Sophie Petit-Zeman: Can it be ethical to prevent this crucial work?

The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) was heavily involved in shaping the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in Parliament.

The key sticking point for many people was provision to allow the creation of "human admixed embryos", or hybrids, by mixing cells from animals with cells from people with diseases. Proponents said this would get round the shortage of human eggs available for such research – obtained from women undergoing IVF, with all the practical and emotional entanglements this entails – and help us to explore new avenues for understanding disease. While vital not to hype, it is also ultimately possible that such "disease models" could be used to test potential medicines or replace sick cells. Opponents, meanwhile, say this unethical method undermines what it means to be human.

The middle way felt uncannily like that pertaining to animal research: everyone had a point, but scientists were telling us to fight for this avenue to be permitted, charities and their patient constituents were saying fight for it if it stands a chance of helping them, and those of us trying to reconcile these views while still being able to sleep easy kept returning to the same question: "If it could help, is it ethical not to do it?" So we fought for the right for researchers to get on with the job.

Related articles

• Funding halted for stem cell research
• Leading article: The cost of progress

And now we hear two of the groups working on this have had their funding applications rejected. Such things happen. However brilliant their work, until we know why these groups have had funding rejected, we can't comment on what we think. Tragically but understandably, the medical world is rife with debate about rationing. If tough competition for limited resources and rigorous peer review left a different application cutting better mustard, so be it. Hybrid embryo research musn't get special treatment if something else might better tackle our ills, but no more should this pitfall be seen as evidence that we should close the door on what may yet turn out to be a crucial avenue of medical endeavour.

The writer is head of external relations at the Association of Medical Research Charities