Episode 3 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions - the dangers of sugar,

the ethics of embryo research, and the death of religion.

Welcome to a new series of The Big Questions.

Today, we're live from Leith Academy in Edinburgh.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

We all know that eating too much sugar can make you fat,

especially if you don't use up those hefty calories in exercise

And doctors now agree that too much sugar will also increase your risk

of diabetes, cancers and cardiovascular diseases,

The dangers and costs posed by alcohol and tobacco justify

taxing these drugs and restricting their sale and consumption.

Has the time come to take a similar approach to sugar?

Should sugar be treated like a dangerous drug?

Nicky is here. You would describe yourself as a recovering sugar

addict? Yes, want to have inhaled a bag of Haribo, that is you for life.

It is dangerous. I would say I am an addict of sugar. If you look around

my house, it is like Breaking Bad with Skittles. You never really

stopped. As soon as you have that as a young child with that addiction,

it is very difficult not to... It is an addiction? Yes. And when you go

and buy a bar of chocolate or something, you go past the newsagent

and think you'll get a quick fix, you can just have one little bit of

the chocolate? I think it is difficult for lots of people. When

you go into the supermarket to have your quick fix even salad, your

shopping journey is manipulated towards the doughnuts which are ten

for ?1 right at the entrance. It is tricky. There is something in sugar

that does not fill you up, but it makes you want more because of the

insulin, which you are trying to deal with to stabilise your body

sugars, it makes you wanted more so you are never satisfied. The more

you have, the more you want? Dr Vittal Katikireddi, from Obesity

Action Health, the more you have, the more you want? What is going on?

We absolutely have a problem with sugars. As the population, over

time, is getting more obese and overweight, we are seeing big

companies really aggressively market sugars. It makes it very difficult

for people to resist temptation. This is a case of really having to

go against the grain because of the way that we are allowing society to

operate at the moment. Have been significant studies, science is

split, but there are imported studies which say that sugar is

addictive. -- important studies. There is peer reviewed stuff. What

is going on, biochemically, when you have chocolate, fizzy drink or

whatever, you want more? I think that is true, there is some evidence

suggesting sugar is addictive. I think we need to be slightly careful

in saying that we definitely know sugar is addictive. There are

serious questions that science raises that it sugar might be

addictive. Right. Rob Lyons from Action On Consumer Choice, good

morning. We heard some interesting phrasing and expressions. We had

Nicky saying that we are being when a belated past the sugar, we have

had aggressive marketing by the sugar dealers -- we are being

manipulated past the sugar. What do you think? If you call sugar a drug

or say it is addictive, you can only do that by having, to my mind, a

common-sense bypass. You can define addiction or a drug so broadly that

almost anything could be included. But it is dangerous? Know, in the

kind of quantities that most people eat, it is a normal, and enjoyable

part of our diets. Obviously if you want to lose weight, you might find

that cutting down sugar is the easiest thing to do. But we need

saving from ourselves? No, I think that is patronising. We are seeing a

double whammy, being presented with the idea that we are vulnerable and

can't make decisions for ourselves, then there is the conspiratorial,

evil corporation stealing these drugs, pushes, which is nonsense. If

you want to buy Coca-Cola, right next to it on the shelf is diet

Coca-Cola. You have a completely free choice about a sugary drink or

sugar free drink. We should be left to make the choice of cells. The

base it is Bond Billings holding up a Cadbury 's Flake? -- villains.

That you have to think about the promotions on the less healthy

foods. They bump the price up so much on the basis of their brand, so

they can cut the prices to shift more. It is always on promotion

because the notional original price is inflated. But you can go to the

own brand stuff, which tastes pretty much the same, a third off the price

of the big-name stuff. It is very, very cheap to produce. If Ike can

come to Alex Renton, the thing is, it is about freedom of choice? If

you want to going to get a family sized bar of chocolate and eat the

whole thing, that is your... I nearly said, I will not say it,

you're dashed choice, you can do it? I Icher go, I drink, I occasionally

have a cigarette. I want to be able to continue to do it -- I eat sugar.

People like Rob come from an organisation funded by big Tobacco.

They are trying to defend the freedoms of big corporations to

exploit poor people, and poor people pay the cost of sugar. Not just

them, but you and me. ?15 billion a year, the taxpayer, rising and

rising just to cover Obi city and diabetes. We can't go on like this.

