Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2002, parliament passed two bills which together banned all forms of human cloning, including cloning for therapeutic purposes, and allowed researchers, under certain conditions and restrictions, access to surplus human embryos. Those embryos were created for parents on an IVF program but were no longer wanted by those parents. Those embryos would normally have been discarded, but now, under the 2002 legislation, can be donated by the parents for research. One of the strengths of this legislation is that it applies to all embryonic stem cell research conducted in Australia, regardless of how that research is funded. I understand that in the United States, for instance, national laws only apply to publicly funded research, not to research funded through private means, leading to a bit of a hotchpotch of regulation. But that is not so here. This whole-of-Australia approach was achieved through a spirit of cooperation between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments.

At the time of passing the 2002 legislation, it was also decided that the situation would be reviewed in three years time. That decision was made because of the fast pace of development in this sort of science. The review committee, now known as the Lockhart committee, was established in 2005. It was chaired by Justice Lockhart, and it reported to the government in December 2005. Justice Lockhart, as we all know, died not long after that. The Lockhart report made a number of recommendations, many of them non-controversial and technical in nature. It did make a couple of controversial recommendations, and the one that we are discussing here is that cloning be allowed for therapeutic purposes—that is, for research, training and clinical application.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 puts in place strict rules to regulate and control how this cloning takes place. The rules will govern who is allowed to undertake this research and for what purpose. If this bill passes, it will not be open slather for any scientist to undertake this sort of work. This bill will keep in place the prohibition of cloning for the purpose of reproduction. That is, it will remain illegal to clone an embryo for the purpose of making a person. The committee’s report has been available to the government since December last year, and it is disappointing to me that the government has chosen not to act on these recommendations or to even bring them forward for debate. The bill we are debating today is here because of the actions of individuals, not because of the actions of the government, and I congratulate those individuals.

This bill, if passed, will enable the implementation of this controversial recommendation—that is, it will allow therapeutic cloning for research purposes. And I will be supporting this bill. Before I explain why I am supporting this bill, I want to thank all of those constituents in Isaacs who contacted me about this issue, some urging me to support the bill, others pleading with me to vote against it. Obviously, my decision will not please everyone. I have written to all my constituents who contacted me, to explain my position on this bill. Whilst there have been some sensational arguments put around by some people, I am convinced that the majority of those who contacted me are motivated by real concern for how our society behaves and operates and have strong and genuinely held views on this matter. I want all of my constituents to know that I have arrived at my decision after careful thought and after making sure that I have listened to the arguments from a range of people with a range of views. My decision was not made lightly. I want to thank the many people who gave me and other parliamentarians their time and patience in explaining the complexities and the science behind this issue, as well as those who discussed the moral arguments with us.

In coming to my decision I have deliberately not considered some of the arguments put forward in support of this bill. For instance, an argument I have ignored is that scientists in other countries are already doing this research and we are being left behind; therefore, we must pass this bill and get on with it. I am ignoring the argument that Australian scientists are leaving Australia in order to do this work overseas. I am also ignoring the argument that says that if we do not pass this bill and some Australian state governments do then we will lose the present conformity that exists across the country. Whilst all of these arguments have merit and are important, they are second-order arguments. They are irrelevant, in my mind, until the moral issue is dealt with.

I think it is useful at this point to set out just what we are talking about when we talk about therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is different from reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning is cloning for the purpose of developing or making a human being. Reproductive cloning is prohibited by law and will remain prohibited under this bill. Therapeutic cloning, as defined by this bill, is the creation of an embryo through a mechanism called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. SCNT is the transfer of a nucleus from one cell to another cell which has had its nucleus removed, thus giving that cell a new genetic imprint. An embryo created by SCNT consists of an egg, unfertilised, with its nucleus removed and replaced by a somatic cell—for example, a skin cell. This embryo is allowed to develop for up to 14 days before it is destroyed. This embryo consists of an unfertilised egg and a somatic cell; it does not involve sperm.

Because these embryos are created in an abnormal manner, it is considered by most scientists that they would not be able to grow into a viable foetus even if they were implanted into a woman’s uterus. I must quickly stress that implantation is forbidden under this legislation. This difference is critical to my decision to support this legislation. When we think of an embryo we normally think of one created by an egg and a sperm for the purpose of making a baby. An embryo created for research using not sperm but a somatic cell is an entirely different type of embryo.

