Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which looked into this bill, I believe we are here today to determine several main points: if the destruction of a human embryo for the reason of scientific research could ever be justified and if there is any scientific evidence that human embryonic stem cells would be more advantageous than the already widely used and successful adult stem cells. But I think that the point that remains the most important is that this science, whichever way you choose to look at it, would require a human to be cloned. Whether it is to create embryos for the purpose of their destruction in research, as this bill would allow, or whether it would be for the purposes of reproductive cloning, this legislation would still allow for human cloning. That is the issue we must keep at the forefront of our minds when making a decision regarding this legislation.

Only four years ago, before my time in this place, the Australian parliament debated the merits of this very issue. Back then, both houses of the parliament unanimously rejected all forms of human cloning—that is, reproductive and therapeutic. During that debate Senator Patterson said:

... it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being.

What has changed? That was just four years ago. We could well be mistaken for believing it was half a century ago, given the rate at which Senator Patterson and other people’s consciousness and views seem to have changed on this issue. Back in 2002 the Australian parliament voted to approve the release of surplus IVF embryos for research and study. However, during the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs hearings we heard that only 30 per cent of these surplus embryos have been used for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells for research. Apparently, the other 70 per cent have been used for training clinicians and refining infertility treatments. We can only assume, as a result of this, that some scientists are now craving other sources of embryonic stem cells, specifically from therapeutic cloning through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

However, back in 2002 not a single senator or member chose to move an amendment to allow for therapeutic cloning while banning reproductive cloning. That is exactly what is happening now through this legislation we are considering today. So, if the ethical boundaries and opinions of people can change so quickly in just four years, it leaves one to wonder exactly what we could be back here debating in four years time. Those who have changed their mind from their position on this issue are saying at the moment that they are opposed to reproductive cloning. But how do we know that, in a few short years, we will not be back here debating whether it is appropriate for women to be implanted with cloned embryos or whether it is appropriate for scientists to be able to create another little Johnny for parents who are sick with grief over a lost child?

As much as the proponents of this bill will try to play it down, there are very real ethical considerations behind this legislation. This major alteration in the boundaries of what is acceptable has been advocated by supporters well in advance of research being performed on cloned embryos. There is very little evidence which supports as advantageous a move in the direction of producing cloned embryos for research. We are instead seeing some scientists seeking to lobby members of parliament and asking for freedom to pursue research of this kind purely because they have decided that this is an avenue they want to explore.

By now we are all very familiar with the Lockhart committee’s review into the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. Throughout the course of the Senate committee’s recent inquiry several doubts were cast on the Lockhart committee’s findings in its review, especially due to the amount of time the committee had to report and the work of the Korean researcher Dr Hwang Woo Suk, since proven to be fraudulent, on which the committee relied heavily. In its submission to the standing committee’s inquiry, the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide stated:

Successful, repeated and peer-reviewed trials in animals has always been seen as a necessary prelude to human trials. Yet Lockhart appeared to ignore such basic scientific processes, basing their conclusions about the potentiality of SCNT and embryo stem cell research on the work of Korean Scientist, Hwang Woo-Suk (since discredited) and a 2005 report from the United Kingdom ... which described a process other than SCNT.

Hardly a mandate for change and hardly evidence of such a pressing nature as to give such warrant as to be able to dismiss the ethical concerns so lightly.

Indeed, it seems that the only scientific evidence which members of the Lockhart review drew from was Dr Hwang’s work. Dr Hwang’s claims that he succeeded in taking stem cell lines from the SCNT process were found to be false. Dr Hwang has also significantly underreported the number of eggs used in his experiments. He actually used four times the amount he reported in his studies, or more than 1,600 eggs. Where did he get all of these eggs from? His research opened up a whole other can of worms, with claims that his junior female researchers were encouraged to donate their eggs for his research. This particular point raised what could become a very real problem regarding this so-called science.

If this legislation were to pass and therapeutic cloning were to be allowed, the biggest problem would be in sourcing eggs from which to create embryos. As in Dr Hwang’s case, this opens up the possibility of women being exploited in order for researchers to get their hands on more eggs. The horrible truth is that we do not know the lengths to which this could go. Just last week we saw the story of a young woman who, at 26 years of age, has put her eggs up for sale on the internet to pay off her £15,000 credit card debt. We have all heard of numerous other cases, some in which young women have been coerced or even forced to donate their eggs. These stories may not all be true, but unfortunately it comes down to the question: how can we be sure? There is a risk that women could be moved to put their health at risk, with the promise of pay-off for their eggs. Women’s Forum Australia, in a media release issued on October 26, stated:

We want the Australian Parliament to know that women are not side issues in the cloning debate. We are central to this debate. Without thousands of eggs from Australian women, cloning will be impossible. To get the eggs, women will have to take large doses of powerful hormones to hyper-simulate their ovaries. This procedure carries well recognised health risks including ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome, organ failure, stroke, respiratory distress and in some cases even death. If cloning goes ahead we know that some women will get sick and some will die. Women will pay the price for research which has no proven benefits.