We need to act in a way beyond education which, frankly, has not

worked. We need to tax sugary drinks. The poor will suffer most

from interventions like sugar taxes. We care for the poor, Catholics care

for the poor. URA Catholic? Catholic Voices. Sugar taxes will head to the

poor first. With the respect of Dr Vittal Katikireddi, wealthy doctors

will not have to worry about how much chocolate costs. We have to

think more holistically about how we organise society. If we have such an

attack on family life that more people in Britain work in the

evenings and on the weekends and on Sundays than in every -- in any

other EU country, 25% of kids today live in single-parent households,

they don't have parents with time to cook and shop for them. Wide and you

look at the European model, you go into a European supermarkets and it

is quite hard to find the chocolate? into a European supermarkets and it

Like an Easter egg hunt?! It is! What about freedom of choice? Where

is it? I am an informed, fairly well-educated person with a bit of

dosh to spend on chocolate and anything else that I want. And I

still buy chocolate, and I am well aware. I think it has addictive

qualities. Professor Mike Lean, sugar causes diabetes? I can dismiss

that one completely. The feminist science that we have, meta analysis,

when you take all the research done since the research started, in this

case the 1980s, you reanalyse it and you look for the truth. The NHS

website, if it's a sugar causes diabetes, is wrong. Diabetes UK is

correct, so was the European Association For The Study Of

Diabetes and the world health is -- the world health organisation, which

conducted a study last year. There is no evidence that sugar causes

diabetes. Sugar is not killing us. Sugar was invented roughly 450 years

ago, it came to Europe in boats. Until that time, sweetness, which

you guys like, and the addiction, it is not too sugar, there was a study

on this from Aberdeen, addiction to food, yes, thank goodness we are

addicted to food, we would have died out as a species years ago. Sugar

came over in boats. What do we do with it? Since then, people have

written books claiming it causes every disease... It causes obesity,

does it? You can go through them one by

does it? You can go through them one Hart disease or diabetes. If you eat

excess calories from sugar, you will gain weight. And the evidence says

about 0.8 of a kilogram, not obesity, it causes an increased...

Can I just finished, what is important, if you analyse it, it

says that. But if you look at sugary drinks, then you find that greater

consumption of sugary drinks causes weight gain in children. And

diabetes, as a weight gain in children. And

been working on this for five years, and then in Scotland so I see the

effect of obesity in my country, sorry, excess sugar

effect of obesity in my country, my country. 90% of scientists agree

on that. One quick point... While I respect Professor Mike Lean's work

very much, you are funded by Coca-Cola for some of your research.

It is true. Untrue. Professor, you have a vague -- Unadkat have a full

chance to respond. Take a seat. This is a direct attack, I have never

been funded by Coca-Cola. I have the document here. It must be a mistake,

I have never been funded by Coca-Cola. Let's get a cool,

considered and can respond, Professor. We have seen an increase

in food consumption, addiction to food, food you like, food you don't

like, people who like more food like more food, sugar contributes to

weight gain if you eat more calories. If you swap sugar for

other calories, this has been subject to meta-analysis, there is

no difference in weight. What is important is that sugary drinks are

associated with greater weight gain in children. It is not the sugar, it

is the pattern of eating which is associated with weight gain and

ultimately diabetes. Dr Vittal Katikireddi, you have heard that

plainly laid out. We will move on from Coca-Cola Gator if we can, for

a second, it is not the sugar? The vast majority of doctors agree that

having a diet high in sugar is harmful for health, if nothing else

there are at least 26,000 children a year in... Admitted to hospital to

have teeth removed. I remember a few years back, working as an assistant

Iniesta this to, it was the low point of my week having to

anaesthetise children as young as five and six because they needed

teeth removed. The idea that sugar is not harmful is clearly nonsense.

APPLAUSE How does a child get to the point

where it certainly needs all its teeth removed? It is because it

hasn't had proper dental care, proper advice, tooth-brushing all

the way along to the point when all these teeth are being removed. If

you see a dentist regularly from the word go, that would not happen. The

problem is labelling. We are not all biochemists or nutritionists, it is

in small print at the back of the package, and if you care to go

around the supermarket and look at what is in the food that we are

buying, the ready meals and the stuff that is manifestly part of our

lifestyle, it is terrifying what is in that. But it is clearly labelled

and you can work that out. You need a magnifying glass. The biggest

single contributor to our sugar intake is from fruit and vegetables,

followed by milk and things like that. It is not just sugary drinks

and ready meals. From a health perspective in terms of being

harmful, we are talking about free sugars. We are not talking about

milk, we are talking about the type of sugar added by manufacturers to

products. Often it is very difficult for people to tell. We can see a

classic... Turn the label around, quick! That is the hangover cure!

