"We're not in the business of predicting the future, but we do need to explore the broadest range of different possibilities to help ensure government is prepared in the long-term and considers issues across the spectrum in its planning," said Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser.

"The scans are aimed at stimulating debate and critical discussion to enhance government's short and long term policy and strategy."

Robot rights

The research was commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation's Horizon Scanning Centre.

The 246 summary papers, called the Sigma and Delta scans, were complied by futures researchers, Outsights-Ipsos Mori partnership and the US-based Institute for the Future (IFTF).

The papers look forward at emerging trends in science, health and technology.

The scans explore a diverse range of areas from the future of the gulf stream and the economic rise of India, to developments in nanotechnology and the threat posed by HIV/Aids.

As well as assessing the current state of thinking the research also examines the possible implications for society.

The paper which addresses Robo-rights, titled Utopian dream or rise of the machines? examines the developments in artificial intelligence and how this may impact on law and politics.

The paper says a "monumental shift" could occur if robots develop to the point where they can reproduce, improve themselves or develop artificial intelligence.

The research suggests that at some point in the next 20 to 50 years robots could be granted rights.

If this happened, the report says, the robots would have certain responsibilities such as voting, the obligation to pay taxes, and perhaps serving compulsory military service.

Conversely, society would also have a duty of care to their new digital citizens, the report says.

It also warns that the rise of robots could put a strain on resources and the environment.

"These scans are tools for government to identify risks and opportunities in the future," said Sir David.

Ashley's parents, Seattle residents who have not given their names, went public over their daughter's treatment in a blog launched on 1 January.

Their decision came after information about Ashley's case was published in a US medical journal last year, triggering considerable debate and criticism.

Ashley's parents say that because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.

Dr Douglas Diekema from the University of Washington in Seattle, who was on the ethics committee that gave the go-ahead for Ashley's treatment, told the BBC that the panel agreed "because the parents convinced us it was in fact in this little girl's best interests".

"If she were smaller it would be much easier for them to continue to provide a much more personal level of care," he said.

But Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said is was "unnecessary medical treatment to deal with what is essentially a social problem", referring to "the poverty and lack of support" faced by families with disabled children.

'Improve her life'

Ashley's parents wrote in their blog: "A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver.

Ashley has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve. Her parents call her "Pillow Angel", because she does not move from wherever they put her, usually on a pillow.

The couple decided three years ago to take steps to minimise their daughter's adult height and weight.

In July 2004 Ashley began hormone treatment, through patches on the skin, that is expected to reduce her untreated height by 20% and weight by 40%.

Abuse fears

Ashley's parents said the decision to remove their daughter's uterus and breast buds was for the girl's comfort and safety.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.

The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.

The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

The couple emphasised their love for their daughter and said the amount of criticism their choice of treatment attracted had surprised them.

"If the concern has something to do with the girl's dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity," they said.

"The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."

Last May, a bill which would allow terminally ill people to be helped to die was blocked by the House of Lords.

Current laws prohibit any form of assisted dying.

In the poll, part of an annual survey by the National Centre for Social Research of people's attitudes to a wide range of subjects, a third said someone with an incurable - but not terminal - illness, such as severe arthritis, should also be able to get help to end their life.

The report says: "The findings suggest that the public does not regard voluntary euthanasia in the black and white terms in which it tends to be regarded by its advocates and opponents."

Dependence

Only a third thought physician-assisted suicide should be permitted in cases where someone has an incurable illness such as severe arthritis.

And just 44% thought it a relative should be permitted to help a terminally ill person die, while only 24% said it should be allowed when someone was not in severe pain or near dying but was completely dependent on carers for all their basic needs.

The report states: "In certain respects the current law that prohibits assisted dying seems to be at odds with public opinion.

"Clear majorities accept that a doctor should be allowed to hasten the death of someone who is painfully and terminally ill.

"On the other hand, only a minority support assisted dying if someone is in pain or dependent, but not terminally ill."

Context

A spokesman for the organisation Dignity in Dying, which supports assisted dying, said: "These findings are in line with almost every other survey in the last 10 years, which consistently show that at least 80% of the public support assisted dying.

"This is just another signal that parliament is out of step with the public on this issue."

But Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, said: "This opinion poll, which purports to show that a large majority of people would favour a change in the law to allow euthanasia, is misleading as it has been based on reflex answers to a yes/no question.

"There is no explanatory context about how receiving good palliative care leads people to change their minds about assisted dying, or about how such a law would endanger vulnerable people."

A spokesperson for the British Medical Association said: "We are opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

"The BMA has members with wide ranging views on these issues, but at last year's annual meeting the majority of doctors voted to oppose any form of assisted dying.

"We will continue to debate this subject and represent the views of its members."

Mrs Taylor's lawyers plan to use part of the European Convention on Human Rights which bans "inhuman or degrading treatment" to argue in the High Court that she should not be refused steps which will end her life.

But the British Medical Association said that giving morphine with the deliberate intention of ending someone's life was "unlawful and unethical".

Although other terminally ill patients have gone to court to argue their right to die, Mrs Taylor's case is thought to be unique, as her solicitors are combining two arguments to try to force a change in law.

They will argue doctors have a duty to provide her with adequate pain control, even if that hastens her death - a decision known as the "double effect".

But they will also ask for her living will to come into force once she is unconscious from the effects of morphine.

Her cardiologist, palliative care consultant and GP have refused to increase her medication to a level which would result in her entering deep sedation.

Mrs Taylor who also has a spinal condition, Klippel-fiel syndrome, has instructed Dignity in Dying to release a statement.

Suffering

Chief executive Deborah Annetts said Mrs Taylor felt she has no other recourse to reduce her suffering.

"She told me: 'This is about the quality of my life. I sleep 18 hours a day and I have terrible nightmares as a result of my medication'.

"'I am in constant pain, suffer from breathlessness and have bed sores. I do not want to have to leave the UK in order to die'."

"Mrs Taylor is in an intolerable position. Her case highlights the impossible dilemma that the current law presents to patients with terminal illness where pain relief and palliative care do not work to relieve their condition."

Mrs Taylor's solicitor Richard Stein of Leigh Day & Co Solicitors, said: "We have advised our client that she is entitled to seek this treatment and that it is unlawful for doctors to deny it to her unless they also take steps to find a doctor willing to provide it for her."

A spokesperson for United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust said: "Mrs Taylor's doctors have spent much time with her discussing her requested treatment options.

"The primary responsibility of all doctors is to determine, in consultation with a patient, the treatment that is in that individual's best interest and that is within the boundaries of the law and professional clinical standards."

Euthanasia

In January last year, retired doctor Dr Anne Turner, from Bath, travelled to the controversial Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to end her life.

The option of travelling to one of the Swiss clinics which offer terminally ill patients the ability to commit assisted suicide had been rejected by Mrs Taylor.

She did consider the option but then became too ill to travel.

And believes she should be allowed to die at home.

Euthanasia is a crime in the UK, as is helping someone to kill themselves - known as "assisted suicide".

Assisted suicide differs from euthanasia in that a fatal dose of drugs is not administered to the patient by another person, but they are given the means to do it themselves.

A spokesperson for the British Medical Association said: "While we sympathise with Mrs Taylor's situation, we cannot support her request for doctors to sedate her, to a state of unconsciousness, with the specific intention of ending her life.

"In our view, this would involve the doctors in assisting her suicide, which is both unlawful and unethical."

The inquiry, which began on Thursday and continued on Monday, has heard the doctor's administration of drugs in 2005 hastened the deaths of two terminally ill babies and was "tantamount to euthanasia".

He gave 23 times the normal dose of a muscle relaxant at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, medical watchdogs were told.

Colleagues raised doubts about the treatment and an investigation was launched into the doctor's actions.

The hearing heard both sets of parents "fully supported the doctor's actions and were grateful to him".

The hearing in Manchester continues.

Until now only cells taken from embryos were thought to have an unlimited capacity to become any of the 220 types of cell in the human body - a so-called pluripotent state.

But campaigners have objected to their use on the grounds that it is unethical to destroy embryos in the name of science.

In the US only limited use of embryonic stem cells is allowed by scientists receiving public funding.

The Japanese team used a chemical cocktail containing just four gene-controlling proteins to transform adult human fibroblasts - skin cells that are easy to obtain and grow in culture - into a pluripotent state.

