Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

Although it cannot be pinpointed exactly, evidence suggests that life on earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years. It has also been suggested that about 130,000 years ago the first primitive humans walked the globe. For much of that time, humanity has debated the questions of what life is, how it is defined and what form it can take. This longstanding debate has sought to define the ethical boundaries surrounding these questions and, as time has progressed, these boundaries have changed, adjusting to society’s technological and research developments and requirements. The debate that we are holding today will not be the last debate of this nature. It is something society will expect and constantly question and, thanks to our democratic society, it is something that will always be debated. They are pertinent questions as, in essence, this is what we are debating here today.

Following the private member’s bill introduced by Senator Kay Patterson in the other place, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 so that they are in line with the 2005 recommendations of the Lockhart legislative review committee.

As we all appreciate, scientists tend to argue that the primitive streak is the first sign within the dividing cells of a multicellular structure that signals life. If development of this primitive streak were allowed to continue, it would ultimately become the basis of the nervous system of an embryo. A nervous system would enable pain to be felt and signals the possibility that a more complex life could develop. It is also fair to say that not everyone agrees with this position and some argue that really this is all just a semantic game. But such an argument dismisses the very core of this issue; it is why we are here today debating this bill in a proper, constructive and cooperative way through a conscience vote.

The ethical dilemmas surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research are founded in individual definitions of when and how life is created. Very few of us in this House are scientists, but an understanding of the processes involved in the issues we are debating is necessary so the complexities of this bill can be digested and an informed conclusion can be made.

Central to embryonic stem cell research is the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer—SCNT technology. This process involves taking the nucleus of a somatic cell, such as a skin or blood cell, and implanting it into an egg. Through chemical and physical stimulation, cell division occurs in the same way that an egg fertilised by a sperm would commence to divide and go on to create an embryo. However, where the issue is complicated is whether or not you can speculate that the entity created by SCNT technology is an embryo. It is a question up for debate, along with the question of whether or not this entity would develop into a foetus. Can an embryo only be created through the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm? If not, could a human clone be produced through an entity created through SCNT technology?

No human being has ever been cloned and so whether or not a comparable process would result in the birth of a human clone baby is unknown. One of the reasons a human clone has never been produced is that, just as it is here in Australia, and appropriately so, in many countries across the globe human cloning is banned for obvious, substantive reasons. Let us also be clear: this bill does not change that. Human cloning and the processes that might—and I stress might—give rise to this process are still outlawed in Australia, and any breach faces heavy fines. And so it should.

The issue of human cloning is not up for debate today, although some people may be forgiven for thinking it is. This issue of embryonic stem cell research using SCNT technology processes is complex, yet too often the debate is obscured by emotive reactions and fearmongering that reduces the debate down to one that suggests the passage of this bill will allow scientists to create a human clone. That is not what this debate is about.

Dr Gregory Pike, the Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, has referred to the preferred use of the term ‘SCNT technology’ over ‘therapeutic cloning’ as a case of semantic gymnastics. But many scientists see the term ‘SCNT technology’ as a more accurate one, as ‘therapeutic cloning’ does suggest that cloning is taking place, when this really is not the case. The SCNT process is not cloning, despite what those of us who do not have a scientific background would think.

This brings me to an important point. There is a widespread very low level of understanding of the actual issue and the processes involved. This is not due to ignorance on behalf of the public or an inability by the media to accurately convey the issue; rather it reflects the fact that embryonic stem cell research using SCNT technology is highly complex and that, at the end of the day, it boils down to some very small differences in definition.

Objections to the legislation based on current public opinion that does not support the issue of therapeutic cloning or SCNT need to take this into consideration, because it is worthy of contemplation: if the public had a good grasp of the science being applied, would that change public attitudes? This is an important part of this debate, because more often than not, when people do not fully understand the issue at hand, they are more likely to make an emotive judgement. This is particularly the case with public opinion regarding anything concerning cloning, which is always guaranteed to evoke in people’s minds a situation where science is out of control and is being pursued almost as if it were a game, and that is not the intention of the bill before the House or of any members of the House or the Senate, where this bill has previously been debated. In highlighting this point, however, once again I would like to stress that I do not feel that the low level of community understanding on this issue is a negative reflection of the public’s aptitude or that of the media, but it simply highlights the intricacies that define the debate and the need for such education deficiencies to be overcome.

