Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I want to say a few words about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I reject the notion that has been put to us in so many different forms that only the religiously devout are able to operate in a moral or ethical framework when it comes to considering questions of this type. As a humanist, I am not much impressed by the more extremist religious hysteria that has been associated with opposition to this bill. The emotive and often irrational anti-scientific fundamentalism that has been thrown up at members of this Senate is not a fair basis for assessment of the merits of this particular bill, which seeks to legalise medical research and in my judgement may well do more than any other piece of legislation that we have considered in recent years to enhance human dignity.

In my view, the passage of this bill is crucial to the future of health and medical research in Australia. More importantly, the passage of this bill is essential so that Australian researchers can lend their internationally renowned excellence and expertise to the humanitarian task of finding cures for serious and debilitating diseases that affect children and adults all over the world. So it is not only a national obligation but an international obligation.

I want to begin with that latter point, because finding cures for disease is what I believe this legislation is all about. In Australia, almost 92,000 people suffer from type 1 diabetes. That is 0.5 per cent of the total population. It is a very serious disease and, at the moment, lasts for life. It severely affects the quality of life and it can lead to many grave complications and poor health outcomes. It is the type of diabetes that often strikes in childhood. In 2004 almost 1,000 Australian children under the age of 15 years were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. At the moment, they will have that disease for life. It will, on average, shorten their lives by 10 to 15 years. Of course, around the world, these figures are magnified many times over. In Australia, around 3,000 people are living with the severe disease cystic fibrosis. The average life expectancy for someone with this disease is the mid-30s.

I could go on with details about cancer, heart failure and the many other life-threatening diseases that potentially can be cured through therapeutic cloning. Type 1 diabetes is the fastest growing chronic disease amongst Australian children. The incidence has almost doubled in the last 20 years. I do not know about other senators, but I want to be able to say to the thousand kids who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes every year that we as a society are doing our best to help them find a cure. I want the scientists to be given the best opportunity to fulfil that moral obligation. As legislators, we have to make it possible for them to be able to do that.

Some people argue that we do not need stem cell research or, more particularly, research into somatic cell nuclear transfer—dubbed by its opponents as human cloning—to find cures for these serious diseases. They point to research into adult stem cells and say that it has shown equal potential. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about that argument. Firstly, there are currently significant limitations on the potential for adult stem cells to do what the use of embryonic cells seems to be able to achieve. A report recently commissioned by the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, and his Minister for Innovation, John Brumby, makes the point quite succinctly. Professor Gus Nossal and his colleague Professor GF Mitchell—both extremely eminent scientists in their field—concluded:

In regard to adult stem cells, some studies have demonstrated greater developmental potential than previously thought but generally with more limited potential than [embryonic stem cells] ... Growth to required quantities is a major limitation in adult stem cell R&D.

There are good reasons to keep working on adult stem cells, and no doubt many of Australia’s best scientists will endeavour to do so. We must leave no stone unturned in our quest to rid the world of the kinds of diseases and medical conditions that such work might be able to help cure. We should be exploring every chance to end human suffering.

That brings me to my second point. In the end, what is important is that we seek to end the suffering. The world needs stem cell research, including that involving and refining somatic cell nuclear transfer. I say that because we need it to ensure that its significant potential for success is realised. Professors Nossal and Mitchell, the experts who advised the Victorian government, spoke about this. It needs to be remembered that they are sober scientists who are highly regarded internationally—and they are very careful in the words that they use. They say:

We have mentioned the long time frames for product development in the medical field; 20 years from discovery to clinical practice is not unusual. In that context, the amount of progress that has been made in a scant 8 years with human [embryo stem] cells is breathtaking.

They used the word ‘breathtaking’. In that context it is important to appreciate that, firstly, they are making a comparison with progress in adult stem cell research and, secondly, they are comparing somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, with other forms of embryonic stem cell science. These other forms use the technique of transplantation of embryonic stem cells into laboratory animals or, theoretically, into humans. The big problem here is rejection. That is the major hurdle. There is also the issue of guiding the stem cells down the right path to become the kinds of specialised cells that we need.

The stunning thing about somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, is that it overcomes these problems. Effectively, it has the potential to personalise the cells by using the patient’s own skin cell. There is already much evidence that this can work in laboratory animals. The technology required for this procedure is similar to that used in reproductive cloning, but we are talking about therapeutic cloning and not reproductive cloning. The distinction has to be made, both legally and scientifically. In my assessment, this legislation does that. We do not permit reproductive cloning of humans. I think that the idea would be morally repugnant to everyone in this chamber. But a firm prohibition on this kind of cloning should not stand in the way of developing a field of research that bears the potential to save so many lives and improve the quality of so many lives. As Professors Mitchell and Nossal pointed out:

... in the current and appropriate cautious and regulated environment, a broad SCNT approach is required for stem cell-based regenerative medicine to achieve its undoubted promise.

Diseases that take life and chronic diseases that severely restrict people’s quality of life ought to be fought with all the resources that we have available. This is the 21st century, and I think we should take a 21st century approach to these matters. We are fortunate enough to have a basis of medical and scientific knowledge that has been built up over a thousand years. It is now time to move that forward. Some of that knowledge has led to the development of exciting new techniques and processes that carry the potential to rid the world of a great deal of suffering. To say that we cannot follow that particular path simply because it shares some features with another path which we do not want to follow—that is, reproductive cloning—is, quite frankly, superstition. I would have thought that in the 21st century, superstition is not a basis for legislation. And, given what is at stake, it is cruel and life-denying superstition.

Scientists in several other countries are already working on the development of clinical treatments based on therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. They are doing so in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, Europe and some states of the United States. Australia has been in the vanguard of research in the broad field. We have in the past been able to lead the way. Now it is time for us to ensure that we are part of international developments in this area. It is now time for Australian scientists to be able to tell the rest of the world that we are going to play our part in ensuring the dignity of life for human beings. It is not appropriate to say, ‘Sorry; we cannot continue to make a contribution.’ It is not the time to do so because, now that this field is beginning to take off and to gain strength, we need to be part of the new frontier of world medical science.

Steve Bracks in Victoria and Peter Beattie in Queensland have said that they are prepared to go it alone if the Australian parliament votes to ban therapeutic cloning. These Labor premiers understand the potential of this research in terms of its value to human life. Both understand the potential of Australia’s outstanding scientists to contribute to this great international humanitarian endeavour. I, for one, am with them all the way. All power to them. But I want to see Australian scientists in New South Wales, Tasmania and elsewhere also able to make a full contribution to this work. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that it is desperately needed. Nothing is more important than the saving of lives and finding an end to suffering. That is why I am wholeheartedly supporting this particular bill and therapeutic cloning. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to do likewise.