Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Amidst all else that is clamouring for media attention this week is this bill, which presents to the parliament a watershed decision. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 represents a significant milestone in the delivery of confidence and hope and indeed uncertainty for the future. The question before us is: should Australia allow its researchers to undertake somatic cell nuclear transfer, known commonly as therapeutic cloning? Embryonic stem cells are created from fertilised eggs that are surplus to those needed after IVF treatment. This is currently allowed, the eggs being donated by the couples who produce them, and those that are not so used are discarded. In effect, in discarding them, they are destroyed. This is considered to be morally repugnant by many.

Removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus from another tissue cell can also produce embryonic stem cells. The advantage of producing embryonic master stem cells in this way is that they have identical genetic material to the person who donated the cell, and tissue ultimately produced by such research is not likely to be rejected when it is subsequently transplanted. We will not know until the research is conducted and it is evaluated. The potential to produce disease-specific stem cells tailored for an individual offers significant opportunities for the treatment of a range of diseases.

In the course of the debate a number of those who oppose the bill have argued that, if we accept the embryos to exist for up to 14 days now, subsequently we would be on a slippery slope, as it is described, and the parliament may choose to lengthen the period of time for which an embryo could be produced and then exist and have harvested from it embryonic stem cells. Others have gone further to suggest that an embryo produced in such a way could subsequently be implanted into a uterus and produce a human being.

To go back to some of the remarks made by the member for Scullin, if anything, the science in this area is moving in the direction of reducing the period of 14 days. It will be a judgement for any parliament to decide on any matter at any time whether it extends or shortens that period. There is no scientific argument, nor indeed any moral or ethical argument that I can foresee, for extending it beyond the 14 days, although at this stage that period of time is necessary. The fact is that it is also illegal and will remain illegal to subsequently implant an embryo produced in this way.

There has also been some talk about cloning people and animal-human hybrids, about so-called Frankenstein science. Apart from the appalling ethics of such research, it is illegal to do it and it will remain so. Others have brought exaggerated claims about the potential of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research to the debate. It is important that we appreciate that adult stem cell research does offer hope and potential, but it is complementary to embryonic stem cell research. Opposition to therapeutic cloning on the grounds of religious conviction is to be both respected and admired. Others oppose this research on the basis that ‘no cure has yet come from therapeutic cloning’. It is also said by some that it offers false hope.

When insulin was introduced into Australia, one critic reported in the Medical Journal of Australia:

Public propaganda had been used to build false expectations and no doubt hundreds of diabetics would be hastened to their graves.

It is a matter of record that, today, 130,000 Australian juvenile diabetics owe their lives to insulin. Smallpox vaccination, blood transfusion, organ transplantation, analgesics and oral medicines have all, at various times, evoked religious and moral opposition. I note that some of those who have been most strident in their opposition to the introduction of a number of those things have been amongst the early recipients of the benefits of such medical technology and medical change.

Hope is the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions—there is no such thing as false hope; there is only hope. My mother lost one of her two sons to a chronic disease a little over a decade ago. He lived the last two years of his life inspired and energised by what would ultimately be the quixotic search for a cure. Two of my constituents, Carol and Ray Langsford, watched their young, beautiful daughter die in a Wahroonga nursing home from multiple sclerosis. I visited her on a number of occasions in that small nursing home room. She was in her mid-20s. The hope that others may one day not similarly suffer sustains Ray and Carol Langsford in a campaign which has subsequently raised more than $1 million for research into the prevention and treatment of multiple sclerosis. My grandfather died earlier this year at the age of 91. After almost a century of life, he still carried the photograph of a much loved daughter taken from him at the age of 3½. Today, that cancer’s treatment is routine. We are all haunted by these sorts of experiences in the knowledge that such diseases are now treatable and preventable.

I think some of those who are a little overenthusiastic to support this legislation need to listen very carefully to those who are opposed to it, because the science is hard—in fact, the science is very hard. But what is much more difficult and much more important is how we as human beings come to terms with living with that science in vast ignorance of the long-term consequences of the decisions that we make. The real challenge is how we as human beings adjust to new knowledge and how we ensure that our ethical and moral considerations of the impact of new science does not undermine the very principles for which a civilised society actually stands.

I consider myself a Catholic, albeit a far from perfect one. But, as with Edmund Burke, I am here to be a representative, not a delegate, whether it is of my electorate or indeed of my own religious conviction. I recall my grandmother dying over a two-month period when I was a young boy. There was a priest at her bedside almost every day of that 60-day period. She derived enormous comfort from his presence and from the prayers, the rosary beads and all of the symbols which are convictions of the faith she passed on to me through her daughter, who is my mother. But throughout my life I have often thought that through that quiet introspection—the deep, silent, secret pursuit of understanding and wisdom through prayer—we ultimately have a responsibility to translate that prayer that inspires hope into something which may be practical.

In a climate of moral diversity—one in which we live in vast ignorance of the consequences of the decisions that we make—I will support this bill. My generation—I think at times a selfish generation—has benefited enormously from the sacrifices, scientific endurance and judgement of those who pioneered not only difficult research but also legislative frontiers. We owe it to the next generation no less to show the same wisdom and indeed the same courage.

See this speech in context