The cells created were similar, but not identical, to embryonic stem cells, and the researchers used them to produce brain and heart tissue.

After 12 days in the laboratory clumps of cells grown to mimic heart muscle tissue started beating.

The US team, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, achieved the same effect by using a slightly different combination of chemicals.

They have created eight new stem cell lines for potential use in research.

Cloning superceded

Using skin cells should mean that treatments could be personalised for individual patients, minimising the risk of rejection.

Not only does the new technique remove the need to create embryos in the lab, it is also more simple, and more precisely controlled than current cloning technology.

Professor Ian Wilmut, of the University of Edinburgh, who led the team which created Dolly the sheep in 1996, has said it represents a significant advance.

However, the researchers have warned more work is needed to refine the process, and ensure its safety.

At present both techniques rely on viruses to introduce new material into the cells, which carries a potential risk.

Researcher Professor James Thomson said: "The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do.

"It's going to completely change the field."

Dr Shinya Yamanaka, of Kyoto University, a member of the Japanese research team, said: "These cells should be extremely useful in understanding disease mechanisms and screening effective and safe drugs."

Positive reaction

Professor Azim Surani, of the University of Cambridge, said the research should allow scientists to create a large range of human stem cell types, which could prove invaluable in studying disease.

He said: "It is relatively easy to grow an entire plant from a small cutting, something that seems inconceivable in humans.

"Yet this study brings us tantalisingly close to using skin cells to grow many different types of human tissues.

Dr Lyle Armstrong, of the International Centre For Life at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, called the studies a "major development".

He said: "Although it is early days for this technique it may well prove to be every bit as significant as the first derivation of human embryonic stem cells nine years ago."

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the Medical Research Council's National Institute For Medical Research, said the work was exciting, but work was required to end the reliance on viruses, and to tease out why two different techniques produced similar results.

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "News that embryonic stem cells can be created successfully from human cells without cloning, without using human embryos or human eggs, or without getting involved in the creation of animal-human embryos, is most warmly welcomed.

"We congratulate these world-class scientists who have had the courage to state their change of tack so cogently.

"For once we have better science coinciding with better ethics."

Previous research has also shown that single births after fertility treatment are associated with a higher risk of complications but the reasons have been unclear.

In the latest study, babies born after fertility treatment were on average 25g smaller at birth, were born two days earlier and had a 31% increased risk of stillbirth.

But when the researchers looked in more detail at a subgroup of 2,500 women who had had babies naturally and through fertility treatment they found no significant difference in outcomes between the two kinds of births.

This suggests that the increased chance of complications may be due to the factors causing the fertility problems in the first place rather than the technology used to increase chances of conception, the researchers concluded.

'Reassuring'

The study excluded twins and triplets as they are known to be at increased risk of premature birth and low birth weight.

Study leader Dr Liv Romundstad, from St Olav's University Hospital in Trondheim, said the results were reassuring.

"That's good news absolutely - the technology is safe."

She added that more research was needed to better understand the reasons behind infertility which may lead to problems during pregnancy and birth.

"It could be several reasons which are hard to study, such as hormone disturbances or inherent genetic defects.

"And it could be different for each couple."

Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer at the University of Sheffield and secretary of the British Fertility Society, said some studies had shown an increased risk associated with some assisted reproductive techniques .

"What has been unclear is whether this was because of the underlying infertility of the parents or because of the laboratory procedures to manipulate sperm, eggs and embryos.

"Studies like this one are very important in helping us disentangle the relative contribution of these variables and it is reassuring to see that, in this study at least, the laboratory procedures were not contributing to adverse birth outcomes for those born."

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said he would publish an interim policy on when prosecutions could occur by September before putting the issue out to public consultation. Permanent policy will be published next spring.

Ms Purdy said the Law Lords' decision was "a huge step towards a more compassionate law".

"I'm ecstatic - I feel like I've been given a reprieve.

"I want to live my life to the full but I don't want to suffer unnecessarily at the end of my life.

"The decision means that I can make an informed choice, with Omar, about whether he travels abroad with me to end my life because we will know exactly where we stand."

No one has been prosecuted for assisting someone's death, although the law says they could potentially face 14 years in prison.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, said the law was not as clear and precise as it should be.

Five Law Lords unanimously backed Ms Purdy's call for a policy statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions on when someone might face prosecution for helping a loved one end their life abroad.

