Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This is the second debate on stem cells that I have been involved in in this parliament and I am pleased to see that so far people in their contributions have managed to remain calm and reasonably rational. My recollection of four years ago was that there was some pretty passionate debate. It is good to be passionate but it is important that we respect that people have different and legitimate views on this issue.

For those people who oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, one of the primary drivers is a view about when human life starts. I do not share the view of many who oppose this legislation that every egg, every sperm and every embryo is a human being. I think that everyone who is involved in this debate, as well as the legislation and the Lockhart review, recognises that human embryos have special status. Indeed, the whole basis behind this legislation is that it sets up a special regulatory regime which has a ban on using egg-sperm embryos for research. It has limits on how long research on embryos can proceed for. It has got bans on the implantation of research embryos into women and it has a continued prohibition on therapeutic cloning. All of those are measures that recognise that human embryos have a form of special status. This point has been made clearly by the members of the Lockhart review.

Central to the view of people who support the legislation is that embryonic stem cell research may offer possibilities for treatment of disease that will help people. The submission of the members of the Lockhart review to the Senate inquiry talks about the need to care for the sick and vulnerable and the wishes of individuals as also being morally important.

It is important to be realistic about any successes that come from this research, and I am pleased that the scientists I have heard speaking about this issue have been realistic. The deputy chair of the Lockhart review said when she was at the Canberra hearings that members of the committee have been very careful to say that the community should be fully educated on how long it takes for this kind of research to develop. She said:

It is not going to be us or our children; it is going to be our grandchildren by the time the research is done.

A number of scientists who appeared before the Senate committee looking into this legislation talked about the process of scientific discovery being a continual journey. It goes in stop-start methods and it means sometimes you just do not know if there is a significant breakthrough around the corner. A number of scientists talked about almost daily new developments that are happening in the area of stem cell research. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in their submission to the Senate inquiry noted:

… the high level of research activity and publication in stem cell and related sciences and believes it is premature to close off research options or make determinations on what approaches—eg adult and embryonic stem cell research—will be the most useful …

One of the witnesses that the Senate committee heard from was Professor Phil Waite from the University of New South Wales, whose research group is comparing the effectiveness of adult and embryonic stem cells in repairing spinal injury. She described her research as being unique in Australia and, she thought, internationally. She spoke about the fact that a lot of laboratories have an interest in a particular type of stem cell research, whether it be embryonic or adult, and have expertise in that particular area, and that, quite frequently, their funding is linked to a recognition by the broader community that they are achieving milestones and breakthroughs in that area of research—thereby highlighting the possibility that many of the people who are advocates for research of a particular cell type do so because it enables them to get funding for their research. That is what is unique about her research: she is funded to look at which cells are more effective when it comes to spinal cord injury. This is what she told the committee about the area that she is looking at:

… it is clear that differentiation of embryonic cells and their effectiveness is leading the field. Adult cells have been tried. Adult cells taken directly from the adult are not effective. Adult cells de-differentiated to become progenitor cells are much less effective than the embryonic cells and to be effective have to be put in with other trophic factors.

She was saying that, just in her area of research, at the moment the people who are leading the research are those looking at embryonic stem cells.

The concerns that the Greens and I have with this legislation are the same concerns that Senator Bob Brown and I spoke of in 2002. They relate to the privatisation and the commercialisation of this research. Much of the stem cell research that is being done around the world is in private hands, and it is currently generating massive profits for the biotech industry. Part of the reason why this has occurred is that stem cell lines are patentable entities. That brings with it the controversy regarding the commercialisation of human reproductive material; some people interpret that as the commodification of human life. Because stem cell lines are patentable, they create an opportunity for the biotech industry to increase their profits. That is central to the concerns that the Greens and I have in relation to this legislation.

Senator Bob Brown and I moved a series of amendments in 2002 that tried to ensure that stem cell research stayed in public hands. Those amendments were defeated, and we have seen the research in Australia continue in a mixture of public and private hands. I understand that the federal government’s injection of funding into stem cell research has been in the order of $200 million, both committed and already spent. I cannot tell you how much private money has been put into it, but I imagine it would be a substantially higher figure.

