Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

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 in line with recommendations made by the Lockhart committee in its report released on 19 December 2005. The Lockhart committee, chaired by the late Hon. John Lockhart, whose dedication to the task at hand remained faultless, was established in accordance with provisions originally set out in the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002.

These provisions called for both pieces of legislation to be independently reviewed within three years of their being passed. After extensive consultations, the report prepared by the Lockhart committee made 54 recommendations in total. Some of these recommendations were designed to further clarify already existing regulations contained in the 2002 acts, whilst others serve to reinforce the current prohibition against human cloning for reproductive purposes contained in the 2002 acts.

A number of recommendations, however, also proposed amending the 2002 acts in line with recent developments in the expanding field of embryonic stem cell research. As expected, these latter recommendations and their inclusion in the amendment bill before the House have generated intense public debate and often deep divisions over the ethical and moral implications of this bill.

My own approach, like that of my colleagues, has been to carefully consider the different arguments put forward both by those who support this bill as well as by those who remain firmly opposed to it and to judge each on their scientific and ethical merit as best as I can. To this end, I would like to thank at the outset the many individuals and organisations I had an opportunity to speak with about this bill as well as the many others who took the time to write to me. I found their contributions both helpful and valuable.

In particular, I would like to thank Professor Loane Skene, deputy chair of the Lockhart committee, who patiently explained the Lockhart committee’s recommendations to me in great detail when we met. As well I would like to thank Professor James Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who further explained some of the science behind embryonic stem cell research and presented a useful summary of the arguments against this research when we met. I would also like to thank my own parish priest for his useful advice and guidance.

Before I address those aspects of the bill which have elicited most controversy, I would like to briefly mention certain provisions that have generally received less attention in the public domain but which nevertheless remain pertinent to debates over the ethical and moral merits of the 2006 amendment bill. In accordance with recommendations made in the Lockhart report, and in keeping with the 2002 acts, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 continues to outlaw any form of cloning for the purposes of human reproduction, meaning that it will remain a crime punishable by imprisonment to clone a human being. In addition, all research on embryos must be approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee and by an institution’s ethics committee.

The creation of human embryos by fertilisation will still be restricted to assisted reproductive technologies, or ART, treatment for the purposes of achieving pregnancy only, and original prohibitions against developing and implanting embryos provided for in the 2002 acts will also remain. These prohibitions outlaw any attempt to place a human embryo clone into a woman’s body or into the body of an animal. In addition, a ban on trade in human gametes or embryos will also remain firmly in place. These provisions are important for they remain key components in the strict regulatory regime which currently exists in this country when it comes to stem cell research.

A national and effective system of licensing and monitoring for stem cell research was introduced in Australia with the passing of the 2002 acts, and it is important that we continue to take steps to safeguard and further strengthen this regulatory regime. The bill before the House attempts to do just this by both reaffirming Australia’s already existing regulatory framework and extending this framework to include the new technologies being developed today.

It is this conscious attempt to consolidate and further extend Australia’s regulatory framework in the area of stem cell research that would prove an important factor in influencing my own position on this bill. Given the rapid speed at which this sort of science moves, our responsibility in this place is to keep pace and to make sure that the proper legislative frameworks are in place to guarantee that scientific research, and the new technologies that may follow, are properly regulated and not manipulated for harmful purposes.

Of course, this bill also makes it possible for Australian scientists to pursue new avenues of research otherwise prohibited under the 2002 acts. By far the most controversial aspect of this legislation remains the contentious issue of somatic cell nuclear transfer, otherwise known as therapeutic cloning. The science behind therapeutic cloning is complex. In essence, therapeutic cloning names a form of research involving embryonic stem cells. Each human cell is made up of three essential parts—namely, the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell surface membrane. The nucleus is the densest part of the cell and contains a person’s DNA.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, a group of somatic cells, usually skin cells, are taken from a patient suffering a degenerative disease so that the nucleus of each cell can then be removed. Once extracted, the nucleus from a somatic cell containing the patient’s DNA is transplanted into a donor egg cell that has also had its nucleus removed in a process that is known as nuclear transfer. Once done, this combination of a donor egg cell transplanted with a somatic cell nucleus creates a new cell that is a clone of the patient’s cells. This new cell is then stimulated to divide, and it is by watching this cell division that scientists hope to better understand otherwise intractable diseases like type 1 diabetes, leukaemia, Parkinson’s disease, cystic fibrosis and so on.

