Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, as I believe the public benefits of regulated research utilising therapeutic cloning will have a positive benefit for society. I also believe that it will improve the chances for finding a cure for a range of diseases afflicting many people. I believe that the medicinal and health benefits that this research will provide are undoubtedly in the best interests of all Australians. Limited embryonic stem cell research in countries such as Britain and the United States has shown immense potential for curing diseases that, until now, have had no known cure.

Research has shown that further development in therapeutic cloning may lead to cures for diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and many other conditions. When one takes into consideration that approximately one million Australians suffer from diabetes alone, the merit of further research in this field becomes readily apparent in our own domestic circumstance. In coming to my decision, I have also taken into account the report of the Lockhart review. As senators are probably aware, the Lockhart review committee was formed in 2005 to assess the Commonwealth legislation that regulates human embryonic research. The committee report recommended that human embryonic stem cells be allowed for research purposes under supervision and a strict ethical code.

There are concerns that research involving the insertion of human tissue into an ovum from another species could lead to human-animal hybrids. This is just not true. The process used in therapeutic cloning begins with the removal of genetic material from the donor egg. All that is left is like a shell. The patient’s own genetic material, or somatic cells, is then inserted into the space vacated by the original genetic material. This is the somatic cell nuclear transfer. This new environment then ‘resets’ the cell so it can begin to behave as though it were a cell in a newly forming embryo. It ceases to be a skin cell—or whatever the genetic material of it came from—and replicates as a stem cell. In this way, the use of the word ‘embryonic’, as I see it, is like an adjective describing the cell’s behaviour, not its ultimate potential or form. This is a method of tissue culture used for copying cells that must be used or destroyed after 14 days.

I would also like to address specifically the issue of permitting the use of animal ova in research. This seems to be causing some concern. As I have described, the egg environment is what is used—not the genetic material. I will share a little history for the information of senators. I thought it useful to list some of the original sources of hormonal or endocrinal treatments to demonstrate the extent to which animals have benefited scientific advancement in the treatment of human ailments. Corticosteroids were extracted from ox and sheep bile and the adrenal glands of slaughtered animals. Insulin was originally extracted from the pancreas and liver tissues of slaughtered cows and pigs. Thyroid extract came from the dried and ground thyroid glands of cows and pigs, and oestrogen came from premarin extracted from pregnant mares’ urine.

In 1796, the first vaccinations were being experimented with. Tissue from cowpox was used to inoculate against the smallpox virus. I quote from information provided by the Jenner Museum:

People quickly became fearful of the possible consequences of receiving material originating from cows and opposed vaccination on religious grounds, saying that they would not be treated with substances originating from God’s lowlier creatures.

Indeed, the term ‘vaccination’ actually comes from the Latin word for cow, ‘vacca’, and is used in reference to the origins of this form of treatment. I cannot imagine a world without vaccinations.

The fact is that bio-engineering has led to the development of safer, cleaner, affordable and consistent medicine. The use of animal ova in the context that we are currently debating is not so new and different. It is important to regulate—of that I am certain—but it should not be regarded as something to be feared or reviled.

I would also like to make some points about embryonic stem cells vis-a-vis adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells behave slightly differently to adult stem cells, such as those collected from bone marrow. These latter, more mature stem cells have been shown to have the potential to treat various conditions, but they may not always be a treatment option. For example, a leukaemia patient may have had all their own bone marrow ‘killed’ by chemotherapy, and, while it is possible for this patient to undergo a bone marrow transplant, there is the very real possibility of developing graft versus host disease. This condition sees the bone marrow rejecting the body into which it has been transplanted. GVHD can be, and often is, fatal. The use of the patient’s own tissue to create embryonic, or embryo-like, stem cells does away with the risk of rejection and GVHD. This is a very important development.

I would also like to discuss the issue of juvenile diabetes. In the years before 1921, a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, or diabetes mellitus—type 1 diabetes—was a death sentence. Those with the condition could expect to live no longer than 18 months, while their families watched them slowly starve to death in the midst of plenty, their bodies unable to metabolise the food they consumed.

In 1921, insulin was finally identified and isolated at the University of Toronto. It was then that work began to extract it from the pancreatic tissues of animals and transform it into a product that could be administered to human patients. This was an enormous achievement in the field of medicine and one which would later earn the Nobel prize. However, it was not enough to treat the global population of diabetics. The challenge was to purify the treatment, mass produce it and then distribute it to all those who needed it—a massive task for both the state-of-the-art technology and the logistics of the period.

In early 1923, the University of Toronto granted pharmaceutical companies licence to produce insulin free of royalties. This generation of insulin was extracted from the livers and pancreatic tissue of slaughtered livestock, mostly cattle and pigs. It worked well and saved millions of lives. However, it was not an exact match for human insulin and could cause side effects, which occasionally resulted in the loss of tissue at the injection sites. It was also an expensive process and the quality of the extract was not consistent.

In 1978, a start-up American bio-engineering firm began experimentation with recombinant DNA. Their work saw the design and creation of an E. coli bacterium which produced human insulin as one of its natural by-products. This was the first patented living organism. This insulin product was released onto the market in 1982, some 2,500 years after the disease was first described in ancient Egypt. In comparison, the period of research into stem cells in Australia—the last four years—does not seem terribly lengthy.