In my mind, the moral argument is whether or not we allow the creation of an embryo using SCNT—the purpose of that creation being to use the embryo for research which will destroy it. Given the difference between a normal embryo and one created in a different way for research, my decision to support this bill comes down to a balance between the benefits that that research might bring and a reluctance to embark on therapeutic cloning and the destruction of that embryo, although we are not sure of the potential of that embryo for life. To my way of thinking, the balance is that we should allow therapeutic cloning because of the benefits it might bring us. The results of the research are unknown but could be of enormous benefit to many people.

One of the arguments for not supporting this bill is that research involving embryonic stem cells has not produced anything useful at this stage. Research involving embryos has been legal in this country since 2002—just four years. We have only known about embryonic stem cells for eight years; we have known about adult stem cells for 50 years. Research can take many years before a breakthrough happens. It is far too early to make the judgement that embryonic stem cell research is not going anywhere. Let us not forget that penicillin took about 50 years to be developed.

Another argument put forward is that scientists are unable to guarantee results through this research. This is an interesting argument, because research, by its very nature, is an uncertain business. We do not know what research might throw up. In fact, that is the reason we should be undertaking this research. The sensible thing to do, given the potential of this research, as well as the research using adult stem cells, is to enable both avenues of research to be undertaken. This is what this bill will allow.

The embryo created for this purpose is not the same as an embryo created with an egg and sperm. The legislation strictly controls who may do the cloning and for what purpose. At the moment, research is allowed on excess embryos donated by parents on the IVF program. One question often asked, and one that I asked earlier on, is: why can scientists not simply continue using embryos donated from the IVF program, rather than clone them? Embryos from the IVF program, almost by definition, are healthy ones and carry the genes of both parents. They are not genetically matched to the donor, the patient. A therapeutically cloned embryo will carry the genes of the egg donor and the genes of the person who donates the somatic cell, including the disease or impairment under study. Tissue or matter from the cloned embryo is, by definition, matched to the donor.

A cloned embryo carries the genes of the disease or impairment under study. An embryo from the IVF program is a healthy one—it does not have the disease or impairment. The cloned embryo is genetically matched to the patient so that problems of rejection are avoided. An embryo from the IVF program is not genetically matched to the donor, and so the probability of rejection of that material by the patient’s body becomes an issue.

Finally, I want to make a point about how this debate, both here and in the community, has been and is being conducted. This issue is very difficult. We all have to weigh up carefully the issues involved. Some of my colleagues will make a different decision from the one I have made. My decision will please some of my constituents and displease others. In all of this, though, it is important to acknowledge and respect the right we all have, indeed the responsibility we all have, to make the best decision each of us can.

Some of the material, letters et cetera, that has been circulating uses words that suggest that those who are arguing against this bill have some sort of superior claim on respect for life. For instance, one letter I have received is from a group calling itself the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. I am not deliberately picking on that particular group, but it is a good example of what I am talking about.

It is offensive for anyone to suggest that others have a lesser regard for life. We will all have a variety of views about the best way of respecting and protecting lives and we will not, and do not, always agree. I am quite convinced that everyone involved in this debate today cares very much about life and works hard to protect it. To suggest that one group of people has more respect for human life than another group of people is offensive. This assertion does not add to the dignity of this debate. The issue is a difficult one. I have weighed up the moral issue and the scientific issues and have decided to support this bill for all the reasons I have just set out.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to compliment the member for Isaacs on a very succinct and pointed speech. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 proposes amendments to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. These acts contained provisions requiring an independent review of their operations by 19 December 2005. This resulted in the establishment of a review committee made up of leading Australian experts in bioethics, health law and medical research, chaired by the late John Lockhart. The Lockhart committee’s 54 recommendations formed the basis of Senator Kay Patterson’s private member’s bill. This passed the Senate on 7 November 2006 and today is before us in a free vote.

I have listened with interest to my colleagues as they have debated this issue, and I respect the diverse range of views presented and the strength of moral feeling that has been expressed in this parliament, in my constituency and in the community at large. The most contentious part of this bill is that it allows research on stem cells derived from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process involves the removal of the nucleus from a human egg and its replacement with a nucleus derived from an adult somatic, or body, cell that comes from a human donor. If the nuclear transfer is successful, a process of cell division will begin. This will continue for four to seven days, at which time stem cells can be extracted. In allowing nuclear transfer for the purposes of deriving stem cells, this bill permits therapeutic cloning but, upholding the 2002 prohibition, it does not permit reproductive cloning.