During the Sydney hearing of the inquiry into this legislation, I met a researcher by the name of Catherine Waldby, who has co-written a book on this called Tissue Economies. In that book, she goes through and looks at the different models around the world under which stem cell research has occurred. Like the general manager of Stem Cell Sciences, she recognises that, in the US, embryonic stem cell research is largely unregulated, while in Europe there are a range of different models for funding and regulation. In the book, she and her co-author conclude:

… these systems of public, national funding for embryonic stem cell research sit alongside significant transnational, commercial investments…

And:

… in most cases, public funding for stem cell research is designed to work together with commercial research rather than replace it, and public sector researchers also secure patents on their stem cell lines.

They write—and it is true here in Australia as well:

… transnational biotechnology companies dominate the research field and trade cell lines around the world.

They do point to one particular example, and that is the United Kingdom:

… the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the public sector research program, in part because of a history of public debate—

and the way in which that debate has occurred in the UK. The debate around stem cell research in the UK has had far more of a focus on these issues of commercialisation and privatisation than the debate here in Australia. It has been disappointing to me how little emphasis has been given to this issue, which is central to the debate. In the community, support for embryonic stem cell research would be far easier if people could be assured that there was a public system of regulation and that the research would be held in public hands. This would allay some of the concerns that people have about embryonic stem cell research. In Tissue Economies, the authors write:

This success in keeping embryo research within acceptable social limits and under well-managed governance has given the United Kingdom a strong position in the international research arena.

These are concerns that have been touched on in Australia. Indeed, the Lockhart review looked at these issues, and its report states on page 140:

People are concerned that these benefits and profits remain in the public domain, through public ownership, and that therapies remain available within the public health system.

There is a system of public licensing set up in Australia around stem cell research—and that is what we are dealing with in this legislation—but there is no system of public ownership, which is essential for how it is proposed this research will operate in Australia.

In the UK, the Stem Cell Bank is the central mechanism for ensuring that embryonic stem cell research stays as much as possible in the public domain, and it maintains public control over it. All the laboratories licensed for embryonic stem cell research in the UK must deposit a viable stem cell line with the bank. I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage of the debate, on behalf of the Greens, to require the same conditions in Australia, so anyone who gets a licence must deposit a viable stem cell line with a public bank. The idea behind the amendment and behind the whole concept is that researchers gain access to stem cell material through a bank and in return they contribute their innovations back into the public domain. This also helps to lower the barriers between commercial and public sector research in a variety of ways. I will go on to explain how the UK Stem Cell Bank does that.

To describe how the stem cell bank works in the UK, I will quote from the book Tissue Economies:

… as an obligatory passage point for all stem cell lines derived in the UK, the bank can accumulate master cell banks and provide ethical oversight to an entire field of tissue that would otherwise disperse throughout the globe and into an unknowable future. It provides a stable site of governance and brings all the stem cell lines under a single bioethical gaze. As a public institution, the bank will help to locate the stem cell research effort in public, national space, even when commercial firms carry it out. It will try to ensure that British research is not diverted away from national health boundaries by global markets. To this extent it is well situated to manage, although not resolve, the potential conflicts over embryonic value arising from stem cell circulation. While the bank cannot fundamentally alter the structural inequity built into the giving of tissues to increasingly commercialised research bodies, it may ameliorate and dissipate some of its worst effects.

Another way in which the stem cell bank in the UK does this is by giving public researchers access to the stem cell lines at marginal cost rather than at full market price. This helps to keep the research in public hands and within the budget of public sector funding.

