Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

New science and new ideas often spark controversy, as people question their own views on what is right or wrong. From William Harvey’s 1628 discovery that blood circulated in a single direction to The Origin of the Species in 1859, progress often occurs against our will. Embryonic stem cell research is the latest in a long line of confronting sciences. We are yet to see if embryonic stem cell research will be proven effective against a range of diseases and conditions, but in my view that is not a reason to prevent this research from occurring. Paul Brock, an amazing man, a motor neurone disease sufferer and a deeply religious man whom I am privileged to know, drew an analogy to Ian Frazer’s work with the human papilloma virus. It took 20 years of painstaking research to come up with a vaccine. We should not give up on embryonic stem cell research when embryonic stem cells were only discovered in 1998.

People like Paul Brock support this research not for their own sake but because it offers hope to so many disease sufferers in the future. That is why we are here debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. That is why we are talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT—because many people feel a moral obligation to address this suffering. SCNT is a process where the genetic material, or DNA, is taken out of an egg and replaced with the nucleus of a normal human cell like a skin cell or a blood cell. The newly constituted egg then divides into more cells once stimulated artificially.

Through this extraordinary process, scientists are working towards extracting DNA from the cells of people with genetically based conditions such as type 1 diabetes, genetic blood disorders, Parkinson’s disease and motor neurone disease and then transferring that diseased genetic material into an egg. By turning adult cells of patients with these diseases into embryonic cells, SCNT could allow scientists to look for the first time at how disease develops from day one. Down the track, SCNT could allow researchers to develop and test tailor-made drugs for those diseases, but it is the more basic research into disease development through looking at diseased stem cells that is critical today.

I support this bill because I hope that this research can alleviate the suffering of thousands of Australians. We are still a long way from widely available therapies, but I would not be here supporting this legislation unless I were hopeful about its potential. We are, all of us, elected to this parliament to represent our constituents, to advocate for their welfare and to work for their wellbeing. We all seek to fulfil those roles differently, and I certainly respect the views of those who cannot support this legislation, but it is not responsible behaviour to suggest that this bill would make ovaries ‘commercial property’ or lead to ‘rabbit men’. I believe our role is to establish markers and to place barriers to prevent unethical, irresponsible and dangerous research from taking place. We must always act cautiously, as opposed to not acting at all.

Science compels us to take action because it offers hope to humanity. It also offers challenges. We have a moral responsibility to balance this hope of ending suffering against the ethical challenges that science throws at us. Ultimately, on these issues you have to always look to your own conscience. It is my duty to do what I can to alleviate the pain and suffering of Australians and to enable them to live a good and fulfilling life. That is one part of the moral question. The other part is to protect the essential individuality of each human being and to not allow humans to be created only for research. For me, the pain and suffering of millions of people with diabetes, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease takes precedence over an SCNT embryo that is not unique genetic material but is created in a laboratory and, by law, will not be implanted into a woman’s womb.

Paul Brock and millions of people like him are already here among us—fully-fledged people whose lives have been tragically changed or cut short because of disease. For me, their lives matter a lot. We do not bemoan the loss of an egg every month or the loss of sperm. Eggs and sperm both hold within them the ingredients of life, yet we do not think of them as human beings. But we once did. Before microscopes, sperm was regarded as special in the same way—each sperm was considered a ‘homunculus’, or a little human, that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child.

Some argue that it is too soon to consider somatic cell nuclear transfer. We are told that the parliament is being rushed into this legislation by overexcited scientists. It is true that stem cells have not delivered any therapies yet, but it is sobering to remember that embryonic stem cells were discovered a mere eight years ago. Adult stem cells have been researched for around 50 years. In those eight short years, embryonic stem cell research has come along in leaps and bounds, much of it because of Australian scientists.

From the first isolated examples of the derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines, scientists have developed more than 75 fully characterised lines. Despite claims to the contrary, a proof of concept of the principle of therapeutic cloning in animals was established in 2000, right here by an Australian scientist—by Megan Munsie, a great young woman. As yet, no human stem cell lines have been derived through SCNT. Earlier this year, a group of Australian researchers reported using human embryonic stem cells to create a human prostate in a mouse. I am sure that the 12,000 Australian men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year will be watching that research carefully.