Women’s Forum Australia goes on to state in the release that overseas experiences show that a commercialised trade is the only way to obtain enough eggs to fulfil the requirements for research. I very much agree with the Women’s Forum when they say that this could lead to marginalised and disadvantaged women putting their health at risk.

The proponents of this bill have sought to allay fears relating to the commodification of human eggs. To be fair, the bill does seek to maintain the current prohibition on the sale of human eggs. However, as is the case in things of this nature, how can we be completely sure that this will not occur? How can we be sure that disadvantaged women will not be subjected to dangerous drug stimulants in order to harvest their eggs in return for payment? Again, the answer of course is that we cannot be sure.

Another issue that seemed to leave many of the committee inquiry participants bewildered was the information, from previous research already completed, that there are inherent dangers in the application and use of human embryonic stem cells, including cancer formation. In his submission to the inquiry, Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini said:

Nothing has changed scientifically to support some kind of new argument of necessity to use SCNT embryonic stem cells. If anything, the possibility of developing therapies involving cultured embryonic stem cell transplant has become more remote as more has become known about the difficulties.

It was explained during the inquiry that while the capacity for embryonic stem cells to differentiate easily—known as pluripotency—is seen as a promising characteristic for their use, this very trait is also a significant problem. In his submission, Professor John Martin explained the damaging effects pluripotency may have:

Whatever the origin of ES cells, animal or human, whenever they are transplanted into an animal, they have up to a 25% incidence of growth of a particular type of cancer, a teratoma. No substantial progress has been made towards resolving this problem of cancer development with ES cells. This problem is sufficient by itself to exclude any possibility of using ES cells in therapy for human disease, even if there were strong indications of likely efficacy on other grounds.

And add to this that it would seem that stem cell lines from the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer are thought to be quite unstable. We have seen numerous cases of science creating cloned animals that have been fraught with genetic abnormalities. Dr Tonti-Filippini described it as such:

A disadvantage of SCNT embryos is that they are epigenetically compromised. That is to say, because they have been formed using the nucleus of a somatic cell, many of the gene functions that would normally be available in an embryo are not available. The latter explains the problems of immune system diseases in cloned animals such as Dolly the Sheep. (Dolly was euthanased). It may also explain why it has proved to be so difficult to clone some animals, including humans.

A great difficulty I have had in considering this legislation—and it is a view I know is shared by many of my colleagues in this place—is that it would seem that this debate is almost irrelevant. We must ask ourselves the question: what is the point of crossing this ethical boundary, a boundary which has long been recognised in medicine—the creation of cloned human life only for the purpose of its destruction in the pursuit of knowledge—when there is already so much hope and promise from adult stem cells?

There is plentiful evidence to indicate that adult stem cells are not as erratic or as unpredictable in comparison to embryonic stem cells, nor do they come with the ethical implications that relate directly back to the issue of cloning or destruction of life. Indeed, an independent MP Consulting report, prepared as advice for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and released by the Prime Minister in August, found:

On each of these issues—

the definition of a human embryo, the creation and use of embryos for ART research and the creation of embryos for stem cell research—

there has not been any significant change in the state of play since 2002.

That brings me back to my primary point as to why some people in this place have changed their minds in such a short period of time about not just the ethical implications of this issue but also the implications for society as a whole. There is a real danger that, just as some involved in this current debate have changed their minds from completely opposing therapeutic cloning in 2002 to promoting it just four years later, the current ban against reproductive cloning or procreating cloned embryos beyond the 14-day window could, in an equally short time frame, be back on the agenda because the scientific community comes up with an argument based on: ‘Let’s do it because we can.’ Dr Tonti-Filippini suggested in his evidence:

In the future, there may be some greater benefit to be obtained from using embryos, but as a matter of science it is not clear that they will be of benefit. There seems to be little reason to overturn the existing compromise supported last time by the NHMRC and by a large majority in the Parliaments. A balanced approach may be to maintain the status quo allowing access to excess IVF embryos only and then address the question of deliberately creating them for research purposes at some time in the future if and when animal models show some evidence that benefit is to be obtained from them.

For my part, I do not see that there could ever be a situation where this sort of science could be beneficial. There is so much uncertainty regarding the potential for embryonic stem cells that there is no reason that we should allow the process of cloning or the destruction of human life to take place simply because science says, ‘We can do it, so why not?’

Science cannot be allowed to make decisions for our society. Science cannot be allowed to set the ethical and moral boundaries from within which we are governed. Take a moment to imagine what kind of world it would be if science and research were given free rein without thought for the sanctity of human life. These are the very ideals we must keep in mind when making a decision on this legislation, because this bill is not just a vote to allow for cloning; it is a vote to allow for the destruction of human life and the first step towards handing science a free rein over our morals and over our very lives. I will be voting against this bill and I urge all senators to do the same.