The importance of a national stem cell bank in the Australian context was raised by Senator Bob Brown and me in 2002 and also in relation to this latest bill. Associate Professor Wendy Rogers, from Flinders University, stated in her submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation:

Finally, some of the key issues in the Lockhart Report have not been addressed in the proposed legislation. In particular the establishment of a stem cell bank and conditions for benefit sharing are not considered. Some of the reasons for these omissions have been explained, but in my view there is a serious ethical issue of equity that arises when tissues donated by Australians for the benefit of the Australian community (including both researchers and patients) are then used to develop commercial products for private enterprise. The products and profits from the research involving SCNT and the development of stem cell lines including a stem cell bank (should they proceed in Australia) should remain in public control, and equally available within the public healthcare system. The current climate of competition between the states for commercial biotechnology investment raises concerns that there will not be public ownership of many resources donated by Australian women for stem cell research. It is appropriate that any legislation recognises the interest of those groups who provide the basic resources for the development of potential therapeutic treatments in having access to those treatments.

The Greens see the establishment of a national stem cell bank as a fundamentally important way of ensuring that embryonic stem cell research is well regulated, that it remains in the public domain and that it delivers public health benefits.

I moved amendments to the 2002 bill on behalf of the Greens that required the government to establish a national stem cell bank, and they were not supported by the Senate. Instead, the Lockhart review committee was required to look at ‘the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank’. The Lockhart review came back, and recommendation 47 of the report states:

A national stem cell bank should be established.

In the Prime Minister’s press release of 23 June 2006, he indicated that the government supports a national stem cell bank, but it is not in the legislation. I heard Senator Stott Despoja say that this is because the establishment of a stem cell bank does not require legislation, but it can be set up by legislation. The bill before us requires the minister to report to parliament within six months on the establishment of a national stem cell centre.

The Greens say that we should not put off the establishment of a stem cell bank. To proceed with the research and then look at setting up a bank in the future is to do it the wrong way around. What we should do—especially since everyone who is involved in this debate seems to agree that we should have a national stem cell bank—is to say, ‘We are going to have a national stem cell bank.’ We do have a de facto national stem cell bank operating at the moment, run by the Australian Stem Cell Centre, and it is functioning similarly to the way you might want a national stem cell bank to operate. However, it is a private institution and so it does not have the same capacity to ensure that the public interest is protected that a publicly run institution would have. During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, I asked the CEO of the Australian Stem Cell Centre about this issue. He gave an example of a stem cell bank that had been developed overseas, and it had taken 18 months to two years to establish. I will be moving an amendment to this bill to require the government to establish a national stem cell bank within two years. If we all agree with it, let us make it part of the framework, because it has the capacity to really contribute to the way in which this research is being carried out.

I want to touch on the third amendment which I will move to this legislation, which is also about trying to cement the public interest and the public health system as central to this kind of research. This amendment will require the NHMRC licensing committee—who make decisions about who gets licences for embryonic stem cell research—to, for each application, look at the capacity for any benefits that come out of the research to be delivered though the public health system and/or to reduce the global disease burden. The reason for this is to give the NHMRC a mechanism by which they can say, ‘We will prioritise research that is focused on delivering public health outcomes, be they in Australia or be they overseas.’

During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, I asked Professor Warwick Anderson of the NHMRC about the workability of such a proposal, and he said, ‘If parliament did wish for such a consideration to be taken into account, the NHMRC could certainly add that to the process.’ So it is possible for this to work. People did raise some concerns about how early it is in the field of embryonic stem cell research and how difficult it is to flag whether or not this will lead to a treatment that can be delivered through the public health system—and I acknowledge that. But this amendment will give the NHMRC a mechanism that they can use. They will not necessarily use it on all occasions, but they can use it to say, ‘We prioritise research that is going to be delivered to a greater number of people rather than to a few wealthy individuals who are able to pay the biotech companies to provide them with any benefits that come out of the research.’

The central focus for me is to look at the issues of privatisation and commercialisation to see how this legislation can be amended to ensure that the public interest becomes central to the way in which research is carried out and that it is done in the public domain. These three amendments provide mechanisms that will assist us to ensure that the research has public oversight, that it occurs in the public domain and that any benefits are delivered to people across the board. That is my central focus. The Greens’ contribution to this debate, as it was in 2002, will be to look at issues of privatisation and commercialisation and to ensure that the public interest and public concerns are considered. This research will deliver benefits, and we want those benefits delivered through the public health system. We want the research done in the public domain and we want the public to have oversight, which includes looking at what is in the public interest when decisions are made about this research.