It is important to note that insulin, with its interesting story of development, is not a cure for type 1 diabetes. It allows diabetics to live, but patients are still at risk of blindness, kidney failure, loss of limbs, impotence and infertility, amongst other negative outcomes. All of these eventualities require treatment in addition to the use of insulin and all have a substantial impact on the quality of life.

Parliamentarians were starkly reminded of the daily pain and suffering of type 1 diabetes sufferers when parliament hosted the now annual Kids in the House event. Hundreds of type 1 diabetes sufferers converged on Parliament House and implored their elected representatives to make a commitment to finding a cure. I feel that by supporting this legislation I am making good my commitment. I will never forget their stories. If therapeutic cloning can help to find a way to cure this tragic disease then every opportunity must be provided to facilitate it. This is the real hope with therapeutic cloning. It offers us the possibility of cures. Current treatments may ameliorate an existing condition and perhaps slow its progression, such as using interferon treatments for multiple sclerosis. What they do not do is repair the damage that has already been done to the patient or prevent further damage from occurring. While it cannot be promised that such cloning research will yield cures, it cannot be said that there is no such potential. That is why this research needs to be able to proceed.

I would like to focus just for a minute or two on the cruel disease of multiple sclerosis, or MS, for which there is no cure. Senator Humphries and I are co-patrons of MS here in the ACT and we co-chair the parliamentary supporters group for people with MS. According to an Australian website about this disease, there are 12,000 to 15,000 Australians with MS.

I would like to read an extract from an article published by the Research Defence Society, or RDS, which is the UK organisation representing medical researchers in the public debate about the use of animals in medical research and testing. The article concludes with this paragraph:

A completely new type of therapy may be possible using stem cells, possibly produced by cloning techniques. Stem cells are embryonic cells that have the potential to develop into all cell types found in the body. Transplanted into the brains of mice lacking myelin-producing proteins, these cells developed normally and secreted myelin, which began to cover nearby nerve fibres. The characteristic tremor disappeared in over half the treated animals.

Similarly, frozen human cells taken from nerve tissue have restored the nerve function in rats with the disease. This research is ongoing and clearly makes a positive difference to people’s lives. I believe it would be negligent not to continue and, for many, such neglect would constitute moral decline. If there is knowledge and understanding in scientific research, how can you choose not to help?

I note with interest the concern expressed regarding the potential exploitation of women. One senator cited a story of a woman being offered a discount for IVF treatment in return for donated ova in the UK, if I heard correctly. This example was used to illustrate how vulnerable women were to, I presume, being enticed into parting with their eggs. Under this legislation, women will not be permitted to sell their eggs. They can choose to donate them. This is akin to deciding to donate one’s organs—a practice I also fully support.

I also note that many senators who claim the rights of women are undermined by this bill are the same senators who have opposed the use of IVF and indeed the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. There was no such respect for the rights of women in either circumstance when the opportunity was provided via other legislation debated in this place. The hypocrisy is noted.

I have listened carefully to the contributions of others so far who have formed a view to oppose this legislation. I am surprised at the level of reliance on thin end of the wedge arguments that evoke fear of the unknown. I obviously disagree and believe that the level of regulation this bill puts in place is both practical and workable. I do trust that the NHMRC will ensure that the prohibitions are adhered to. I reject arguments that this law will not be able to be enforced, as some senators have claimed. There are strong penalties and they are clearly described. Our health and medical researchers deal with complex ethical and moral issues concerning treatments and fields of study on a daily basis. They are professional and are experienced in the standards and behaviours expected of them. We should allow them to get on with their job.

I was saddened to hear some wildly inaccurate and sensational speculation about this legislation—that it will lead, somehow, to genetic designer children, the growing of foetuses to harvest human body parts and the prospect of creating chimeras, or half-animal, half-human entities. It is disgusting to mislead and create fear in this way, through some imagined extrapolation of where this research may end up in years to come. It is highly irresponsible and completely unhelpful to the tenor of this debate. This is precisely why the Lockhart review was commissioned: to ensure that there was a credible perspective on the real science behind therapeutic cloning. I do respect that religious and ethical views will differ. There is no shame in saying, as many have done, that it is outside your realm of beliefs, religious or otherwise, to permit this kind of research. Creating irrational fear does not have to be part of it.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues through the Senate inquiry process, particularly Senator Patterson and Senator Stott Despoja for taking the initiative. This bill has my full support. I would like to thank everyone in the ACT who contacted me about this issue. Predictably, there are wide-ranging views across both sides of the debate. I have tried to reply to most of them—although I think we are still working through our emails, so it might take a little while yet.

I think a great deal of work has been put in place on this issue. I would like to acknowledge the very hard work of scientists from all over Australia who have helped us, as legislators, to get a greater understanding of the scientific implications of this bill. Like most of my colleagues, I am not a scientist. I do not purport to be one. I have relied on the work of others in making my contribution today. I hope that in the course of this debate we become a little more enlightened as to what the scientific reality is when it comes to the use of therapeutic cloning. I commend the bill to the Senate.