The human fertilisation and embryology bill prohibits the transfer of the embryos to a human or animal and says they cannot be used for research beyond 14 days.
The bill, which updates 1990 laws, is at committee stage when amendments are tabled and will be subject to a final vote in coming weeks.
Two groups of scientists have already been given permission to create human-animal admixed embryos. The bill legalises their research within set guidelines.
Some researchers say allowing admixed embryos would open more avenues as they seek cures for conditions like motor neurone disease or Parkinson's. They say their creation would help ease a deficit of donated human eggs for stem cell research.
But other scientists and religious leaders say that creating human-animal embryos is unethical, and using them for research is a blind alley that won't cure disease. One Catholic cardinal called the research "Frankenstein science".
"SAVIOUR SIBLINGS"
David King, director of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, said he feared sufferers of Alzheimer's and other diseases were being offered false hope.
"It is very sad that all these patient groups have been hyped up to believe in this stuff. They are going to be very disappointed. It is very unfair," he told reporters.
MPs also defeated an amendment which would have banned the creation of "saviour siblings" -- babies born from embryos selected through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because they are a tissue match for a sibling with a genetic condition.
Supporters say this will help children who cannot find matching tissue donors, but critics worry about the impact on children who have been born to improve a sibling's health, particularly if the treatment fails.
The embryology debate will continue on Tuesday when MPs will vote on moves to end the need for IVF clinics to consider a child's need for a father.
This would ease restrictions on lesbian couples and single women but opponents argue that a child needs a father.
Parliament will also vote on Tuesday on abortion laws. Some MPs are seeking to lower the 24-week time limit for abortions. Brown favours the status quo.
no that would not make any difference what we need to do is in schools and colleges educate people about binge drinking and take them to hospitals as a national curriculum lesson to show them what drinking to excess does not only to the body after a fight but your organs after years of binge drinking,show them autopsys of liver damage,show them picture so car crash victims due to drink driving,if they see the destruction they can cause then they might learn to either drink in modration or not too drink at all.I think a lot of it is peer pressure,especially amongst men/boys, lets see who can drink the most without passing out or get drunk to impress that girl they fancy,i am not sure about the binge drinking amongst girls,they seem to want to keep up with the boys nowa days.maybe put alcohol up, where do these young people find the mney to drink so much anyway,i know older people work but how do they stil find all this money to drink day after day and night after night in pubs,even when my husband was self-employed we couldn't afford to go out more than once a month and that was for a meal as we didn't have any time away from the children at all,day or night,we didnt want to either as we are afamily that like to do thing together but i can't understand how peopel can afford to drink so much,they must spend all their wages on drinking,well the youngsters seem to.I think lessons in school in hard fact could help,see patients in intensive care from accidents caused by drinking,show them livers that have failed due to drinking,why not have these important life issues as teh national carriculum instead if music lesson,religious education,those things we can decide and lean later,we need to show youngsters