Science does not proceed in a neat and linear fashion. We should not hold back research on the basis that not enough research has been conducted. We are told that adult stem cells should be used instead of embryonic stem cells. It is the case, undeniably, that advances are being made in adult stem cell research. It is also true that adult stem cells are almost impossible to grow in culture, which is why we have to transplant adult stem cells, such as with bone marrow. In addition, after more than 30 years of use in therapy, bone marrow cells still cannot be grown in culture as generic undifferentiated cells. We need to support research in both areas because both have different things to tell us. If we do not allow properly regulated research on embryonic stem cells, we will lose our best minds to those countries which have already resolved these issues.

One thing I am deeply concerned about with SCNT is the possibility of exploitation of women through embryonic research or any other form of research. We know how gruelling IVF can be for women. I am sure that everyone in this parliament would agree that we do not want to see any woman being forced to go through that process to extract eggs. When IVF was first introduced, many women were concerned about the impact. But the joy that IVF has brought to so many families is there for all of us to see. The way to stop exploitation is to give women the power to make decisions about their bodies and their reproductive lives. The regulatory environment around IVF has worked well to give women choices. Forcing women to give up their eggs or paying them for their eggs is illegal under the current legislation and in this bill, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. If scientists cannot source the eggs that they need, so be it. Like blood, eggs are in short supply; however, we do not pay people or coerce them into donating blood. These lifelines should remain a gift, not a commodity. Australians have a great history of generosity as well as a strong legal environment to protect this generosity. I do not believe that anyone here wants to change that; I certainly do not.

In the Senate, women overwhelmingly supported this bill—19 out of 23. I think that counts for something. We have also heard that this bill puts us on a slippery slope. Apparently, this is the next step to creating cloned human beings. I disagree. I cannot think of a single participant in this debate who has argued for reproductive cloning. In 2002, I argued strongly against reproductive cloning, and I have not changed my views. Every one of us is unique and we must preserve that uniqueness.

We all deserve to have an equal chance, to carve out our own path in society and to contribute to that society. That is why this bill retains the ban on placing a cloned embryo inside a human body or an animal body. It will be no defence that the cloned embryo could not survive. Those who break the law could be imprisoned for up to 15 years. It will also be illegal to sustain a human embryo outside a woman’s body for more than 14 days, regardless of how that embryo was created. The safeguards are there. In fact, this bill tightens up many established IVF practices, such as explicitly making it an offence to create an embryo by fertilising an egg with sperm unless it is for implantation in a woman’s womb.

The Australian science community has a long history of working with state and federal governments to properly regulate research that poses difficult ethical questions. We already have the technology to test and select embryos for diseases and conditions as well as for gender and other more controversial genetic factors. Amniocentesis has been available since the 1970s, and we have dealt with the ethical issues involved in that for years. Since the early 1990s, genetic testing and screening of embryos has been available to couples undergoing IVF so that they can decide which of their embryos should be implanted.

In my own state of Victoria, the Infertility Treatment Authority regulates these reproductive technologies strictly. Genetic Health Services Victoria will test only for a restricted set of diseases and conditions. Parents then have the choice of terminating or not implanting the embryo, but that choice is limited within an ethical framework.

Difficult choices, no less difficult than the one we face with this bill, are made by Australians every day. In my view, we should not be screening potential children based on appearance or gender; but equally, in my view, we should reduce pain and suffering where we can. Where to draw the line on termination is, of course, a question for the parents concerned. We can only examine these difficult ethical questions about science as they arise. That is the lesson from IVF, amniocentesis and genetic testing.

In many ways, the bill before us today is a striking parallel to the IVF debates of the 1980s. IVF challenged us to think about whether it was right to create embryos in a laboratory. More importantly for us today, IVF creates thousands of excess and genetically unique embryos that are destined never to become babies. The IVF debate raised the same issue that we face today: should we create an embryo knowing that it could be destroyed? Even with the embryos that are implanted, only 20 per cent take hold and become children.

Unlike the SCNT embryos we are dealing with in this legislation today, IVF generates excess embryos with unique genetic footprints through the fertilisation of sperm and egg. We have over time reconciled ourselves to the consequences of IVF and the creation of excess embryos. Since the birth of Candice Reed, the first Australian whose birth was assisted by IVF in 1980, we have welcomed thousands of IVF babies—around 7,000 last year alone—in Australia. I certainly would not deny parents the joy that these children have brought. I cannot deny that this is a difficult decision, but I support this bill knowing the hope that it offers to disease sufferers.

We have come a long way since Watson and Crick ‘found the secret of life’, the structure of DNA, over 50 years ago. Let us not run away from the amazing promise of medical research. Let us confront it head-on and guide both science and society towards its potential. I support the bill.

See this speech in context