The most likely source of donor egg cells are those egg cells left over from IVF treatments. Current legislation already allows for research to be conducted on donor egg cells for the purposes of progressing IVF technology. The bill before us also makes it possible for research to be conducted on abnormal donor eggs that would otherwise be discarded in IVF treatments. The donor egg cells used in therapeutic cloning will not yet have been fertilised by male sperm. In normal circumstances, reproduction occurs when a female egg and male sperm combine to create a complete set of chromosomes. This fertilised egg then divides into cells until it reaches a point where these cells begin to develop the specialised characteristics of skin, bone, muscle, heart cells and so on.

A female egg fertilised by male sperm is commonly defined as an embryo after two cell divisions. When major organs and nerve structures begin to develop—usually around eight weeks after fertilisation—this embryo becomes a foetus. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, the donor egg cell becomes an embryo when it starts to divide after the transplantation of a somatic cell nucleus rather than through the normal processes of fertilisation via male sperm. In a nutshell, this is what therapeutic cloning entails.

The bill currently before the House sets a 14-day limit on research involving embryonic stem cells. That is, these cells will not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. It also outlaws the transplantation of an embryo clone produced by stem cell technology into either a human or an animal body. Much of the opposition generated by this bill centres on questions over the moral status of embryonic stem cell research and, in particular, over the creation and destruction of modified embryos for the purposes of research.

Many opponents of the bill believe that embryonic stem cell research crosses the fundamental threshold of the basic right to life. Their opposition is based on an absolute moral claim. From the conversations I have had and from the correspondence I have received, my understanding is that such opponents of the bill not only attribute full human personhood, dignity and moral status to the embryo from the moment of its fertilisation on but also endow the same rights to an unfertilised human donor egg, given its potential to be a human life. Both are seen to be endowed with the same rights as any other person.

Some have argued that this technology will lead to animal-human hybrids. This is an argument which I believe has only weakened the overall case put forward by opponents of therapeutic cloning. The 2006 amendment bill does allow for a somatic cell nucleus to be transplanted into an animal egg, but, again, the time frame for such research is strictly limited to 14 days. The use of animal eggs is intended to limit an overdependence on human eggs. It should also be noted that animal eggs are already used to test sperm quality in the process of creating embryos through ART technology.

Others still have argued that adult stem cell research provides a more than adequate alternative to embryonic stem cell research and that the significant achievements already made in the field of adult stem cell research show more potential than those made in the field of embryonic stem cell research. It is true that significant advances have been made in the area of adult stem cell research, and we should continue to pursue this line of research. But it is also true that adult stem cell research has been going on now for the last 50 years or so, whereas embryonic stem cell research still remains in its infancy. One of the key benefits that scientists point to with embryonic stem cells is that they divide or differentiate much more rapidly than adult stem cells and are thus more likely to lead to positive scientific breakthroughs.

Still other opponents of embryonic stem cell research have pointed to the health risks of egg donation as well as the possibility that women could one day be exploited. I share this concern, which is why I think it is important that the ban on trade in human embryos, as provided for in the 2002 acts and the 2006 amendment bill, remain firmly in place and stringently policed. The issue of how best to police this ban remains an ongoing question—one that I believe needs to be given more detailed consideration. As a cautionary note, I will say that arguments about the possible exploitation of women should not be made at the expense of dismissing the ability of women to make reasoned and informed choices.

Those who support this bill point to the many potential benefits that follow from embryonic stem cell research. Such research is already underway in the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore, and, to date, the early signs look positive. Embryonic stem cell research promises to speed up and refine our current research into and understanding of those diseases for which there is currently no cure—diseases that affect and often cripple the lives of millions. It is worth noting that members of the Lockhart committee have cautioned against overexaggerating the future benefits of this type of technology. I believe that theirs has been a responsible approach. Their consistent message has been to say that, whilst embryonic stem cell research shows many positive early signs, there are no guarantees that a miracle cure for degenerative diseases will be found, and any treatments resulting from this type of research will more likely benefit our grandchildren rather than the present generation.

