Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

Almost four years ago this parliament by way of a conscience vote carried legislation which banned human reproductive cloning but permitted embryonic stem cell research on excess IVF embryos. That legislation mandated an independent review within a three-year period to assess the developments in technology and medical and scientific research and the potential therapeutic application of such research and also to examine community standards about these very important matters. That independent committee, chaired by late Federal Court Judge John Lockhart, made substantial recommendations, the majority of which are reflected in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 that comes before us, having had passage in the Senate.

The first point I think that needs to be clearly made in this debate is that the ban on reproductive cloning continues, for this is an abhorrent idea. As we know, human cloning is banned in many countries across the globe for obvious and very substantive reasons. Human cloning and the processes that might give rise to it are still outlawed in Australia, and any breach faces heavy penalties of imprisonment. This is quite clearly in accordance with the moral attitudes of Australian society.

The core issue before us in this bill is to determine whether or not we will support somatic cell nuclear transfer, or what is often referred to as therapeutic cloning, and, if we do support therapeutic cloning, to make sure that it is conducted within a legislative and regulatory framework that is tight enough to address the vigorous ethical standards expected by the Australian community. As others have described, therapeutic cloning involves taking the nucleus of a cell from a patient, transferring it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed, growing the resultant embryo in the laboratory and then extracting the embryonic stem cells, which are exact copies of the patient’s DNA. Embryos produced by SCNT will be destroyed as a result of the extraction of embryonic stem cells from them, and it is not intended that these embryos should survive beyond 14 days.

Since this process involves the deliberate production of an embryo for research purposes, SCNT does move the ethical barriers to a much higher level. We are all being asked as politicians to consider whether it is acceptable to create such embryos, knowing that they will be subsequently destroyed, and to consider this technology in terms of the potential benefits that one day might save the lives or ease the suffering of others.

Having considered these issues I have come down in support of therapeutic cloning, but only under very strict regulatory and legislative requirements. I do so for the following reasons: very importantly, reproductive or human cloning remains outlawed; embryos, no matter whether they are surplus IVF embryos or ones created without sperm through SCNT, will not be permitted to develop beyond 14 days; cloned embryos cannot be implanted into a human or an animal; and penalties of imprisonment of up to 15 years are foreshadowed in this bill.

I want to mention the views that I have come across of leading researchers in this field indicate that there is little, if any, potential to create normal human life from a cloned embryo, as opposed to an embryo produced by IVF, because of inadequate reprogramming of the donor nucleus. As the Lockhart report points out, the question of intent is a relevant consideration when making moral judgments about the process. It is not the intention, as I understand it, of SCNT to create a human being but rather to create a collection of cells that are identical to, and thereby an extension of, the tissue of the donor. I want to quote the words contained in the Lockhart report. They suggest the following:

The moral significance of cloned embryos that are not implanted is more linked to their potential for research into treatments for serious diseases and not to their potential as human lives.

The creation of human embryos designed for destruction—and this has been a major argument by those who oppose the bill—is in fact already enshrined in the practice of creating excess embryos for IVF purposes and, more recently, for stem cell research purposes. The committee viewed as inconsistent the position of accepting one destructive use and then denying another when both uses aim to alleviate a medical condition, be it infertility or a host of serious diseases.

The Senate has rejected the proposal for hybrid embryos, which caused me great concern, and rightly so. In my view, a view expressed to my colleagues, it was a step far too far and not consistent with community views. I do believe that therapeutic cloning holds the potential of ending the suffering of Australians who are struck down with spinal cord injuries, motor neurone disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other devastating conditions for which treatments are yet to be found. One of our most eminent scientists, Sir Gustav Nossal, said in his submission to the Senate review committee:

Embryonic stem cell research is rich in promise. It has already demonstrated its potential in the study of disease causation, in development of new diagnostic methods and in basic research. In the longer run—

and I stress ‘longer run’—

the possibility of new therapies for serious diseases is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years.

The potential of this research to provide new understanding and new treatments for diseases and injuries that blight the lives of so many of our fellow citizens leads me to support this bill.

I believe that standing in someone else’s shoes gives you perspective. We have all been touched by loved ones with terminal illnesses or debilitating diseases. Imagine yourself in the shoes of a motor neurone sufferer or being confined in a wheelchair after a car accident or having to rely on someone else for 24-hour care to assist you with the most basic of functions. My fundamental human instincts say that I do not have the right to rob these individuals and their families of hope now and into the future. It would not be morally defensible, in my view, to prevent the exploration of the potential of this research, a point made forcibly to me by a number of constituents—most graphically by Maureen, whose husband is a quadriplegic, and Amanda, whose son experienced kidney failure at 17 and who endures lengthy dialysis while waiting for a kidney transplant.

The SCNT embryo is not going to be created for the purposes of reproduction. It is for the purpose of deriving stem cell lines which offer the possibility of being used for the treatment of disease. I am disappointed that the bill before us does not recommend the immediate creation of a national stem cell bank, although I note the minister is to report back on this issue within six months. As we know, transnational biotechnology companies dominate the stem cell research field, which generates massive profits for the biotech industry. The privatisation and commercialisation of this research is of concern, as the Lockhart committee noted. It said:

People are concerned that these benefits and profits remain in the public domain, through public ownership, and that therapies remain available within the public health system.

It appears that we could learn a lot from the United Kingdom which, based on my reading, seems to be at the forefront of developments that have a public interest focus.

I am also deeply concerned at the possibility of exploitation of women in the process of embryonic stem cell research. Cloning embryos for their stem cells depends on a large supply of ova. I note that forcing women to give up their eggs or paying them for their eggs is illegal under the current legislation and in the bill before us, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. I agree with these penalties as women will need protection from exploitation and harm in the application of science.

As we know, high doses of ovulation-stimulating drugs do have known side effects, but little is known by way of longitudinal studies on the long-term health effects on women. This is an important area that needs the urgent attention of the government. It is important to note that, despite extensive publicity campaigns in Britain, they have failed to obtain sufficient supplies of eggs without commercial incentives. For example, one clinic that I read about offers infertile couples cut-price IVF in return for the harvesting of extra eggs for research. The South Korean cloning scandal involved more than 2,000 ova obtained by paying and pressuring women, some of them in subordinate positions within the research laboratory. While the bill contains serious penalties for forcing women to give up their eggs or paying for them, international experience increasingly shows that paying women for ova is the only way to guarantee sufficient supply. I urge extreme vigilance and caution.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to a comment made to me in a letter from a constituent. She said:

My generation has seen the first heart transplant and organ transplant. Infectious diseases have almost been controlled in children. Now this stem cell therapy is the next step. It may be controversial but so were preceding discoveries.

She urged:

Please absorb all the knowledge you can and vote with wisdom.

I trust that I have done so. I believe I have tried to get across all the issues that have been germane to the conclusion I have reached. I thank all those in my electorate who wrote to me outlining their concerns, both for and against the bill, including some of my local churches. I have carefully read and considered their arguments and they have helped me to reach a conclusion. That conclusion is that I will be exercising my conscience vote in support of this bill. I note that the weight of opinion in the scientific and medical community is also in favour of this bill proceeding. I would, however, add that I do not support unfettered scientific interference with the nature of ourselves as distinct human beings. Let us move forward in the hope that we will better humanity, but let our humanity guide us along the path.

See this speech in context