Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I should make it clear at the outset that I have not yet decided how I will vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 when it comes to the final question being put at the third reading stage. I am sufficiently supportive of the intent of the legislation to vote in favour of giving it a second reading but I wish to listen to the debate at the committee stage of the process to see what amendments are put forward and to give further consideration to some matters before deciding on a final position.

I was one of those who supported the 2002 legislation legalising the use of surplus IVF embryos for stem cell research. Whilst I certainly gave serious consideration to that matter, I would have to say I did not find it a particularly difficult decision, so much so that I did not feel the need to even speak on the legislation. I did not think the matters were anywhere near as complex to consider. The prospect of therapeutic cloning and the issues we are debating today were not genuinely on the agenda at that time.

When I first started examining the issues currently before us, back when the Lockhart committee first reported, I must say I expected to be in a similar situation. I have been somewhat surprised to find that the more I have examined the issues involved and the arguments put forward, the more unsure and conflicted I have become about some of the key issues—a process that has continued over the last week and which continues as I speak, as I have read a wide range of material and sought the views of many people in the scientific and general community. My final vote on the legislation will depend on what amendments might be made or put forward to the legislation at the committee stage and also what is outlined during the debate as being the principles behind certain aspects of the legislation.

I emphasise that I believe there are some positive, indeed necessary, changes to existing laws being made by the legislation before us, particularly with regard to current impediments to research into reproductive technology. Whilst the debate has, understandably, focused on cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, many of the Lockhart recommendations went to other issues. I support those as being sensible and desirable. I think it would be unfortunate if those changes were not adopted because they got caught up with other components of the bill that potentially a majority of senators might not support. I do not know whether there is a majority of opposition to any factors in this legislation.

My concerns with some parts of the legislation are not scientific, they are ethical. They do not particularly go to my personal ethics. If I were here simply to look at ways to implement my own personal ethics, I would be moving amendments every second day of the week seeking to restrict the practice of killing animals purely so people can have a more enjoyable meal. But we are not here, even in conscience votes, to seek to impose our personal ethical framework. We can put forward arguments in relation to it but we are here to consider the wider social ethical framework within which we as a society should operate and the laws that should govern our society. My concerns go to the potential wider ethical consequences for our society and some of the individuals within it. I must say that I have found the majority of the debate on the legislation to date—the committee report—to be taking a fairly black and white approach. It has not really touched on my concerns, which has not made my deliberations any easier.

Much has been made in the debate about the possibility that people suffering terrible diseases have been offered false hope of better treatments and cures with unrealistic promises about the potential of research involving embryos made through cloning—also known as SCNT. Whilst the occasional scientist may have gone overboard in promoting the potential of this research, I think that criticism of offering false hope is very unfair for the vast bulk of the scientific community and particularly unfair if it is levelled at the Lockhart committee. It is a criticism that is more fairly aimed at some in the mainstream media who will readily run a miracle cure story alongside the latest miracle diet story, usually with about as much substance. Not surprisingly, such stories can rate well and grab people’s attention, but they can irresponsibly create false hopes, as well as feed community misunderstanding about the nature of scientific and medical research. We cannot blame scientists, on the whole, for this behaviour.

Whilst it is a genuine issue to guard against creating false hopes, we need to be equally conscious of the consequences of taking hope away from people by preventing research that might help produce a cure or better treatments. I simply cannot see how anyone who objectively examines this issue and the matters that have been raised through this legislation can fail to acknowledge that this research—using embryos created through cloning, as well as embryonic stem cell research more broadly, which is already legal in certain circumstances—clearly has the genuine potential of assisting in the development of better treatments and cures of some truly terrible diseases. The evidence provided to the Senate committee and the Lockhart inquiry and in the wider public domain demonstrates this quite clearly.

In this circumstance I believe the onus is not on those promoting this research to have to prove its potential benefits. It is quite clear the potential is there and the only way to determine its real value is to allow the research to happen, as would occur in most other areas of scientific endeavour. The onus is on those of us who would seek to prevent this research to provide very strong reasons as to why it should not be undertaken and why we should take that hope away from people who have some of the conditions that this research may assist with. It is that key question that my considerations are turning upon. The extra onus is really on those who would vote against components of this legislation to have extra justification as to why there is sufficiently good reason to take away some of that hope for future sufferers. Is it for the wider long-term good of our society not to legalise some of this activity and not to give tacit approval to the argument being used to justify its use? We can all think of arguments and circumstances where we would say, ‘No, research in this circumstance should not be allowed.’ To use an obvious and extreme example, conducting fatal brain experimentation on living adult humans could no doubt yield useful medical information in certain circumstances but it is something that is clearly accepted as unethical by society, no matter what the potential gain.