To ensure that the embryos are not used for reproductive purposes, this bill prohibits their implantation into the body of a woman and does not allow their development beyond 14 days. Under the bill the penalty for these division 1 offences will be 15 years imprisonment. The cloned embryos will be created specifically for the purpose of furthering stem cell research. Research into stem cells derived from cloned embryos will complement the adult and IVF-derived embryonic stem cell research currently practised in Australia. It will open up a new avenue of stem cell research which may lead to very significant therapeutic applications.

Along with most other members on both sides of the House, I am not a scientist. But, through the Lockhart review and the four other committees that have considered this and related bills at length, we as members of parliament have been presented with extensive scientific expertise and judgement on stem cell research. Scientists are in general agreement that research into stem cells offers potential benefits to humanity and should be pursued. The reality is that it cannot yet be known which area of stem cell research will lead to the biggest discoveries; however, the promise of stem cells is great. Scientists hope to be able to use therapies derived from stem cells to treat a large number of diseases characterised by tissue degeneration. These include Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, stroke, burns, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, type 1 diabetes, arthritis, liver diseases and muscular dystrophies. This bill will increase the chances of this future success by allowing research on stem cells created by nuclear transfer to proceed in Australia.

We have also received a consistent message from scientists that research into the various areas of stem cell technology is complementary and mutually beneficial. It may be that the knowledge we gain from studying adult stem cells, for example, will assist in the development of therapy that ultimately derives from embryonic stem cells or vice versa. The advances in this field are already significant, although it is important to bear in mind, as the member for Isaacs pointed out, that adult stem cell technology has a research history of 50 years and embryonic only eight.

Regenerated cells derived from adult stem cells are already being used to treat leukaemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood diseases. Treatments for diabetes and kidney cancer derived from adult stem cells have also been clinically demonstrated. These advances are very important in themselves; however, many scientists believe that the potential of adult stem cells will be eclipsed by that of embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the pre-differentiated cells from which every specialised cell in the human body is derived. Under proper conditions it is possible to control the process of differentiation by which stem cells grow into specialised cells, tissues or organs.

Adult stem cells are believed to be generally limited to differentiation within the cell type from which a stem cell derives. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are pluripotent—that is, they have the capacity to grow into any type of cell in the body. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cells offer a potential that exceeds that of adult stem cells for this reason. There are, for example, vital organs in which adult stem cells have not yet been detected. It has been shown that adult stem cells do not have the ability to form heart muscles, and their capacity to replace neurones is in doubt.

Embryonic stem cells could potentially be used in areas of cell generation in which it may be difficult, or even impossible, to use adult stem cells. It was because we recognised the promise of embryonic stem cells that we decided in 2002 to allow surplus IVF embryos to be used for stem cell research. The current bill endorses that decision by allowing such research to continue. Stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer contain all the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. They hold both the promise of pluripotency and endless divisibility, in which a major hope for regenerative cures lies. Moreover, as I have said, there are a number of potential therapeutic benefits that may come from stem cells derived from cloned embryos that could not come from other types of stem cell.

The first of these is their potential contribution to genetically matched cell therapy. A major problem with cell therapy of all kinds is that the new, regenerated cells grown from stem cells are often rejected by the body’s immune system. Potent immunosuppressant drugs are required to combat this. Embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer are not produced by the normal process of fertilisation of the egg by sperm. Instead, through the replacement of the egg’s nucleus with that of a donor, the embryo is almost identical to the donor, since the empty egg carries very little genetic material of its own.

It is this genetic similarity that makes these stem cells so attractive for gene-specific cell therapy. Harvesting stem cells from cloned embryos would make it possible to produce new cells that perfectly match the somatic cell donor. These cells are much less likely to be rejected by that person’s immune system. This could one day provide a key to the treatment of a large number of diseases.

There is a second compelling reason to allow this research. The creation of stem cell lines from diseased cells, rather than from the healthy cells cultivated from surplus IVF embryos, offers researchers the opportunity to study the development of complex genetic disorders. These include diabetes and motor neurone, Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Studying genetically disordered stem cell lines may lead to improved diagnostic accuracy and to the testing of preventative drugs.