Lots of people will know there is sugar in that but they will not know

the amount. How much? If you take a single can, that will be in access

of what is the recommended daily amount... 11 teaspoons full. NA can

of Coke or Irn-Bru. We heard it was all personal choice, these products

are aggressively marketed to children. We know that children

don't necessarily have the skills to understand adverts and are easily

influenced and persuaded by adverts. We are seeing a huge amount of money

spent by big companies on advert games so that children build up

personal relationships with marketing Carib is. Surely that

cannot be right? -- marketing characters. We should have

controlled the marketing and a sugar tax, and the money from the sugar

tax should be used for prevention. APPLAUSE

Points from the audience, then we will ask about the personal

relationship with sugar. As someone who was diagnosed as a

type two diabetic a couple of years ago, not through an excessive sugar

I should add, the idea of education and information has been made so

evident to me. Know when I buy anything I look at labels, and I

things, low-fat products, and the amount of sugar in them, in order to

make them fat-free, lots of people are conned into thinking those are

the healthy products and they are not. You have been here before. How

are you doing? Pharmacist. Is this drug rows I would not say it a drug.

But I think the point was made about Irn Bru, and the fact it is so much

sugar in those products. And other fizzy drinks as well. Should be

treated as dangerous? We should treat it as dangerous and littered

the idea of bringing in some sort of regulation or controlled to limit

the amount of sugar that goes into fruit juice, loans, ready meals. You

would be gobsmacked, the amount of sugar in those different of

products. I think restrictions on the amount of sugar that goes in is

a good idea. Dry get down, educate the pull's taste buds? No, this is

the same thing we have seen time and time again with public health. The

low-fat story we heard was about the crusade against fat in the 1980s and

1990s. It was a disaster in terms of health. Then we had the thing about

salt and know we have decided to demonise sugar. We will realise in a

few years that sugar has not been that bad at all. Sign says sugar is

not dangerous. I am not a lover of sugar. I am probably the only person

who has never tasted Coca-Cola in your life. Can anyone else claim

that? It is very bad 40s. It is tragic for Scottish teeth in a

country which has no fluoride. We will lose our teeth if we take it. I

am no supporter of the sugar industry, and no supporter of sugar

as an additive to food. Are we being puritanical? You have got these

signs up the creek. The sign says it does not cause cancer, type two

diabetes, quite correct. If it contributes to extra calories, it is

a bad thing. Sugar tags is interesting. On sugary drinks, those

are the most harmful. Science agrees with that, and the professor does as

well. Taxis harm people, and people who drink more sugary drinks will

pay more, but the level being proposed is ?7 per can. That could

raise ?1 billion in the UK for children's health education. It will

hit a lot of people. It is not a massive amount. In a six-pack, it

will build up. I take that point. In countries like Mexico, which has a

massive diabetes problem, it has been effective. Sales are down.

Nikki, your relationship with sugar, how much is it bound up with your

emotional life? Like many people, I am an emotional eater. Having been

fired, ginger, and their big day growing up, it is a holy trinity of

bullying. I did emotionally eat and continue to have that relationship.

For me, the sugary drinks about North his choice, but what about the

hidden sugars in soup and bread? I do not think we should live in a

world where you can have a loaf of bread that can live for ten years.

Things should taste like the taste. Cole Moreton. I know when you are

amusing. I know your expression. I am thinking, as a relatively

ordinary person in this debate, I do not know where to turn. I have

doctors on one say telling me I should not, and doctors on the other

sightseeing, feel free to do so. If I go into hospital I will see a shop

full of chocolate bars and I will here that the NHS is considering

imposing a sugar tags to reduce the number of chocolate bars. Why not

stop telling them. When I go to hospital, the food I am being given

is bad for me. We have got our surgical makers are NatWest and it

is about time we cleared that up. Who is going to clear it up? A quick

word from you. My name is Calum. Good morning. Using the word

dangerous is overdramatising the whole thing. Like the gentleman

behind me, I was diagnosed with type two diabetes. It was not caused by

sugar intake because I did not use sugar. I think that the idea of the

sugar intake because I did not use being taxed is ridiculous. I would

never pay a tax. APPLAUSE

Can I add one more point, I feel very strongly about this. We are

coming to the end of the debate. We need to be educated from primary

school or even need to educate their children.

APPLAUSE I'm going to give Calum the last

word on this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Calum. Thank you very

much indeed. Thank you for all your points on that.

If you have something to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, where you'll find links

to where you can join in the discussion online.

We're also debating live this morning from Leith: Is it right

Leases near Edinburgh. You're very particular that. -- Leith is near.

And do religions get in the way of belief?

