Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in the House today to also discuss and be involved in the debate currently occurring in Australia concerning the proposed medical research technology utilising embryonic stem cells. International research in the field of embryonic stem cell research has initiated the debate in Australia on the medical and ethical possibilities and problems of this research. Opinion is divided in this country, and this has never been more evident than in the level of communication that has reached my office, both in favour of and against the use of embryonic stem cell research.

Members of parliament stand as a small representative number elected by the people to debate and formulate decisions on issues that directly impact on those whom we represent. The debate today centres on the use of embryonic stem cells. Either it is considered a crime against humanity or it is considered that the use of embryonic stem cells is a cure for human suffering. Correlated to this are the arguments for and against the use of surplus IVF embryos or purpose-created embryos made using nucleus substitution.

Do the benefits of possible cures for a range of diseases outweigh concerns over the destruction of embryos? Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of the human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning, leading to a society of purpose-built human beings. In contrast, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential and that the embryos used for research are only those slated for destruction anyway. Such diverse opinions to the one research program highlight the fact that embryonic stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Economics has also come into the debate, with South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneering this new frontier. It is said that Australia is being left further and further behind in medical technology. Additionally, Australia will miss out on the revenue pool that Harvard University in 2005 equated to $US400 billion.

However, whilst this is a consideration, it is of less weight in my opinion than the social and ethical basis of this debate. The medical arguments for the use of embryonic stem cells centre on the future potential of this procedure as a cure for the more chronic and terminal illnesses. Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries and illnesses and sicknesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more. Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and growth and the treatment of diseases. Actual cures, however, are many years away, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.

Equating the numbers quoted by Harvard University to the Australian population, over 20 per cent of our community suffers from diseases that it is argued may eventually be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics. Future treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson’s patient’s brain, transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.

Those who support the use of embryonic stem cell therapy argue that it is not a pro-life argument, as the embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos which will be discarded as a part of the normal process of IVF technology. The ethical arguments against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy must also be considered in this debate. To date, the wider ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of human life as a result of scientists removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from a living person, such as a skin cell. The result is a cloned human embryo. When stem cells are extracted from this embryo, it is destroyed. Opponents of therapeutic cloning claim this embryo is a human life that should be afforded the rights and status entailed. Much of the debate has also focused on issues like animal-human hybrids, the pressure on women to donate eggs and the possibility of purpose built humans in the future.

The research debate against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy includes the unknown outcomes from the procedure which, whilst it may deliver a cure to a defined illness, may also create tumours known as teratomas. Additionally, with the permutations in outcomes that may occur, the ability to control a procedure to deliver a precise cure or result at this stage, with current techniques, is not possible. The argument against embryonic stem cell usage also encompasses the case that adult stem cells have the potential to achieve results without the destruction of life. The reality is that adult stem cells have been used to treat people with success and have scientifically proven long-term potential.

Currently there are more than 1,000 adult stem cell based therapies in clinical trials as opposed to the nil to negligible number, depending on the research that you read, of embryonic stem cell based therapies. Whilst adult stem cells are traditionally thought of as undifferentiated cells—cells that can be used to replace other cells in the body—they are also deemed as not as versatile and not as easily cultivated as embryonic cells. However, this view is being challenged today and, to the therapy’s credit, adult stem cells have been used for the past 30 years in treating blood disorders.

Confidence in the adult stem cell therapy research over embryonic stem cell research is reinforced through evaluating the results that have been recorded in the New England Journal of Medicine, by the National Institutes of Health USA and in a wider read of European journals. All the mentioned journals contain studies of successful use of adult stem cells in the treatment of various conditions including leukaemia, heart functioning after cardiac conditions and injury repair.

Even the premise of the undifferentiated cell theory attached to adult stem cell research has been challenged and proven to be incorrect by such leading researchers as Dr Patrick Dixon and the Global Challenge genetic research team. Indeed, researchers are now finding that many cells in children and adults have extraordinary capacity to generate or stimulate growth of a wide variety of tissues, if encouraged in the right way. Professor Jonathan Slack at the University of Bath has also demonstrated how adult human liver cells can be transformed relatively easily into insulin-producing cells such as those found in the pancreas. Other proven work includes using bone marrow cells to repair brain and spinal cord injuries in mice and rats, and the same is now being done to repair heart muscle in humans.

Harvard Medical School has also contributed strongly to the case for adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cells. Trials have shown partially restored sight in animals with retinal damage. Clinical trials are expected within five years using adult stem cells as a treatment to cure blindness caused by macular degeneration—old-age blindness—which is one of the most common causes of sight loss in Australia. Within 10 years it is hoped that people will be able to be treated routinely with their own stem cells in a clinic using a two-hour process.

The reality we are now finding is that in most cells almost every gene we have is turned off but, as it turns out, not as permanently as we thought. Adult stem cell therapy holds tremendous value for the future. When reviewing all the above points, the expected rapid progress in adult stem cell research and the slower work with embryonic stem cell research, embryonic stem cell therapy is positioned at this moment as a high-risk, ethically challenging option along with therapeutic cloning.

Research and technology developments of adult stem cell therapy and current progress in tissue building and repair offer a defined pathway to achieve the cures and treatments as desired by the general community without the destruction of life. Current research incorporating new repairs using differentiated cells and, in other cases, temporary assistance in local repair processes demonstrates the flexibility of adult therapy to meet medical needs of the chronically ill and injured much more effectively than current embryonic cell therapy. It is also predicted by the research fraternity that we will see some exciting new pharmaceutical products in the near future which promise to achieve some of the same results without having to remove a single stem cell from the body. These drugs may, for example, activate bone marrow cells and encourage them to migrate to parts of the body where repairs are needed.

In conclusion, my decision reflects a fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life while also having a strong desire to promote vital medical treatments for the wider Australian community. Whilst I recognise the very fast pace of research developments for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, the evidence presented at this point of time does not allow me to support the legalising of embryonic stem cell therapy. I do, however, urge the parliament to maintain a vigilant and continuous review of the developments overseas, especially in light of some of the major research organisations stating publicly that technology was advancing to the stage that harvesting embryonic stem cells may be able to be undertaken without harm to the embryo. Additionally, the ability to control outcomes and the potential decrease for resulting tumours are also recorded as improving with ever-increasing research.

I also urge my colleagues to review Australia’s participation in the adult stem cell research program with a view to further supporting the spectacular results that are currently being recorded worldwide in this domain of research. The cure, treatment and management of debilitating injuries, illness and terminal conditions with a therapy that does not challenge the ethical fibre of our wider community must be the goal of all of us in this debate. Present research information clearly indicates that embryonic stem cell therapy does not satisfy this goal at present. However, alternative adult stem cell and pharmaceutical pathways do offer a balance between sustainable cures with an ethical base and an economical proven value.

See this speech in context