about the mother of all parliamentary debates. But this is what British Prime Minister is facing over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and its provisions for hybrid embryos, IVF for single women and lesbians and "saviour siblings". Faced with a revolt by three members of cabinet as well as several ministers outside Cabinet, Mr Brown did not change his mind, but he did blink. He has announced that on these three items, his colleagues will have a "free", or conscience, vote. However, on the bill itself he stands firm. "The Bill itself cannot be subject to a free vote as there are so many other changes I believe are necessary as part of building up the research framework of our country and, of course, creating the right ethical framework for the development of embryo research," he said. He also expects all members of his party to support the final version of the bill.

Debate over the bill is becoming bitterly sectarian, with some Labour politicians complaining that Catholic colleagues are allowing their religious principles to taint their politics. Prominent Catholic churchmen have savaged it. Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien, for instance described the bill as "Frankenstein science" which is a "a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life." Politicians and journalists have hit back. "Wicked untruths from the Church" was the headline over a columnist for the London Times. Leading stem cell scientist Stephen Minger, of King’s College London, said that the Cardinal "didn’t understand the basic facts".

However, it is not only bishops who have misgivings about the bill. William Rees-Mogg, former editor of the Times, and a member of the House of Lords, declared that he fears that the demands of scientists will not stop at hybrid embryos. In 1990 the government banned hybrid embryos and in 2008 the government proposes to legalise them. An increasingly secularised society, he says, is responsible. "There is now far more faith put into science than religion, and in leading scientists than in leading Churchmen, though in my experience the religious are often the more impressive of the two." ~ Independent, Mar 26; London Times, Mar 24