So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other

The Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority

is considering a research project by the Francis Crick Institute

to disable genes in single-cell human embryos one day

After seven days, the embryos will be destroyed and the team

will examine the effect the gene editing has made.

They're trying to understand why the success rate of IVF is so low.

It's a pioneering technique which could lead in the long run

to more parents having healthy babies through IVF,

perhaps, with a change in law, by implanting embryos whose genes

Dita. Hello. Peter Whittingham Stranzl over, from the Institute of

medical ethics. -- Dita Wickins-Drazilova. We were

discussing this earlier on. 14 days is the limit, because that is when

the central nervous system begins to develop. There is fascinating

research coming out of this. You are saying that the time limit should be

longer? Possibly, if necessary. I do not think it is Nasa is before this

technique. Generally? Generally it could be argued that we could do

research on three or four weak embryos as well. There is a strange

logic that women can choose to have terminations of pregnancy after week

24, and does not have to be any reason, while a three or four week

embryo is very tiny, and I would say it is not human, it does not have

personality. It does not have consciousness or suffering. A

24-week-old foetus, that can already survive, babies have survived born

at 22, 23 weeks, and they were healthy. 18 weeks, something like

that? I am not sure, there would be wider debate. You believe there

could be more meaningful research, potentially? Potentially, I am not

sure if anyone is pushing for that. Soon, it might be. What is make and

break, whether this is ethical, we should remember that people who

donate these reproductive tissues, eggs or embryos, they consent to

this. They understand. It is usually surplus tissues that are left over

after IVF treatments. It is not for everybody. I am not saying, if this

is legalised, pushing it to three or four we gamble your research. It is

perfectly ethical, these are discarded embryos? I think it is.

Some people are against it. If they cannot conceive naturally, they

would rather adopt than go for fertility treatment. Those who go

for fertility treatment are often happy to be made their embryos, or

eggs that are too big or too small to be used for research. Professor

Calum McKellar, the Scottish Council for bioethics, this gene editing

therapy will reduce the possibility of miscarriages. Research like this,

also people say and argue, controversially, it will reduce the

occurrence of disabilities in babies. That is a massive issue. But

it has massive benefits. It has massive benefits, but you have to

look at the risks. The first procedure, trying to understand

infertility in a better way, that is not something new. They have been

doing research on embryos for many years. These embryos would be

destroyed after 14 days. This is what is being suggested by the Human

Fertilisation And Embryology Authority. That is what you are

uncomfortable with? Yes. Let's get something straight. Embryos are

piles of cells. That is all they are from a scientific perspective.

Embryos are smaller than a pinhead. The whole earth, from a galactic

perspective, is even smaller than a pinhead. The only reason that we

believe that we have any value or worth this morning is because of

beliefs. One third of people in Scotland, and I do not know what it

is like in the UK, they believe, it is not the scientific proof, they

believe that embryos are like children. What you are doing, and I

am sorry about the language, you're sacrificing children for biomedical

research. Chris Gyngell. Sacrificing children? It is controversial,

whether they are children. If they are children, we have a massive

worldwide problem in that most embryos that are created or

destroyed by natural processes. About 200 million embryos year,

Baissama Sankoh is, are destroyed by natural processes, which means that

natural embryo loss is the greatest cause of human death worldwide.

Surely we could be doing whatever we can to reduce those dads? Research

that has been proposed by the Francis Crick Institute to

understand human development, to understand rates of miscarriage, we

are trying to reduce them. Of course we are going to die, and lots of us

will die natural cause is. Ethics is about trying to decide what to do or

what not to do. That is why we are looking at this issue. We are trying

to decide whether we destroy embryos or do other kinds of research. I am

not opposed to other research on embryos as long as it is for the

benefit of them. Embryos should never be discarded or destroyed, you

think that is beyond the ethical pale? That is what the German

government believes, German law says that embryos should not be

destroyed. There are historical reasons for that. We know that the

pill increases the rate of miscarriage because the embryo

cannot attach to the uterine wall. If you have got that belief, you are

also against contraception. APPLAUSE

Let's move to Chris McLaughlin, Catholic Voices. I hear him

screaming to my right. The intention is to deal with infertility. There

is nothing the Catholic Church once more than people who want babies to

have babies. It is a noble endeavour and well-intentioned. What about

population, we have too many people on the planet already? They say it

will level out in 2060, because the birth rate is only population

replacement level. This is not what we're trying to achieve, solving

infertility, it is the mechanism of how we get there. Embryos are human

beings in a different environment. We become children, adults, we old.

