Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important bill. I have taken the opportunity to talk about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 with a range of people, including many of my constituents, medical researchers and religious leaders. It has not been easy to resolve the competing scientific and ethical issues raised by this bill. The issues are difficult, and I do have the deepest respect for the views of those who have urged me to vote differently. It is fair to say I have felt somewhat torn. But I am a great believer in the power of scientific research to improve our lives. Equally, I believe our central purpose in public life must be to defend and to promote human dignity.

Everyone in this debate starts from the same proposition or the same belief that life is precious and we must do everything we can to value and protect human life. However, the two sides to the stem cell debate take that proposition in very different directions. On one side, they say if you block this research you are shutting off what might be the quickest route to saving many lives. On the other side they say if you promote this research you are toying with the foundations of life. The truth is there is truth in both propositions.

Nobody ever wants to confront a situation where a member of their family is diagnosed with a illness that will threaten their life or their quality of life. Worse still, given such a situation, nobody ever wants to be presented with medical advice that nothing can be done or that the only option is a major medical intervention that carries very big risks or side effects. Having talked to medical researchers, I am optimistic about the significant medical advances that could flow from stem cell research. Professor Ian Frazer recently wrote to members of parliament identifying some of the recent results of stem cell research. With stem cells, scientists can generate insulin-producing cells with the potential to treat diabetes, cardiac cells which could be used to repair a damaged heart and so on. His words crystallised the responsibility that we face. He asked:

Will our children look back in 25 years and say “Our parliamentarians made the right decision, that gave us access to cures for diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders,” ...

Also in coming to this decision I looked at my own personal experience. I reflected upon my own personal situation. In 2001, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. While treatments are gradually improving for prostate cancer, the only treatment adequate for my case was a radical prostatectomy. Despite the diagnosis and the major surgery I endured, I consider myself very lucky—lucky to be alive and lucky to have a condition which was discovered early. But, sadly, for many men that early detection does not occur, as is the case for many women with breast cancer. We all know that early detection is the best protection.

We have to really put the scientific research in that context, because many people do die from many of these diseases too early. If we had further scientific advances, many lives would be saved. I am encouraged that Australian researchers have made prostate tissue from embryonic stem cells. It has already happened. This means that they are able to study the development of diseases like prostate cancer in much more detail. I would recommend to those who are interested in the use of embryonic stem cells to improve our knowledge of prostate cancer to read a very interesting interview on the Health Report on 3 April this year, where Professor Gail Risbridger outlined the importance of the research that is being done and the advances that will be made and the potential for life-saving cures.

Of course, there are many ethical issues, and they were addressed by the member who preceded me in this debate. They are not new to this parliament, and I personally take them very seriously. In 2002, the parliament undertook an intense debate about the regulation of embryonic stem cell research and SCNT, otherwise known as therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. I supported that legislation, which regulated the use of embryos created through assisted reproductive technology, ART, which are created by combining a human egg with sperm in research. That legislation outlawed both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. That legislation also stipulated that an independent review be undertaken.

The 54 recommendations which emerged from the 2005 Lockhart review formed the basis of the bill now being debated. The central issue at stake is whether to allow the creation of human embryos other than by a human egg and sperm for the purposes of research under very strict conditions. This bill includes amendments permitting research, training and clinical applications, and it is worth spelling out what that means. SCNT is the process by which a cell of the body is converted into a primitive stem cell known as an embryonic stem cell. The process involves removing the nucleus of a human egg and replacing it with the nucleus of another cell. I note that the proposed amendments will be subject to existing provisions that prohibit—and this is very important—the development of human embryos created by any means beyond 14 days outside a woman’s body, which is an absolutely essential protection, and they prohibit the implantation into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human embryo created by any means other than the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm.

The scientific argument in favour of SCNT is that it may allow scientists to understand the causes of some of the most complex and, as yet, untreatable diseases that exist. It may enable them to develop earlier tests for diagnosis or new drug treatments to prevent, retard or cure diseases. Since primitive embryonic stem cells may also be directed to form unlimited numbers of any cell in the body, these techniques may enable researchers to repair damaged or degenerating organs. That is the scientific case.

Of course, it should be emphasised that these are potential benefits. There are no guarantees that such research will always realise all of its potential. But, as we have heard already in this debate, this is not just a scientific argument but also a moral and ethical debate. There are also practical considerations to address, and I would like to work through those one by one.

There is an argument that embryos should not be created solely for the purposes of research. First is the argument that embryos should not be created for any other purpose than to assist reproduction. Specifically, embryos should not be created solely for the purposes of research. This, I admit, I initially found to be a compelling reason for opposing SCNT—that is, until I came to understand that this process does not result in the creation of an ‘embryo’, as the word is commonly understood. The process does not involve the combination of a human egg and sperm but involves replacing the nucleus of an egg with the nucleus of a cell. The removal of stem cells from an embryo destroys the capacity of the embryo to continue to grow and prosper. Such embryos are created for the purposes not of reproduction but of seeking to understand and better treat disease.

The other argument is that these changes would place us on a slippery slope towards reproductive cloning. Others argue that these changes would move us in that direction—and they continue, in my mind, to distort the outcome. This argument rests on the notion that permitting therapeutic cloning puts us one step closer to reproductive cloning. A related argument is that, as people get used to therapeutic cloning, they will become more open to reproductive cloning. This bill does not propose any change to the prohibition of reproductive cloning. If it did, I would not support it.

There is also an argument that there have been no developments in embryonic stem cell research since 2002 that would justify changing the legislation. As I have said before, we have already heard from Professor Ian Frazer on that point. There are developments and there is a case scientifically for embryonic stem cell research. That has been put forward in the Lockhart review and it has been put forward in terms of the research from Monash University, which I referred to before. There are also arguments that advances in adult stem cell research have made embryonic stem cell research redundant. From speaking widely to the scientific community, I am convinced that is not the case.

So I support this bill. I believe that the essential protections in this bill will prevent the abuses contained in the dire warnings that come from those opposing the bill. On the other hand, the life-saving cures possible through this research could well in time save the life of someone we love.

See this speech in context