In a recent letter to MPs, Gordon Brown wrote;

I wanted to write to you to set out my reasons for supporting all the measures in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and to clarify how we propose to handle it in Parliament

Gordon Brown thinks animal human hybrids are 'vital to the progression of stem cell research'

By contrast Robert Winston, the Peer who took the Bill through committee stage in the Lords, is not so sure on animal human hybrids...

'But if the hybrid embryo thing doesn't go through, it in no way shakes the body of science... It's a nice adjunct; a useful extra. But if we don't have that resource, it won't fundamentally alter the science of stem cell biology.' (Robert Winston, Telegraph, 10 May 2008)

And is even less enthusiastic about saviour siblings...

"I'm very unhappy about 'saviour siblings'."

His concern is that children selected to provide treatment for a sick brother or sister may be put under undue pressure to give bone marrow or organs. So it wouldn't break his heart if the measure was voted down? "Absolutely not," he says. (Robert Winston, Telegraph, 10 May 2008)

So, if Lord Winston is the Peer and eminent scientist Gordon Brown thought was the right man to lead this Bill where it began its course, in the House of Lords, why does Gordon Brown think his un-learned opinion is more valid?

When faced with a conundrum like this I always like to do a Hansel and Gretel and follow the money.

You can bet your life it’s stacked up behind this Bill somewhere.

Who do we believe, Gordon or Winston, and why?