I use that extreme example simply to demonstrate that we all recognise that boundaries must be drawn in many areas of life, including in medical research. The key challenge is in deciding where those boundaries should be, particularly when the setting of such a boundary can involve taking away hope of a better life for sufferers of serious diseases, however far in the future those improvements may arrive. One must have good reasons, rather than simply indulging oneself in personal preference.

I believe that legalising the creation of human embryos through cloning is a significant ethical shift for our society. Creating those embryos solely for the purpose of research is also a significant shift. Allowing human embryo clones to be cultivated in the eggs of animals for research purposes is also a significant shift. Making a conscious policy and legislative decision that those embryos have less intrinsic worth than other embryos is perhaps the most significant shift of all, and it is the one that I have most concerns about. It could go beyond the confines of the specific situations covered in this legislation.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the parliament or a society deciding to make significant ethical shifts in response to new knowledge, enhanced understanding or evolving values and beliefs. In many ways, that is the way progress is built upon and we move beyond previous understandings. If we look back at what were seen as the ethically accepted views 100 years ago, in some circumstances we would see some of them as being quite ignorant by current standards. So I am certainly not arguing against the notion of making such shifts. But when we make such shifts I think we need to be very conscious not just as a parliament, although that would be a good start, but also as a community more broadly, as much as is reasonably possible, about what it is we are doing, why we are doing it and what values we are adopting and incorporating along with that. At this stage of the debate I can only say that when it comes to the key question of whether it is the right thing to legalise the creation of embryos through cloning techniques specifically for the purposes of research I am still unsure, as I am about whether the use of animal eggs in such a process should also be legalised.

It is not my job, nor would I suggest is it the job of anyone in this Senate, to second-guess what type of scientific research would bear the most fruit. We are not scientists, or very few of us are; we are legislators. Indeed, the anti-science and anti-scientist flavour of some of the debate around this legislation has concerned me greatly. I do not think you can pick and choose when you want to say science is a good thing depending on whether or not it produces answers that you are comfortable with. We need to open ourselves to the exploration of knowledge wherever possible, unless there are very good reasons not to.

I have been particularly baffled by the arguments that suggest that embryonic stem cell research, whether using SCNT embryos or other embryos, can produce nothing of medical value that cannot be done through pursuing research into adult stem cells. Frankly, for anyone, and certainly for a senator in this place—who should and must have done some research into this issue before speaking on this matter—to say point blank that the science tells us that this will not produce cures is simply intellectually dishonest. I understand those who say that ethically they cannot support any legislation which authorises the destruction of embryos, even though that is not a view I share. However, I find it harder to respect those with no scientific qualifications who still try to attack the science as having no potential when the facts so obviously show otherwise.

As I have said, those who oppose this legislation have the strongest responsibility to justify why we are taking away the hope of treatments and cures from the sufferers of debilitating illnesses and why we are turning ourselves away from the potential knowledge that we could find. To use the reason that our society’s values should be such that no human life, even that of a 14-day-old embryo, should be deliberately terminated in any circumstances is a reason some might put forward that I can see as valid, even though it is not one that I agree with. But to say that this research should not be permitted because of a spurious assessment that it will not produce cures I think not only is to engage in intellectual dishonesty but also is a cowardly way of avoiding accepting responsibility for a decision to take away legitimate hope.

I have found the unfounded attacks that some have made on the integrity and professionalism of the members of the Lockhart committee particularly unfair and unreasonable. Attacking scientists because they have a view that you do not like is most unfair. Attacking them for the fact that they might make money out of some of their research is equally unreasonable, particularly in a society like ours. As a person who has been wrestling with some of the issues involved here, such personal and unfounded attacks have certainly not made me any more favourably disposed towards considering the views of those who engage in them. However, whilst my examination of the matter before us has increased my general admiration and respect for scientists and the work they do, they must of course, as they themselves acknowledge, operate within the bounds of our society’s laws and ethics.

There have been many different reasons and rationales put forward for and against this legislation. Some of them I have found to have some merit but insufficient weight on their own to make the case for or against. Some I have found to focus on matters that are really outside the legislation we are considering. A lot of the debate and argument surrounding this legislation has been rerunning embryonic stem cell arguments, which frankly we dealt with four years ago.