The dignity and respect that is commanded by them comes from the

creation and the image and likeness of God, like give you one else here.

Let's take the point that embryos are human beings, Dita. I do not

think they are, but it is a big ethical and philosophical question,

when does human life start? Lots of people believe it starts at the

moment of conception, other people, much later. Legally, a foetus does

not have human rights until it is born. Nobody will ever agree. As I

said, it is not the choice of individual people. If researchers do

not want to get involved in research, they do not have to. -- it

is the choice of individual people. Nobody is forced to be innate

embryos. This is not an entirely self regarding action. If we edit

the human genome, it will affect all human beings that will be born for

all of time. How happy would we be in this room if 200 years ago

scientists had decided which human genes should be passed onto the next

generation? What would that have meant for gay people, black people,

disabled people, women. The decision will all time.

What often underpins these debates is a fear of bad faith, that people

are doing these things for a monstrous reason. We have to

recognised that all the reasons for this are good ones.

APPLAUSE I think this research is incredibly

valuable. Can I suggest that a lot of medical research that is done is

very speculative. I work a lot on medical ethics questions, and one of

the big problems is that the hopes that you have in a laboratory turn

out not to be fulfil a ball, finally. With the editing of the

embryo's genes, you have a problem. The nature of science trial and

error? Experiments will not always work? The problem is here that the

experimental subjects are babies, because you had to make these

interventions in embryos, test several of the embryos, take them to

term, find out what happens. You can't treat babies as experiments.

Embryos are babies? You would have to take the embryo to term if you

would to manipulate the human gene line, they would have to be actual

children taken to term, that is ethically way unacceptable. The

problem is that it will always be too risky because you can never do

it ethically, so you can only do the sort of research for reasons to

understand rather than for final therapy using the editing technique.

Two things, the first is that we don't have to bring these embryos to

term. We don't even know how these technologies will behave. Let's do

some research, is what we are saying, you... Because there is

widespread opportunity to understand human development and deep

development on genetic engineering -based treatments. There

development on genetic engineering that the human... We

development on genetic engineering have random mutations which have

altered the line, and every time we fathers have a greater rate of

random germline fathers have a greater rate of

being altered all the time. Is there any aspect of this that if it fell

into unethical hands, can you see...? Of course, we need to be

very, very careful. We need to carefully understand the types of

genes we are thinking about altering. Carefully considered the

values that we will use. But if we are guided by trying to relieve the

suffering caused by genetic disease, that is a great opportunity which we

should pursue. APPLAUSE

Professor, I have been seeing a range of interesting facial

Professor, I have been seeing a expressions. I am with Dita, I

cannot envisage how a pile of cells can be envisaged to have an entity

as a baby or a child. As we have heard, the whole process of research

on infertility engages with a collection of large numbers of cells

which will be disposed of anyway. If you can do something useful with

them, it is moving things forward. The idea that people will programme

people so they will never be gay or anything but Catholic...

LAUGHTER Is bizarre. You say you cannot

envisage how a pile of cells can be a human being. I have ball children

who are all IVF children. I saw one of them is five cells in a petri

dish, which reinforces the feeling that they can be. I don't come at

this from a particular perspective. I am not anti-abortion. When we had

IVF we were trying to work out where to put our feet. In that process, we

conceived triplets. Then you have the rather chilling conversation

with the clinic where the doctor says, we can offer you a reduction.

What he is offering you is the reduction of one of the embryos to

increase the possibilities of the others being healthy and coming to

life, which is fine. So a reduction is killing one of the embryos? Or

discarding the structure? Killing is a loaded term. I would not

necessarily use that term, I'm feeling my way into this. But when I

go home and sit down to dinner with those children, particularly the

triplets, I am thinking, which one of those would it have been? I do

not think the reduction happens at the stage we are talking about. The

cells that you saw pulsing in a petri dish, as you seem to think

they were, I am not sure they really were. There would be lots of other

cells that did not get into the petri dish and we just throw them

away. From an ethical standpoint, I don't want to see is in the position

where we are creating a kind of storm troopers style of conception,

but also, we learn a lot as human beings from imperfection, I think.

There is a lot to be learned by societies. Families would say that

by imperfection may learn a lot about themselves and the world? Good

morning! Good morning. Quick points? There is perhaps even a bigger

question in the sense that it is not just manipulating those cells and

playing with genes, it is looking at the long-term effect on that person,

who will grow into a human, as it were. For a number of reasons, I

guess, I don't know what the technical, medical reasons are, I

was born deaf in one ear. I have tight limbs and muscles in my bikes,

so I limp a bit. It has always made me different. As I have grown up I

have had to live with that. Now, if it had been possible to correct

these things, I would have grown up differently, and I wouldn't have

seen people reacting to me in a certain way, and I wouldn't have

reacted to them in a certain way. It is playing with my whole psyche. And

my whole world-view. I think this is very important. It is what makes you

you? You think this will lead down the road to an intolerance... We are

all in perfect, but an intolerance of physical imperfection or however

it is seen? It depends when you do the gene therapy, the gene editing.

