Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I want to focus on what I see as two essential elements—the science and the ethics. Each informs the other, and in order to reach a final position on this matter an understanding of both areas is essential. The Lockhart review considered the science and the Lockhart review considered the ethics. The Lockhart review made recommendations for change—changes that I believe would be to the benefit of both Australia and Australians.

I am first going to focus on the science, as there are elements of this area that have been twisted and turned around in such a manner that the facts have been completely distorted. For example, the Lockhart review recommended the use of animal cells as host cells as part of the SCNT, the somatic cell nuclear transfer, process. There are some who have interpreted this as meaning that we are about to allow the breeding of animal-human hybrids. Such a claim is absurd. The science is such that it is extremely—and that is very, very extremely—unlikely that any hybrid would ever develop. To even attempt this would require implantation of the said embryo, something that the Lockhart review recommended to be illegal. Such over-the-top embellishment of the actual science itself is a mere scare tactic used by opponents of this bill and the research that it will allow.

To make it clear that I do know what I am talking about, I am highly aware that this particular recommendation has not been accepted in the amended bill that we are debating today. The reason I mention it is to highlight and provide an example of the highly emotive and misleading arguments—arguments designed to produce a reaction of fear and not based on any particular evidence from the science itself—that some are proposing about this legislation.

On another angle, much has been made about the possible future benefits surrounding stem cells and embryonic research. However, it is important to understand that these benefits may take years to unfold. The scientists themselves are as cautionary as any when it comes to the potential benefits. As outlined by Hall and others in an article published in March of this year titled ‘Using therapeutic cloning to fight human disease: a conundrum or reality?’, there has been some success on the therapeutic use of stem cells in treating conditions similar to Parkinson’s disease in both mice and monkeys, but it has not been conclusive. There is merely an indication that such a use may be potentially beneficial to the human race in the future. In fact, as stated by a public health scientist, Kristina Hug, it is not the stem cells themselves that are the means to an end in this respect; it is the application of the derived stem cells for treatment that is the area of this potential therapeutic benefit.

What we do know is that Australia has been at the forefront of assisted reproductive technology for some time through the IVF program. Australia led the world in this area. Now we have the opportunity to continue to pursue research that will provide many couples with the prospect of having their own family, their own children.

One of the areas identified by the Lockhart review that receives very little attention is the need to undertake research on embryos unsuitable for implantation. Only viable embryos are implanted. What has gone wrong in the process that results in an unsuitable embryo? We do not know, and that is the truth of it. This bill allows for research on such embryos, under licence, so that we may learn more about the IVF process, possibly correct the wrongs and possibly improve the success rate and assist many couples.

A further point that needs to be mentioned is the argument regarding adult and embryonic stem cells. It is true that there is some potential to develop adult stem cells to use in the treatment of some conditions and illnesses. However, the science says that embryonic stem cells are far more versatile. As outlined by Hug in an article published in Medicina in 2005, adult stem cells are difficult to isolate, fewer in number, difficult to keep from proliferating in culture and not so pluripotent—that is, they only give rise to a limited number of cell types—and they have been exposed to environmental toxins and a lifetime of potential genetic mutation. Hence, at this stage it appears that embryonic stem cells have the greater potential benefit. This bill contains amendments to the original act that will allow the development of embryonic stem cell research at the same time as research into adult stem cells.

See this speech in context