As we all know, this legislation is subject to a conscience vote. As a Democrat senator, I always have the right and responsibility to vote according to conscience on any matter, should I feel strongly enough about it. However, the fact that senators from all parties have the opportunity to do likewise on this specific legislation does of course bring greater weight to my own deliberations. I wish we had more conscience votes in parliament or at least a greater acceptance of the right of parliamentarians to vote differently from the majority of their colleagues on those occasions where they have strongly enough held and well enough informed views to the contrary. I think that would dramatically improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of our democratic process. However, that is a debate for another day. A conscience vote means we are all entitled to vote according to what we believe is right, but the right to use our conscience also entails a responsibility to do what we can to ensure our conscience is well informed. I think that means opening your mind to the arguments and seeking to consider a range of views.

Father Frank Brennan has just released a book which is quite timely—not just for this debate, I would suggest, but also for many issues our society is currently wrestling with—called Acting on Conscience: How Can We Responsibly Mix Law, Religion and Politics? Perhaps we could add in science and a few other things as well there. As he notes, exercising one’s conscience, particularly in a public decision-making capacity, does not just mean going with one’s own personal preference or being free to do your own thing; it means coming to a decision after making a genuine effort to fully inform oneself and draw on the wisdom, views and beliefs of others and the wider society more broadly where possible and necessary.

I thought the Senate committee process examining this legislation was somewhat unsatisfactory. Rather than a genuine attempt to inquire into the issues, it seemed more like a partisan exercise, which is probably not that unusual in this place, except that the partisan divide did not run along party lines for a change. It was also, clearly, too rushed for such important legislation and such significant issues. That is also something that has become much more commonplace in this Senate, unfortunately, in the last year or so. However, there have also been some very worthwhile and thoughtful contributions from all sides of the debate. I would like to thank those people who provided submissions and evidence to the Senate committee inquiry. Given the importance of the issue before us, we need to examine more the substance of the arguments that need to be considered.

I would like to particularly pay tribute to the members of the Lockhart committee, both for their original inquiry and report and also for the way they have conducted themselves and continued to make themselves available throughout this process, even though this has opened them up to some quite disgraceful and unfounded attacks on their character and professionalism. Whilst I may end up disagreeing with some of their recommendations, I think they have undertaken the task that they were given with great distinction and they deserve credit for it. I think the process they used, whilst it was not totally perfect, certainly contrasts well with the process that we have had to use in considering the legislative aspects of this issue.

This legislation is not about abortion. It is not really about whether to allow embryonic stem cell research, something which it is already legal to use embryos for in certain circumstances. Whilst I am very keen to give scientists in Australia every opportunity to be at the cutting edge of international scientific research, that is not reason enough on its own to legalise research that is currently illegal.

I am one of those who believe that the ends do not, on their own, justify the means. The means by which we pursue something do tend to influence the end that we actually reach. I can accept that it may be appropriate in some circumstances for our society to legalise the creation of embryos for the purpose of using them for research, as long as such research is undertaken before the embryo starts to develop the beginning of any sort of nervous system. I appreciate that many in the community do not support such a view, but I do not think that that their view is held widely enough or strongly enough throughout our entire community to prevent those who hold a different view from being able to conduct such research when it clearly has the potential to bring great benefits to many people.

However, I am very uncomfortable with the prospect that our society could legally institutionalise a notion that some embryos have greater intrinsic worth than others depending the method of their creation—whether they were created through cloning techniques or through an egg and sperm. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that the very first step our nation takes towards legalising the creation of a human embryo through cloning should be accompanied by a very specific assessment that this embryo has a lesser status and a lower intrinsic value than a human embryo produced by an egg and sperm. Frankly, I can live with that in the context of the specific activities the legislation seeks to legalise, but the rationale and values accompanying that are not quarantined within a single piece of legislation; they do become part of our social and scientific ethical base into the future.

This was a matter that was touched on in the Lockhart report, where it spoke about different embryos having different social and relational significance. It was specifically touched on, although briefly, in the majority report of the Senate committee inquiry in paragraph 3.31, which quite specifically stated that embryos created through cloning have a lower status than an embryo produced by egg and sperm. That concerns me, and I will continue to wrestle with the concerns I have about that over the next day or two.