If the person already exist and you bring about a therapy that will

change their genes, that would be acceptable already. It has been

considered by international law and someone, even in radiotherapy and

chemotherapy you are changing the genes other person. Sometimes it

could be germline, meaning all their descendants will have this genetic

modification. What you are then doing is trying to treat this person

or even save the life of a person. However, if you do the gene

transformation in the creating process, what you are doing is

creating a different person. My neighbour he would not exist, he

would be another person who is perfect or has a good hearing system

and so on. What you are then saying is that the person behind me should

not have existed, but another person should have existed. When societies

starts to say certain people should exist and others should not, you are

starting a eugenics process. That the lottery of conception? It is. I

will let Chris Buckler mat. It is ridiculous to say that if you change

the gene at one point, say, if you are deaf, you would be one person,

but if you change it at day one when they are born, there is an injection

which cures your deafness, you would be a completely different person.

They are in quibble and -- equivalent to me. Run a

philosophical and ex-extend shall purpose, they are not. --

existential purpose. You cannot say the two people are equal. They have

the same value. So we know that when mothers drink during pregnancy, we

think it is a very harmful thing to do and it causes genetic mutations

in the child. So what Calum is saying is that you are not harming

the baby, you creating a new baby? I am not saying that at all. When you

have a baby already, or a foetus, you are treating the baby. You are

not saying that it should not exist. That in the creative process of

virtualisation, you're saying the person should not exist. Professor

Mike Lean, is there a danger that we are creating... You hear these

timeworn phrases, slippery slope coming eugenics, perfect babies. Do

you think there is any danger in that and creating an intolerance?

There is always a slippery slope but there are plenty of people keeping a

close eye on the slopes. Do we trust them? The brave new world at the

bottom of the slippery slope is something we will never get to.

We're not seeing a little bit of deafness or a little bit of a limp,

we are seeing serious problems which commit them to lifelong care which

could potentially have been treated by a small genetic alteration at a

very early stage. They would not be the same people, they are people

more like us and do not require... More like us?! That is an

unfortunate expression. If you have seen babies who are born who will

remain at the mental age of warmth and their entire lives, that is not

a good state to be in, we would like them to enjoy life as we do, I would

like that. APPLAUSE

If it can be something simple, and it will not be with every case, but

if you can do something simple with a genetic tweak at a very, very

early stage to give them the potential to have a more fulfilling

life, I think there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is, and I see

where Calum is coming from, you have to research to find out how to do

that. We are going to have to leave that very interesting debate on that

particular very interesting point. Thank you all very much indeed.

APPLAUSE You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions,

then following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last big question, too. Do religions get

in the way of belief? And if you'd like to be

in the audience at a future We're in Bradford next week,

Southampton on February the 7th But we are live on Leith this

morning. According to the results of a recent

YouGov poll revealed this week, if you're British and under 40

you're far more likely to say you have no religion

than to say you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of

any other faith. And if you don't have a religion,

there's a 95% likelihood that your children

won't have one either. Most of them think there may be

"something" and a lot of them describe themselves as "spiritual"

but reject organised religions. Do religions get

in the way of belief? Well, Colin Wilson from Christians

Together, an evangelical Christian, a Christian man. You said something

interesting earlier, there is an abandonment of biblical principles

which has caused, a good word, an exodus from the church. You said,

for example, God promised Abraham that the Jewish people would have

their own land, you think certain elements of the Church have

discarded that. Tell us more? That particular issue came up at the

Church of Scotland General Assembly, where the church effectively

nullified, as it would see it, promises made to the patriarch,

Abraham, concerning producing children, blessing the earth and,

yes, promises regarding the land. Promises of Israel, and this is all

about end times? These promises to Abraham were unconditional and

everlasting. There is no presupposition that the Jews had to

behave a certain way for them to be fulfilled. They were everlasting.

Their own homeland and all that? Exactly. What about gay marriage and

so forth? That is another issue. That is another example. It is not

just the National church in this regard but churches have generally

speaking abandonment God 's word is being the

speaking abandonment God 's word is what they would believe. This is

contributing what they would believe. This is

the departure from religion. We can all look around the world and see...