While allowing scientists to pursue avenues of research that may be of great benefit to humanity, this bill prohibits those areas of scientific endeavour that are abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Australians. These include reproductive cloning, the creation of a chimeric embryo and the implantation of a human embryo into an animal. This bill extends the jail term for all division 1 offences from 10 to 15 years.

In conclusion, I reiterate that most of us are not scientists, but we should be prepared to trust what the majority of scientific and medical specialists in this area are telling us and what the unanimous advice of the Lockhart committee has revealed to us. Nobody knows which avenue will lead to success—stem cells derived from adult tissue, surplus IVF embryos or nuclear transfer. It is important to note that we are not being asked to prioritise or rank the various potentials of these different forms of stem cell research—only to allow them.

I believe that this bill strikes the right balance, as it prohibits practices that are abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Australians and it allows research to proceed in an area that receives strong community support and which, it is hoped, may one day lead to advancements in our ability to combat diseases that currently cause a great deal of suffering to many Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I would, first of all, like to thank everyone from my community who has contacted me with their views on this issue. I can guarantee them that I have read all of the correspondence and the emails sent to me and I have seriously considered all of their views. In all fairness, I also need to say that I have not read all of the emails and correspondence received from other parts of the country. It has just not been possible. My work has been cut out dealing with those from my own community, and I apologise to those who will not be receiving a response from me. I have also attended several briefings on this issue—some providing objective information and others promoting a particular view for or against embryonic stem cell research. I have considered all of this information very seriously. This issue is a very complicated one, and my decision has not been taken lightly. I will be voting for this bill, and I would like to take this opportunity to outline my reasons for this decision.

First, I would like to outline what the bill is about because, unfortunately, throughout this debate there has been some scaremongering—a little bit of it—and some misinformation thrown around by a few people. This bill is about allowing certain types of research on human embryos that have been created by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, which is sometimes called therapeutic cloning. I will avoid the term ‘cloning’ in this debate, because it does, I think, give the wrong impression. SCNT is a better description of the process which involves extracting the nucleus from a somatic cell—for example, a mature cell such as skin cell that is neither an egg nor sperm—and placing it in an egg that has had its own nucleus removed. Although it is correct to call this new entity an embryo, it is very different to an embryo created by an egg and sperm. The Parliamentary Library background note states:

There is little if any potential to create normal human life from a cloned embryo as opposed to an embryo produced through IVF, because of inadequate reprogramming of the donor nucleus.

Professor Trounson estimated recently that an SCNT embryo has less than a one per cent chance to develop into a full-term baby. In fact, the bill we are debating today retains existing prohibitions on creating a human embryo by human egg and human sperm for a purpose other than achieving a pregnancy in a woman.

This bill will allow SCNT embryos to develop only up to 14 days and no longer. There will be no circumstances under which an SCNT embryo will be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. I do not have the time here today to outline in detail other provisions of this bill, but they include provisions which strengthen the current regulatory regime on the use of embryos and human eggs and the import and export of a patient’s reproductive material. The bill also requires the minister to report to parliament within six months of the enactment of the bill on the establishment of a national stem cell centre and a national register of donated excess assisted reproductive technology embryos.

I would like to discuss in detail what this bill is not about and what it will not do—particularly because of the many myths that have been raised in this debate. This bill is not about cloning humans. The bill retains the following existing prohibitions: placing a human embryo clone in a human body or the body of an animal; and importing or exporting a human embryo clone. This bill will not allow the cloning of humans, and I would never support such a proposal—and no-one else in here would either. This bill is also not about creating a human-animal hybrid. This bill retains the following existing prohibitions: developing a hybrid embryo beyond 14 days; placing a human embryo in an animal, a human embryo into the body of a human other than into the female reproductive tract or an animal embryo in a human; and importing, exporting or placing in the body of a woman a prohibited embryo. There are very strict regulations around the use of animal-human hybrid embryos, and the development of embryos is not allowed beyond 14 days.

I would now like to discuss briefly how we got to this point and why we are now debating this bill. Currently, human cloning and research fall under two pieces of legislation: the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. In 2005 the government announced the Lockhart review, which would provide a comprehensive review of those two acts. In December 2005 the minister tabled the report of the Lockhart review. The committee received 1,035 written submissions and heard presentations from 109 people throughout Australia. I can only imagine the passionate and heartfelt presentations that people made on these issues.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.