Scientists think they may be able to genetically modify pigs so they can more easily act as organ donors for humans. This poses a dilemma which is, at the very least, intriguing.

There has been talk for years of using pigs' heart valves to replace human heart valves.

I have no idea how practical this is, but anyone who has seen a 16-stone man chasing a 16-stone pig will have no difficulty in identifying which is the fitter.

I have always thought the prospects of genetic alteration for medical reasons were more promising than the prospects for food production.

When it comes down to it we do not need more food.

In Western Europe and, indeed, most of the northern hemisphere, we have so much food we do not really know what to do with it. It is also cheap, certainly well within most people's ability to pay.

The European Union runs the Set Aside scheme to attempt to cut down on the area of crops we grow.

Ten per cent of land is compulsorily left fallow. This only applies to Europe's larger farms, but that means most of the farms in the UK.

If we were suddenly short of food, we could start growing crops on this land again.

That would really mean extra cereals and oil seed rape in this country, though the effect might be different elsewhere.

In any case there seems to be no shortage of cereals to import, should the need arise.

It is no longer fashionable to worry about the huge balance of payments deficit, so, no doubt, that would be the chosen route.

Why should we genetically modify crops to produce more, when we cannot eat what we produce now?

Why should we try to produce more cheaply when we can afford what we produce now?

We are short of donor organs to carry out medical procedures. This and other governments have tried to encourage people to offer their organs for others to use, but only with very limited success.

The tales of people waiting for donors, sometimes until it is too late, are well documented.

Those who are vegetarians because they refuse to have animals killed for human purposes, or at least for their purposes, will have a problem with using animals for human medical objectives.

Where is the line drawn on other uses of animals?

It is now common for cosmetics to carry a statement that they have not been tested on animals. Presumably those not carrying such a denial have been tested on animals.

Do people oppose animal testing of cosmetics because of support for animals, or because they think that testing cosmetics is not a sufficiently important reason for animals to suffer?

Each will have to examine their individual conscience. We will each have to draw our own line.

This is a world where what is important is the result of what we do, rather than any guidelines on which we live.

We are now a largely secular society making decisions on the basis of what works, rather than on any principles.

We are governed by a party which was set up with a series of objectives. They too seem to have lost sight of their principles, and they react to events.

If we are all pragmatic we shall not object to genetic modification of animals for medical purposes, subject to rigorous testing.

Many people have strong moral objections to that position and all should respect that. It will be interesting to see the argument develop.

Updated: 11:24 Tuesday, October 29, 2002