Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

While I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, I am aware that the time allocated to contribute to this important debate is restricted to accommodate all who wish to speak on this important issue. At the outset I want to reinforce the stand I took when parliament debated the same issue in 2002.

In 2002, intense debate resulted in the parliament unanimously approving legislation which permitted research on excess embryos created by assisted reproductive technology techniques. The outcome of that legislation was that parliament made the judgement that research on excess embryos already created for IVF and associated processes was balanced and in the public interest. The legislation in 2002 permitted research practices under licence and for the use of excess human embryos from the IVF program to obtain pluripotent stem cells. It is believed that this procedure could one day lead to the treatment of a range of medical conditions.

As I said in the debate then, stem cell research has enormous potential for good in the community. The ethical question is not about whether or not to use the stem cells; it is about the source from which the stem cells are extracted. The debate was then, as it is now, centred on regenerative medicine—an exciting field of medicine applying different techniques to assist in the repair of damaged organs and tissues. Stem cell therapy is part of this new and exciting field of regenerative medicine, which may—and I stress the word may—in years to come benefit many conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

It is estimated that in Australia there are currently over 80 therapies and approximately 300 clinical trials underway using adult stem cells. It is an undeniable fact that adult stem cells have been shown to help 70 medical conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, blood diseases and heart damage. In stark contrast to these developments, there are no current successful therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells in human patients because of tumour formation.

So what is it that has changed since the lengthy and significant debate in 2002 in this place, when parliament passed the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002? The political strategy to redefine the cloning of an embryo by describing it as an SCNT—a somatic cell nuclear transfer—is certainly something which has changed. This change has occurred because certain medical scientists believe it was easier to confuse and mislead people into thinking that cloning and SCNT were different scientifically and ethically. The general thrust of scientists appealing to the theological virtue of hope for support in developing and killing human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells is the same as it was in 2002, so that has not changed.

So why change? Why not have more money put into adult stem cell research, which has a proven track record and where there is no rejection of the person’s own cells? We need to shore up the good work being done with adult stem cells before we allow scientists to venture off into the delicate and sensitive field of embryonic cells. We should assist and encourage an area that has already assisted many, and we should not be peddling false hope. I believe that many politicians, both in this place and in the Senate, have certainly compromised their principles and integrity by doing a complete about-face on this very important issue. They will have to live with the reasons why their very definite and strong contributions to the previous debate in 2002 have now been compromised.

I speak for the majority of Hume constituents who have contacted me. By far the majority were in favour of adult stem cell research continuing but were fearful of embryonic research. Many asked, ‘Where is the evidence that embryonic stem cells can provide more?’ While this is a conscience vote, we should consider the views of our constituents whom we represent in this place. Using the Lockhart review recommendations as a reason for a change of mind is not something that I will be doing. I will not be supporting legislation that allows scientists to create human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 was passed just four years ago without a single dissenting vote in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Section 9 of that act provides:

A person commits an offence if the person intentionally creates a human embryo clone.

Many politicians, including those who supported legislation to allow research using excess human embryos created as part of the IVF program, spoke strongly in favour of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. On 19 December 2005 the legislative review committee, chaired by the Hon. Justice John Lockhart, handed its report to the Hon. Julie Bishop, then Minister for Ageing, and to the Council of Australian Governments. On page 172, the report recommended the following key changes to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. Recommendation 23 said:

Human somatic cell nuclear transfer should be permitted, under licence, to create and use human embryo clones for research, training and clinical application, including the production of human embryonic stem cells, as long as the activity satisfies all the criteria outlined in the amended Act and these embryos are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

Recommendation 24 said:

In order to reduce the need for human oocytes, transfer of human somatic cell nuclei into animal oocytes should be allowed, under licence, for the creation and use of human embryo clones for research, training and clinical application, including the production of human embryonic stem cells, as long as the activity satisfies all the criteria outlined in the amended Act and these embryos are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

The review was required by its terms of reference to consider the operation of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the need for any amendments to that act due to developments in medical and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research and community standards.

In relation to the science of human cloning, the report cites the work of Hwang Woo Suk as the most promising development, and the only research on human cloning ever published in a peer reviewed journal. The Lockhart report, on page 58, states:

The first report of human embryo cloning to appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal was in 2004 (Hwang et al 2004). South Korean scientists cloned human embryos until the blastocyst stage to create ES cells. In 2005, the same group of researchers applied these nuclear transfer methods to clone human embryos using somatic cell nuclei from patients who have various diseases or injuries, to derive ‘tailormade’ stem cell lines (Hwang et al 2005).