This brings me to another important point: the question of intent. While there is a lot of speculation about whether or not it is ethical to endorse SCNT technology as a form of scientific research, because it might produce a life form and that life form might develop into a clone, these are not issues concerning this bill, as they are addressed through stringent safeguards contained within it and supported by all participants in this debate. The bill clearly lays down requirements that any stem cells produced through SCNT technology be destroyed after 14 days. This is not a randomly selected figure. It is commonly believed in science that after the 14th day from when the nucleus of a somatic cell is transferred into an egg there is a likely chance that a primitive streak will develop. As I mentioned before, this is a critical stage because if a primitive streak is allowed to develop it ultimately signals the possibility that a more complex life could develop. So with requirements in place to minimise any ethical complications, coupled with further requirements that restrict the use of the cells, safeguards are provided that address community concerns about the technology’s potential and intent.

The requirements governing the use of the cells require a licence to be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee in accordance with legislated criteria and that the research is undertaken in accordance with the licence. So far only nine licences have been issued in Australia. One joint licence has been issued in New South Wales to IVF Australia and the Diabetes Transplant Unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital to create stem cell lines from frozen excess embryos that will be used in a range of diabetes tests. All those organisations are reputable and respected institutions in the Australian community, irrespective of one’s point of view in this debate.

Australia is not alone in identifying the intent of the research as fundamental to the issue. In the United Kingdom similar requirements have been laid down in the law, with all research carried out to be undertaken for therapeutic purposes only where knowledge about the development of embryos, serious disease or the development of therapies may be gained. On the other side of the globe in South Korea, therapeutic cloning is allowed for research purposes only and is limited to 18 diseases, including diabetes, leukaemia and Alzheimer’s. The intended use of the cells will play a central role in the awarding of a licence to carry out the research and should provide the community with some comfort. This bill will not provide science free rein to experiment however and on whatever it likes in the name of science and science alone; this bill is designed to provide society with one of the best available options to enhance the quality of life of humanity.

Those in favour of the bill have highlighted that SCNT technology is a necessary vehicle for future medical solutions and that, while, yes, gains have been made scientifically in the area of adult stem cell research, both of these lines of research need to be explored in order to gather the most intelligence we can about serious diseases afflicting our society. This is not a debate choosing between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Both have enormous potential and both need to be explored, as they hold significant benefits in finding a potential cure or advancement that would improve the health status of people suffering a variety of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, spinal cord and brain damage, and muscular dystrophy.

In Australia almost 92,000 people suffer from type 1 diabetes, making up 0.5 per cent of the total population and a growing problem. It is a horrible disease that severely affects the quality of life of the sufferer. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, increasingly, we are seeing it emerge in children, which means that they will have the terrible disease for life and that their lives will be shortened by up to 15 years. In 2004 alone, almost 1,000 children were diagnosed with the disease.

There is therefore a real need for science, through a controlled process, to explore avenues that present us with the possibility of finding a cure or at least a development that will help reduce symptoms and complications. No-one in this debate is suggesting that the ultimate answer to diseases like diabetes lies in embryonic stem cell research alone, but it does present us with enormous possibilities to advance science for humanity’s sake. To suggest that this form of research will provide the answers to the world’s health problems would be foolish and ignorant of the nature of science. Very much like politics, science is a field defined by incremental gains with small steps that, combined, allow for significant advances, rather than sudden revelations. Embryonic stem cell research is just one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

At present, adult stem cell research is already being used to treat over 70 human diseases, but embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy. That is why we are having this debate today. It is an area that has only been explored for eight years compared to the 50 years of adult stem cell research. Can we legislate against this avenue of scientific exploration on the grounds that it might not yield any significant results, when so much is still to be explored?

What if it does provide a pathway to finding a cure for diabetes? I am not saying that any means should justify that end—such would be a dangerous approach. But I do support the bill, as it presents an appropriate opportunity for advances that will ease human pain and suffering. Furthermore, I support it because stringent requirements have been incorporated into the bill. These requirements will ensure that any research is carried out with a clear intent that accords with the fundamental purpose for which this bill was created. I believe it does strike an appropriate balance between scientific advancement and research monitored through regulation and the valid concerns of the community.

That is why I stand here today to indicate my clear support for this bill, as I am a person who will always look towards hope rather than be held back by fear. I also extend to the House my appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this debate—it is an important debate—and for the manner in which it is being approached by all members of the House. These conscience votes give us a terrific opportunity to do our own research and to express our individualism. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context