What about society? This idea as change? ... The problems religion

has created, but in a sense it is a positive thing, because it is

differentiating between religion and faith. Someone once said that

religion is a portrait of God painted by the devil. It wasn't on

this programme! Maybe not. painted by the devil. It wasn't on

a system. Biblical principles, we are in a liberal society, and equal

society. Cole Moreton, is are in a liberal society, and equal

problem, we have lost the fundamentals and forgotten about the

promise made to Abraham? About which fundamentals? The promise made to

Abraham is going terribly well in Israel and Palestine, let's

Abraham is going terribly well in into that! Speaking as somebody

Abraham is going terribly well in would see themselves as part of the

Abraham is going terribly well in the faith wisdom too, when people

say you are a Christian, what does that mean? Do you mean the American

Christians who want to marry gay people or the ones who say they are

going to hell? Do you mean the Anglicans in this country who can't

make up their mind or the African Anglicans who want to put gay people

in prison for the whole of their lives? Which Christianity is it?

Which of God 's principles, which incarnation? If you put that back

through the whole of the last 2000 years, in England in particular we

had 500 years of a particular kind of imperialist Christianity which

went out and can cut the world. That is finished, we don't believe in it

any more. If you look at the poll you were talking about, 60% of those

people polled in the Duke of survey said they believed in God or a

higher power. -- in the YouGov survey. When you look at any

surveys, in Britain as a whole there are at least 20 million people who

believe in God or a higher power but don't go to church or a mosque. We

believe in a higher power but we don't believe in the church. Do you

think some people are driven away when they hear things like the

promise made to Abraham? I think it is more basic, humans

have a compulsion to be in wonder, and to gather together and search

for meaning. They do that and when they gather together and search for

meaning and work in their communities, they are terrific.

There are Pentecostal churches, evangelical churches, with a clear

message. I am sounding like a preacher. You know what I mean. The

marketplace in England, I should say Britain, there are complexities

within each of the nations, the marketplace and Britain is about to

shout the loudest. Meanwhile these 20 million people are scratching

their heads and saying, what about us? Alex. Can I speak up for the 40%

of us who do not have any religion. Lots of us are put off by the chaos,

misery and bloodshed that you are sort of debates have brought to the

world. Actually, I remember as a teenager being involved in political

movements that were exactly like the church. Chaos and bloodshed is cause

by humanity, humanity playing power games and grabbing land, grabbing

power, whether it is through religion or politics. Grabbing land,

we just heard the debate about Abraham's promise. As a journalist I

have reported from conflicts all over the world and the bulk of the

most stupid and pointless ones where people arguing over what you can get

on the head of the pin. Ridiculous. Chris, you might be interested in

this as well. As the gentleman remarked, you define the term

Christian. Do you believe in the tortures of hell? Light stick on

that term, Christian. Anna Christian is someone who places their trust in

Jesus Christ, we can talk about God, but as the Bible tells us, the Devil

believes in God. Lots of people believe in God that do not believe

in the Christian faith. What do we do about that? I will bring in are

friends of version and a second. One of the interesting accommodations

that some would say, more progressive manifestations of

Christianity, have made, is to abandon the idea that hell is

eternal torture created by God. People say, OK, they have come to

the position where it is not help, we hear this phrase, it is

separation, absence of God. Do you believe it is eternal torture? The

situation worldwide, people are deciding for themselves. Is hell

eternal torture? They have departed from what the word of God says. Do

you believe hell is eternal torture? Yes. That might put people off. I do

not think it is that. It is simply saying, my Way is the only way. To

modern ears, that says... You're taking a sub sect of an enormous

religion. The problem applies to all of these religions and institutions.

Paragraphs and power plays come into play. When somebody says, my way is

the only way... Jesus said... I can argue scripture with you all day,

but my contention is, as a Christian of equal standing to you, he did not

say that. Let's go over here. Safeena Rashid. Safeena Rashida, a

Muslim and a lawyer. Islam is growing in popularity in this

country. Yes, it is growing, and lots of women are coming to Islam as

well. That is because they are getting answers where they would not

normally get them. After searching, they are getting and stores. For me,

although I was born Muslim, I did not start practising properly until

I was at university. I was getting answers through Islamist. That is

how I found my way. -- through Islam. Does religion put people off?