Ms Purdy said she would like to see the policy distinguish between "what is acceptable and what isn't" so people in situations like hers could make decisions about what to do.

A spokesman from the Ministry of Justice said any change in the law was up to parliament.

"In a free vote on the issue on 7 July, the House of Lords rejected an attempt to decriminalise assisted suicide in circumstances where terminally ill people are helped to travel to countries where assisting dying is lawful," he said.

Human rights

The Law Lords also said she had the right to choose how she died, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In a summary of their decision, the Law Lords said: "Everyone has the right to respect for their private life and the way that Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living.

"Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this too must be respected."

She had previously lost challenges in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Lords ruling was her last chance of success in the UK legal system.

Ms Purdy, married to Cuban violinist Omar Puente, was diagnosed with primary progressive MS in March 1995. She can no longer walk and is gradually losing strength in her upper body.

She has suggested that at some point she may travel to Switzerland to take a lethal dose of barbiturates prescribed by doctors at the controversial Dignitas organisation.

More than 100 UK citizens have so far ended their lives at Dignitas, and no-one who has accompanied them has ever been prosecuted on their return to the UK.

However, the reasons why legal action has not been taken have never been made clear.

'Significant victory'

Ms Purdy had previously said if the law was not clarified she would have had to end her life earlier than she wanted to.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "This historic judgement ensures the law keeps up with changes in society and crucially, provides a more rational deterrent to abuse than a blanket ban which is never enforced.

"That must be better than the current legal muddle.

"The ruling is significant because it distinguishes between maliciously encouraging someone to commit suicide and compassionately supporting someone's decision to die."

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said it was a "very significant victory".

Simon Gillespie, chief executive of the MS Society, said: "There are 100,000 people with MS across the UK and most will live about as long as any of us.

"The key to living well with MS is getting the right care and support from the point of diagnosis, including palliative care when it's needed."

Attacking the decision, Phyllis Bowman, executive officer of Right To Life, said the group would be consulting its lawyers about what action it could take.

"Much as we sympathise with Ms Purdy, we are extremely concerned about the manner in which this will leave the vulnerable - that is the disabled, the sick, and the aged.

"Without exception, every disability rights group in the country, are completely opposed to any changing of the laws on assisted suicide and euthanasia."

Claims that Mr Houben - who was seriously injured in a car crash in 1983 - could communicate, swept around the world last November.

After more than two decades in a coma, he was filmed apparently tapping out messages on a special touchpad keyboard with the help of his speech therapist.

Method 'not valid'

By holding Mr Houben's forearm and finger, the therapist was said to feel sufficient pressure to direct her to the correct keys on the keyboard.

Dr Laureys, a neurologist at Liege University Hospital in Belgium, had earlier established that Mr Houben, was more conscious than doctors had previously thought - and that is still thought to be the case.

But he also believed that his interaction with the speech therapist was genuine. Following further study, however, Dr Laureys says the method does not work.

He told the BBC that a series of tests on a group of coma patients, including Mr Houben, had concluded that the method was after all false. The results of the study were presented in London on Friday.

Objects and words were shown to the patients in the absence of the facilitator who was then called back into the room. The patient was then asked to say what they had seen or heard.

"It's easy to watch the video and say this method is not valid, but to prove that it is not true is actually very difficult," Dr Laureys said.

Houben was 'writing a book'

Doubts were expressed about the method by other experts at the time and repeated this week.

"It's like using an Ouija board," Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, told Associated Press on Friday. "It was too good to be true and we shouldn't have believed it."

Last November Mr Houben's mother, Fina Houben, told the BBC that she always believed her son could communicate.

"He is not depressed, he is an optimist," she said. "He wants to get out of life what he can."

Last year, Mrs Houben claimed her son was writing a book. "Just imagine," Mr Houben ostensibly typed out via his speech therapist. "You hear, see, feel and think but no one can see that."

Experts say the question of whether people like Houben who have a traumatic brain injury are conscious and alert remains unanswered.

"I hope Rom and his family will stay as an example" of how hard it is to pick up the signs of consciousness, Dr Laureys told the Associated Press.

"Even when we know that patients are conscious, we don't know if there is pain or suffering or what they are feeling."