Scientists involved in reproductive medicine and stem cell research have leapt to the defense of Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), after a leading figure called on Friday (December 10) for it to be scrapped.

The authority was heavily criticized in media reports by Robert Winston, widely regarded as one of the country's most senior fertility specialists. Winston said in an interview with the BBC that he believed the HFEA should be scrapped and that its role should be taken over by a proposed new body, called the Human Tissue Authority.

Winston accused the authority of "shocking mismanagement," being too bureaucratic, and inhibiting research. But other researchers contacted by The Scientist said although the authority has its faults, scrapping it is not the answer.

The HFEA was set up in 1990 to regulate and inspect all UK clinics providing in vitro fertilization (IVF), donor insemination, or the storage of eggs, sperm, or embryos. It has panels of scientists, lay specialists, bioethicists, and theologians that consider the ethical consequences of its decisions.

As science has progressed, it has also taken on the task of licensing all human embryo research as well as vital ethical decisions on subjects such as donor anonymity. Earlier this year, fear that it would hike its fees for licensing stirred concern among the British research community.

Winston said he had become particularly disillusioned in recent months and said the setting up of the Human Tissue Authority provided an opportunity to change things.

Simon Fishel, from the Centre for Assisted Reproduction based in Nottingham, told The Scientist although he believed the HFEA could be "more flexible," it still had a vital role to play in regulating the fertility sector. "If you scrap it, you might end up with a new system that's worse than the current one. But we do need a very different approach to regulating IVF."

Fishel said more emphasis is needed on issues like the welfare of the child, the safety of the procedures used, and "genuine" informed consent. He also called for an end to the system where fertility specialists carry out inspections of other fertility units for HFEA approval. "I am an inspector for the HFEA, but I do not like inspecting my colleagues," he said. "There's a potential conflict of interest where we inspect each other."

Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at King's College London, told The Scientist: "In terms of stem cell research, I think the HFEA has done an exceptionally good job."

Minger said the authority had tackled big ethical issues without obstructing scientific progress and paid tribute to current HFEA chairman Suzi Leather. "Since Suzi came on board, the HFEA has been much more involved in promoting the science side of things," he added.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is in the final stages of a major review of the role of the HFEA. Chairman Ian Gibson accused Winston of "jumping the gun" ahead of its findings, due out in February or March next year.

Gibson told The Scientist: "Winston may not be too far wide of the mark, but he is going too far." Gibson said instead of scrapping the HFEA, it might be better to separate out the ethical and moral decision making from the practical issues of governing fertility treatment.

A separate body might be given the task of examining the social consequences of new treatments, Gibson said.