I do not think it does. We all have different needs, physical needs,

social needs, spiritual needs. In terms of spiritual needs, I believe

in one God, and I will believe in that one God, regardless of whether

I am at home or at work. It is my way of life. What you say will make

sense to lots of people. They are interesting sanctions and hurdles to

people, and it applies to a range of religions, and cults as well, as I

may say so. Yours is one of the great world religions. There is the

idea of hell, and the idea of apostasy. It is very much frowned

on, if you leave the religion. It is a profound decision to make, to

leave that religion. In other countries, it is a fatal decision,

if you are open about it, and it will have far-reaching effects on

your wider family. That maybe keeps it all in check. At the end of the

day, no one is forcing you to be a Muslim. I have made this free choice

to be a practising Muslim, I have made a free choice to wear a

headscarf, for example. Nobody is forcing me. Nobody can tell me what

to do. If I was to decide, I do not want to be a Muslim, I would go

ahead and not be a Muslim. Has anyone in your brother family left

Islam? In terms of the broader family, we have practising Muslims.

We have Muslim is that our practising, but it is all about the

choice. I am making the choice to be a practising Muslim because I have

got spiritual needs, and actually, in terms of religion, in terms of

being a Muslim, I can find a social community as well to satisfy social

needs. The community aspect is important, that is interesting. The

gentleman with the beard. Are you doing? I am fine, thank you. Do you

have spiritual needs? Yes, I am in the Church of Scotland, but I found

the answer because I am agnostic. The biggest problem which has been

demonstrated today is the ego. Everyone thinks they are right. That

is wrong. I am not always right. We have got to love one another. Let's

love one another, because all the waters in Syria are cause

love one another, because all the these egos. -- all the conflicts. It

is caused by Rath, avarice, selfishness. All the rest of it,

pride, i.e. Go, gluttony, and Sloss. Last as well. -- ego, gluttony and

sloth. There you go, Alex. That is the problem. We cannot hear you. I

am from the C-Coupe. Nice to meet you. You as well. The gentleman made

a good point, speaking about ego. Imagine if someone is into football

and you're playing on the football pitch on your own. It is boring, but

when you're with the congregation, with people on the same mission, me

for example, I believe that God resides within the congregation. One

God, that is important. If everyone is on the same mission, it is more

important than playing football on your own. You can get that with a

lot of atheists meeting in the pub. What is the difference? What is

happening in Britain at the moment, people are finding other ways to

have community. Charities are doing well in creating groups of people

who believe in one thing. There are well in creating groups of people

groups that do not necessarily believe, but they meet together and

sing as one, they meet. When people from different traditions tour, we

are all talking about the same thing, wanting to come together as a

community, to understand if there is a higher power out there, and liver

lives in peace and harmony. Colin... He thinks they are going to hell.

The Bible says it is appointed for man to die, and then the detachment

-- the judgment. Who wrote the Bible? Sorry. Who wrote the Bible?

The Bible is inspired. It was 60 authors over a period of centuries.

Where the channel by God? Yes, the word is inspired through the

prophets, the writers and the new Titus -- the new Testament. Love

your neighbour with all your heart. You're quite right. That is not the

only things he said. He You're quite right. That is not the

the way, the and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me. That

is not my words, that is the word. So Safeena Rashid is

is not my words, that is the word. if she does not convert? That is

what Jesus said. Safeena Rashid? He says you're going to hell. I do not

know what you think about him. In terms of him and help, in terms of

what I believe, we have been given away, we have been given... I will

take that as a yes. You think he's going to hell. God has told us how

he wants to be worshipped through the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad,

peace be upon him. I believe in Jesus as a profit. That is a very

important point. Jesus himself said, I am God. He was a profit, but he

was not only a profit. -- prophet. Donald, a quick point from you. You

are riding the question of whether religion is putting people off

Billy. Some churches are helping people believe, and others, it is a

barrier. The biggest issue we are discussing, God is the only one that

knows. He knows what happens to everyone. We can make judgments

based on the Bible, that Jesus does present himself as being the final

revelation. Does God already know? That does not mean that a lot of

other people could not also make it. Make what? To heaven. If they have

never heard of Jesus, I think that God will judge you can go. If you

have heard of Jesus and you reject him, have you got less chance of

making it gave an? God cannot override your free will. Jesus is

effectively a human being. If we are saying that Jesus is God, we are

seeing that God is a human being. God is beyond being a human being,

because we all have imperfections. Did Muhammad have imperfections? He

was the most perfect example for us, but that the end of the day, he was

a human being. He is the same way that we do, he went to the tile at

the same way, but he is the example we should follow. Thank you for your

thoughts, the most perfect example of a human being. I know you're a

close second, Colin, but we have not got time to come to you. Thank for

taking part. As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter. But for now, it's goodbye

and have a great Sunday.