Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

This evening I want to speak briefly about the issue of biotechnology. There is no doubt that recent major breakthroughs in biotechnology have made a huge contribution to human life. We do not have to look far to think of examples—remember how the human tissue grown into new skin was used by Dr Fiona Wood and her team to save the life of the victims of the Bali bombings. Or think about the family members or friends who are finding relief for conditions where antibody based drugs have made landmark breakthroughs in medical therapies, treating diseases such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and hepatitis, not to mention cancer. How wonderful to know that Herceptin, the first drug approved for use with a matching diagnostic test, is now available to treat breast cancer in women whose cancer cells express the protein HER2.

It is good to remember, since this is Mental Health Week, that not all illnesses are physical. In the field of mental health, too, the pharmacological advances have improved the quality of life of many sufferers. In my role as Convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Schizophrenia, for instance, I have been fortunate to learn of the developments, to hear the stories, to meet people and gain some insight into the pain of this condition, as well as the biotechnological advances in treatment.

At the launch of National Mental Health Week yesterday, we heard the exceptional testimony of Geraldine Quinn, who provided unusual insights into her brother’s mental illness and challenged us as policymakers to do better in caring for those with mental illness. We heard about the creativity and uniqueness of those who contributed to the exhibition ‘For Matthew and Others—Journeys with Schizophrenia’, and were able to appreciate some of the outstanding artwork that has been included in the exhibition.

So it may seem churlish to introduce a note of caution in a discussion about the role of biotech discoveries in our future directions as human beings, but it is an important part of the bioethical debate being played out in the literature across the world. Part of being human is the desire, even the urge, to become better—to strive for perfection, as my old teachers used to put it. And who could begrudge such an urge? But equally, part of what makes us human is our differences, our very imperfections. To achieve perfection, be it moral, mental or physical, would, of course, constrain us from being human.

To my mind, it is important that we think clearly about the path we are on towards the solution of all our human imperfections. How do we continue to cherish our diversity and individual uniqueness even while we try to use our human talents to improve our lot? How to reconcile these questions is not an isolated, theoretical, philosophical quandary without any bearing on our role here as legislators; on the contrary, it is central to what we are here for. It is the kind of thorny question that occupies my mind as I try to come to terms with a number of the issues raised in the findings and recommendations of the Lockhart report. While the Senate committee is charged with the responsibility of examining the detail of the Patterson bill, some of these issues, not directly related to the content of the bill, may not receive consideration, given the time constraints and the terms of reference of the inquiry.

A good starting point in this discussion is Professor Francis Fukuyama’s book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Professor Fukuyama is the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, and his provocative book argues, very persuasively, that the biotechnology revolution will ultimately have profound consequences for our society, and some of these may be quite damaging. For example, he sees the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology as the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into what he calls a ‘posthuman’ stage of history.

This is a very tantalising argument. The concept of human nature has provided stable continuity to our experience as a species. It defines our most basic values and it shapes and constrains the possible kinds of political regimes. So a technology that is powerful enough to reshape what we are can conceivably result in poor consequences for liberal democracy and the nature of politics itself. Liberal democracy is the belief that all human beings are equal by nature. We are generally an egalitarian species and use our intellect and our resources as well as our good fortune to ensure the survival of our species. This applies to whether we live in the developed world of the haves or the developing world of the have nots.

The notion that many individuals have come to think of as commonplace—the idea of biotechnology as a way of improving us or our children—goes to this notion of altering human nature and its impacts. We could consider this to be at one end of the interventionist spectrum that Professor Fukuyama seeks to address. At the core of his argument is the fact that biotechnology is allowing us to modify human behaviour and that we need to be aware of the costs as well of the benefits of embracing it without question. As he so cogently puts it:

Biotechnology in contrast to many other scientific advances mixes obvious benefits with subtle harms in one seamless package.

Right now we are facing ethical choices about genetic privacy, proper use of drugs, research involving embryos and human cloning. Lockhart takes us further—into the realms of embryo selection and the degree to which medical technologies can be used for enhancement rather than therapeutic purposes.

But biotechnology is much broader than genetic engineering. Putting aside the cloning and embryonic stem cell debate for the moment, to look at other applications of biotechnology provides an opportunity to consider less emotive issues that highlight the seamlessness to which Professor Fukuyama refers. The ultimate destination, or prize, of the biotech revolution will be intervention in the germ line to manipulate the DNA of all of one person’s descendants. This may happen for a variety of reasons—to eliminate Huntingdon’s disease, for instance, or for more questionable purposes.

As biotechnology increasingly confers the power to manipulate our biological make-up, there is a distinct possibility, and a danger, that ordinary, or at least wealthy, parents will seek to use this technology to ‘improve’ their children. This is not in the realm of fantasy but is the concern of many thinkers who are following the biotech revolution closely. For example, Gregory Stock, in his book Redesigning Humans, suggests that musical people might want to enhance their children’s musical abilities or athletes might want to enhance their children’s athletic abilities. Think about this: we may also want to enhance for more ideological or political reasons as well. And if this trend goes far enough, it may lead us to shift the way we think about genetically different classes of human beings, which will then inevitably affect our view of human rights.

‘Improving’ human beings can be an extremely ambiguous enterprise, particularly when it comes to modifying elements of our emotional system and personality. Would people be improved by being made less aggressive? Would that not simultaneously cut out a good deal of innovation and positive competition as well? The fact is that some individual genes have multiple effects and sometimes it takes the interaction of many genes working together at different points to produce other effects. This complexity is what makes germ-line engineering different from conventional medicine: the bottom line is that if you make a mistake when you genetically engineer a child you cannot correct it. Hence the urging to proceed with caution, particularly in terms of decision making. And this leads me back to our role and our responsibilities as elected representatives of all Australians.

We are all aware of the democratic tendency to delegate decision making to expert communities in certain areas that require great technical expertise. This has always been true of biomedicine, where drug regulation, rules concerning human experimentation and the like have always been within the purview of a limited expert community, with occasional interventions by government. Our tendency to consider behavioural differences as medical conditions—coupled with society’s respect for medical solutions—makes it all the more essential that we think carefully about the issue of regulation.

When we consider the Lockhart recommendations, these are the kinds of conversations we all have to be having. Too often our discussion descends to a mutually disrespectful debate in which opponents are simply pigeonholed into crude categories such as irresponsible futurists, repressive conservatives, secular redesigners or religious closed minds. It is not only valid but it is imperative that we ask probing questions, all the more so if they are uncomfortable, unfamiliar questions that yield no simple, forthright answers.