The committee cited this development as justification for allowing this research in Australia. Page 170 of the Lockhart report states:

The Committee heard that research using human cloning to generate embryonic stem cells is proceeding in several other countries where these technologies are legislatively permitted (eg United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore) or where no national legislative regulations are in place (eg United States). Therefore, many respondents to the reviews argued that the prohibition of human cloning to generate patient-matched stem cells should be lifted in Australia to allow Australian researchers to continue to contribute to the intellectual and biotechnological developments in this field.

Unfortunately for the usefulness of this report, the most promising research in human cloning—in fact, the only research claiming to have produced a human clone that has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal and the only research claiming to have successfully derived human embryonic stem cells from a human clone—has now been shown to be comprehensively fraudulent. On 15 December 2005, a colleague of Hwang claimed that his research was faked. On 19 December 2005, Justice Lockhart handed over the report, which cited Hwang’s work as justification for allowing human cloning for research in Australia. On 23 December 2005, academic panels concluded that Hwang’s research, which claimed to have derived patient-specific stem cells from human embryo clones, was faked. On 10 January 2006, academic panels concluded that Hwang had, in fact, never even produced a human embryo clone. Contrary to the Lockhart report, and relying on the peer reviewed literature, no scientist anywhere in the world has derived human embryonic stem cells from a human embryo clone. No scientist anywhere in the world has created a human embryo clone. The science of human cloning has not significantly changed since 2002 and there is no scientific development which justifies revising the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. The review was required to report on any change in ‘community standards’ in relation to the matters covered by the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002.

According to Frank Brennan SJ, the review adopted a novel approach to community standards which was at odds with the established approach of the High Court of Australia to ascertain community standards when required to do so by legislation. Rather than considering any overall change to community standards, the review came up with the novel view that there is no single Australian community, but instead many communities:

... and therefore any scientific exploration should be permitted provided there were not strong arguments against it from all groups, including those who discounted the moral significance of the life of the human embryo.

Research conducted by Swinburne University of Technology has found:

Almost 30% of the sample was not at all comfortable with using cloned embryos, and the majority of the sample (63.4%) scored under the mid point ... Given this, and that the mean score for cloning was well below five and the modal response was zero ... there was good evidence to conclude that the Australian public do not feel comfortable with scientists cloning human embryos for research purposes.

Although this research was published in 2004, it is not referred to at all in the Lockhart review. The Morgan poll, published on 21 June 2006, told respondents:

Scientists can now make embryonic stem cells for medical research by merging an unfertilised egg with a skin cell. In this case, no fertilisation takes place and there is no merger of the egg and sperm.

Respondents were then asked:

Knowing this, do you favour or oppose embryonic stem cell research?

Eighty per cent responded that they favoured embryonic stem cell research. The information given to respondents is false. No scientist has yet made an embryonic stem cell. It also gives a misleading description of cloning. Many laypeople would not understand from this description that this process would still form a living human embryo which is then destroyed by the extraction of stem cells. As I said before, I will not be supporting legislation that allows scientists to create human embryos. Once again, morals, ethics and truth have been thrown out of the window and the deception that we saw perpetrated on the Australian people in 2002 is once again being imposed on them in the worst possible way.

In closing my input into this very important debate, I wish to quote from a presentation to the members of parliament by Father Frank Brennan on 17 October 2006:

There is still the prospect that embryonic stem cells could be produced without the need first to produce a human embryo and then destroy it. ... Community standards and the near universal condemnation of SCNT by our elected politicians just four years ago point to the need for Australians to wait until conscientious scientists have exhausted all efforts to find ethical sources of pluripotent stem cells for research and therapies available to all. The ethical dilemmas cannot be solved by redefining the product of SCNT as anything but a human embryo. In what circumstances would reasonable members of the Australian community think it proper to create human or hybrid embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer with the primary intention of experimenting upon them such that their destruction was an inevitable consequence? The situation is unchanged from 2001 when the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs ... stated: “Currently there is no therapeutic purpose to be served by the creation of such embryos as research has identified no specific opportunities that require the deliberate formation of embryos.” There has not been sufficient change in the state of scientific knowledge nor in community acceptance of deliberate creation of human life for destructive experimentation to warrant a revisiting of the Australian Parliament’s unanimous 2002 condemnation of all forms of human cloning for biomedical research, regardless of whether the eggs used are human or animal.

Father Brennan has highlighted the fraud perpetrated on the Australian people through the current process driven by the suspect and highly questionable recommendations of the Lockhart report. I will not be supporting this bill because there is an ethical boundary long recognised in medical research codes that would be crossed in legislating to allow the creation of cloned human life exclusively for the purpose of that cloned human life being destroyed in the pursuit of suspect scientific knowledge.

I also note in closing that a number of scientists who gave evidence to the Senate committee failed to disclose that they held patents in areas directly related to their research as well as having significant shareholdings in biotech companies directly involved in embryonic stem cell research. So much for the great fraud once again perpetrated on the Australian people. I thank the House for the opportunity to make this contribution.

See this speech in context