Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to compliment the member for Isaacs on a very succinct and pointed speech. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 proposes amendments to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. These acts contained provisions requiring an independent review of their operations by 19 December 2005. This resulted in the establishment of a review committee made up of leading Australian experts in bioethics, health law and medical research, chaired by the late John Lockhart. The Lockhart committee’s 54 recommendations formed the basis of Senator Kay Patterson’s private member’s bill. This passed the Senate on 7 November 2006 and today is before us in a free vote.

I have listened with interest to my colleagues as they have debated this issue, and I respect the diverse range of views presented and the strength of moral feeling that has been expressed in this parliament, in my constituency and in the community at large. The most contentious part of this bill is that it allows research on stem cells derived from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process involves the removal of the nucleus from a human egg and its replacement with a nucleus derived from an adult somatic, or body, cell that comes from a human donor. If the nuclear transfer is successful, a process of cell division will begin. This will continue for four to seven days, at which time stem cells can be extracted. In allowing nuclear transfer for the purposes of deriving stem cells, this bill permits therapeutic cloning but, upholding the 2002 prohibition, it does not permit reproductive cloning.

To ensure that the embryos are not used for reproductive purposes, this bill prohibits their implantation into the body of a woman and does not allow their development beyond 14 days. Under the bill the penalty for these division 1 offences will be 15 years imprisonment. The cloned embryos will be created specifically for the purpose of furthering stem cell research. Research into stem cells derived from cloned embryos will complement the adult and IVF-derived embryonic stem cell research currently practised in Australia. It will open up a new avenue of stem cell research which may lead to very significant therapeutic applications.

Along with most other members on both sides of the House, I am not a scientist. But, through the Lockhart review and the four other committees that have considered this and related bills at length, we as members of parliament have been presented with extensive scientific expertise and judgement on stem cell research. Scientists are in general agreement that research into stem cells offers potential benefits to humanity and should be pursued. The reality is that it cannot yet be known which area of stem cell research will lead to the biggest discoveries; however, the promise of stem cells is great. Scientists hope to be able to use therapies derived from stem cells to treat a large number of diseases characterised by tissue degeneration. These include Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, stroke, burns, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, type 1 diabetes, arthritis, liver diseases and muscular dystrophies. This bill will increase the chances of this future success by allowing research on stem cells created by nuclear transfer to proceed in Australia.

We have also received a consistent message from scientists that research into the various areas of stem cell technology is complementary and mutually beneficial. It may be that the knowledge we gain from studying adult stem cells, for example, will assist in the development of therapy that ultimately derives from embryonic stem cells or vice versa. The advances in this field are already significant, although it is important to bear in mind, as the member for Isaacs pointed out, that adult stem cell technology has a research history of 50 years and embryonic only eight.

Regenerated cells derived from adult stem cells are already being used to treat leukaemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood diseases. Treatments for diabetes and kidney cancer derived from adult stem cells have also been clinically demonstrated. These advances are very important in themselves; however, many scientists believe that the potential of adult stem cells will be eclipsed by that of embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the pre-differentiated cells from which every specialised cell in the human body is derived. Under proper conditions it is possible to control the process of differentiation by which stem cells grow into specialised cells, tissues or organs.

Adult stem cells are believed to be generally limited to differentiation within the cell type from which a stem cell derives. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are pluripotent—that is, they have the capacity to grow into any type of cell in the body. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cells offer a potential that exceeds that of adult stem cells for this reason. There are, for example, vital organs in which adult stem cells have not yet been detected. It has been shown that adult stem cells do not have the ability to form heart muscles, and their capacity to replace neurones is in doubt.

Embryonic stem cells could potentially be used in areas of cell generation in which it may be difficult, or even impossible, to use adult stem cells. It was because we recognised the promise of embryonic stem cells that we decided in 2002 to allow surplus IVF embryos to be used for stem cell research. The current bill endorses that decision by allowing such research to continue. Stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer contain all the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. They hold both the promise of pluripotency and endless divisibility, in which a major hope for regenerative cures lies. Moreover, as I have said, there are a number of potential therapeutic benefits that may come from stem cells derived from cloned embryos that could not come from other types of stem cell.

The first of these is their potential contribution to genetically matched cell therapy. A major problem with cell therapy of all kinds is that the new, regenerated cells grown from stem cells are often rejected by the body’s immune system. Potent immunosuppressant drugs are required to combat this. Embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer are not produced by the normal process of fertilisation of the egg by sperm. Instead, through the replacement of the egg’s nucleus with that of a donor, the embryo is almost identical to the donor, since the empty egg carries very little genetic material of its own.

It is this genetic similarity that makes these stem cells so attractive for gene-specific cell therapy. Harvesting stem cells from cloned embryos would make it possible to produce new cells that perfectly match the somatic cell donor. These cells are much less likely to be rejected by that person’s immune system. This could one day provide a key to the treatment of a large number of diseases.

There is a second compelling reason to allow this research. The creation of stem cell lines from diseased cells, rather than from the healthy cells cultivated from surplus IVF embryos, offers researchers the opportunity to study the development of complex genetic disorders. These include diabetes and motor neurone, Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Studying genetically disordered stem cell lines may lead to improved diagnostic accuracy and to the testing of preventative drugs.

While allowing scientists to pursue avenues of research that may be of great benefit to humanity, this bill prohibits those areas of scientific endeavour that are abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Australians. These include reproductive cloning, the creation of a chimeric embryo and the implantation of a human embryo into an animal. This bill extends the jail term for all division 1 offences from 10 to 15 years.

In conclusion, I reiterate that most of us are not scientists, but we should be prepared to trust what the majority of scientific and medical specialists in this area are telling us and what the unanimous advice of the Lockhart committee has revealed to us. Nobody knows which avenue will lead to success—stem cells derived from adult tissue, surplus IVF embryos or nuclear transfer. It is important to note that we are not being asked to prioritise or rank the various potentials of these different forms of stem cell research—only to allow them.

I believe that this bill strikes the right balance, as it prohibits practices that are abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Australians and it allows research to proceed in an area that receives strong community support and which, it is hoped, may one day lead to advancements in our ability to combat diseases that currently cause a great deal of suffering to many Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context