Finding a cure for otherwise intractable diseases like Parkinson’s disease, leukaemia, type 1 diabetes and motor neurone disease remains as much an ethical priority as the moral debates that have surrounded this piece of legislation. In Australia alone, over 500,000 people live with debilitating diseases. Over 140,000 Australian adults and children suffer from type 1 diabetes, and more than 100,000 Australians suffer from Parkinson’s disease. And according to CAMRA, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia, one person dies each day from motor neurone disease in Australia.

Embryonic stem cell research enables a person with Parkinson’s, type 1 diabetes or leukaemia to donate a cell and for the DNA in that cell to be reproduced for the purposes of better studying the disease. It also allows scientists to produce a cell line for people with such diseases, thus avoiding the complications of immune system rejection. Many experts across a number of medical and scientific fields, both here and abroad, have expressed their strong support for embryonic stem cell research. And many, like the Australian Academy of Science, believe that the early findings of embryonic stem cell research merit this technology being pursued in the hope of one day finding cures or at least better understanding certain diseases. I agree with them.

In talking about cloning in the context of embryonic stem cell research, we are talking about copying cells that carry a particular disease in order to better study that disease—not about cloning a new human being—and about research undertaken with the aim of alleviating human suffering. My overriding concern is that any future therapies arising from embryonic stem cell research remain available to all and do not become the exclusive privilege of those who can afford them, nor simply a lucrative profit-making venture for the biotech companies that patent this technology. I share the concerns of those who want to see the potential benefits of this technology remain in the public domain. Equitable access to therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research must be guaranteed by making them available to all Australians, via our public health system.

What I do not support is a system of privatisation and commercialisation regarding this technology whose foundations are squarely rooted in commercial profiteering rather than in the spirit of helping others less fortunate than ourselves. Towards this end, I support the establishment of a national stem cell bank. I believe that in this area the UK provides us with a strong model to follow.

Like all other members of the House, I have been asked to make a conscience vote on this piece of legislation. For me, the potential benefits that embryonic stem cell research could herald—as long as the science remains tightly controlled within the current regulatory framework and subject to further review in six years time—outweigh any potential for harm that may result from this research. It is for this reason that I support the bill.

I will end by placing on public record the debt I owe to the late Dr Panos Ioannou. Until his untimely death in April last year, Dr Ioannou was head of the Cell and Gene Therapy Research Group at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute at the Royal Children’s Hospital, an associate professor in the Department of Paediatrics of the University of Melbourne and an honorary senior scientist at the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics. Dr Ioannou was of tremendous assistance to me during the last stem cell debate some four years ago. I am certain that, if he were still alive today, his counsel would have been as helpful to me now as it was then.

Dr Ioannou was a brilliant scientist. He dedicated his life to finding a cure for thalassaemia, a debilitating condition that afflicts millions of people not only from southern European countries but also from across Asia and in particular China. Dr Ioannou established the first molecular genetics laboratories in Cyprus before he came to Australia to pursue research dedicated to the development of genomic therapies using the latest knowledge and resources created in the course of the human genome project at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. He was a man of great passion for his work; he was also passionate about his family, whom he saw as an integral part of his life’s work.

Panos was full of hope that one day he and his colleagues would find a cure for thalassaemia. In the days leading up to his death, Panos wrote a letter to his friends, in which he wrote of his disappointment at missing the next stage of his research. Although he was confident that others would continue his work, he felt that ‘this cancer has robbed me of the most exciting and satisfying part of our research’. Dr Ioannou was one of those many scientists who saw the potential for new technology to be used in a way that helped humanity. His extraordinary courage, intelligence, sound moral character and love for humanity not only made it a privilege for me to have known him; they also reaffirm in my mind that we should have faith in the values and ethical rigour that are brought to their work by our most gifted scientists, whose efforts are intended to benefit humanity and not to cross moral thresholds. This bill is very much about helping to foster medical and scientific knowledge—and, to quote Panos, ‘Knowledge turns dreams into reality.’

See this speech in context