For just a second I would like for you, the reader, to put yourself in the position of someone who has this disease. You suffer on a regular basis from memory loss, tremors, slow movement, and brain damage. As a suffering patient, any progress can be somewhat beneficial. What if you were informed that there is a new form of research? What if this research could cure? What if it could simply help? But what if that research for a possible cure, treatment, or alleviation of suffering is not available because of an ongoing dialogue and debate, with no decision in sight? However, there is one country that has defied the rules and regulations of normality, and confronts these diseases head-on. That country is Britain.

Just recently, England ended a long battle that held not just England, but the world in suspension. For the past few years, England has debated an issue of great importance, Animal-Human Embryo Research. As of August 26th, 2007 England's scientists were granted permission to create its first animal-human embryos. In essence, scientists wanted to use this research opportunity to make scientific discoveries that could possibly develop therapies for these debilitating diseases. The human-animal embryos would give scientists ready test and research subjects. Also, England's oversight organization for this type of research, Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has limited the embryo lifespan to 14 days. With such sensitive and involved research, the HFEA felt compelled to make the restrictions felt. Due to the societal pressures and firm disagreements with the research, the science has been made limited.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with an authority on this matter. Josephine Johnston is a renowned speaker and educator on issues of bioethics and is currently Director of Bioethics at the Hastings Center (The Hastings Center is a non-profit bioethics research institute). I asked her simply what are the pros and cons of such research. She had this to say:

"This research will be controversial because some people will be uncomfortable with the creation of a living thing, even if it is only a tiny embryo that is a mixture of human and animal. Some people will probably also worry that this tiny embryo will be allowed to develop into a fetus or a baby" I then asked if an embryo could actually develop into a baby. She said, "It is not clear to me that this is even possible, and it is certainly not allowed under the UK's law, but there might be concern that it will be done anyway. Also, this really is a kind of cloning technology, so people will be concerned that doing this research will help make reproductive cloning possible."

Nevertheless, there are pros. Ms. Johnston did continue to tell us the pros of such a decision. "The pros are that it gets around the problem of not having an easy supply of human eggs for use in research. Because I think egg donation is quite an onerous and somewhat risky thing for women to go through, I think it is good to find ways of doing research that do not require using human eggs, so for this reason I think creating embryos using animal eggs is a good idea."

However, we have to wonder. Could this happen in America? Is it too far outside the common limitations of science? Is morally acceptable or repugnant to Americans? Is it right at all? Do people even care? When asked if such a decision could be made in the US, she said, "I do not foresee the US federal government funding this kind of research anytime soon since it involves the creation of a part-human embryo…" However, she did later offer the caveat that there is a sense of uncertainty, an uncertainty that comes with foreseeing the future. Regardless this is what we do know. On the one hand, England has been more permissible in the areas of scientific research, like the creation of new embryos. While on the other hand, America does not even allow stem cell research. Right or wrong, the fact remains America has maintained standards that are more restrictive in the area of embryonic research. England engaged in the discussion, enthralled itself in debate, and arrived at a very controversial decision. America has not begun that process of discussion, debate, and decision. So I ask you, the reader, should we decide, or possibly debate, or maybe even discuss it? Is it too distant America's realities? But is not the pain and suffering of those with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other terrible diseases also real? Are not the discomfort and dangerous health conditions also real? Will the millions of tragedies force us to discuss expanding our research? I guess the answer will be left up to the opinions of the people of America.

- Caleb Gayle, Contributor