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

by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5123:

(1)    Schedule 2, item 15, page 19 (lines 12 and 13), omit subparagraph 20(1)(g).

(2)   Schedule 2, item 15, page 19 (line 14), omit “(d) and (g)”, substitute “and (d)”.

These amendments go to the issue of preventing the use of animal eggs for the creation of embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer. It is an issue that has been thrown around as part of the public debate for some months now. Some aspects of the way it has been debated in public have not been terribly accurate. In moving to prohibit the use of animal eggs for the creation of hybrid embryos for research I am not in any way suggesting that I give any credence to some of the views or suggestions that have been put forward that enabling this to happen would inevitably lead to half men, half horses galloping around the streets or rabbit men bouncing about the place or any other sort of half human, half creature, living, breathing, walking, crawling, bouncing—whatever—amongst us. I think that has been a gross distortion of the facts and the science on this issue, and I do not think it has helped in any way to focus attention on what this issue is actually about.

The amendments are fairly straightforward. The legislation before us amends subsection 20, part 1, which currently only allows the NHMRC to provide a licence authorising the use of excess ART embryos—that is, embryos left over or not used through IVF treatment. The new section of the act allows a person to apply to the NHMRC Licensing Committee for a licence authorising a number of extra things, including the creation of human embryos other than by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm—that is, the SCNT procedure—and a range of other creations of human embryos such as using precursor cells. They are all controversial in their own right, but I have chosen to focus solely on the extra power of the NHMRC to issue a licence for the creation of hybrid embryos through introducing the nucleus of a human cell into an animal egg and on the use of such embryos.

I should emphasise that these amendments do not go to the creation of hybrid embryos and the use of such embryos up to but not including the first mitotic division if that creation or use is for the purpose of testing sperm quality and that the creation or use will occur in an accredited ART centre. In fact, animal eggs have been used for some time to test sperm quality, the potential usability of sperm for IVF or ART activities, and that I think is accepted. Whilst one might seek to say they are related, I think there are distinct issues involved.

The use of animal eggs as basically a host for the introduction of a nucleus of a human cell to create an embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer is a significant shift. Cloning techniques—SCNT—in themselves are significant shifts in their own right, as I said in my speech on the second reading, but the use of animal eggs to do this, I think, merits some specific consideration. I will not get the opportunity to speak fully to these amendments before we break for dinner.

There are a few aspects on the use of animal eggs that I did want to draw attention to. Firstly, when I read the transcripts of the three hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on this legislation, a lot of other material relating to this issue, as well as the Lockhart report itself, referred to the use of animal eggs. There is continual reference to the fact that animal research will be involved in various aspects of this technology. Animals, of course, are already used in stem cell research involving both adult stem cells and embryos. I did not see any acknowledgement that there are ethical issues involved in the use of animals. It concerns me that that issue has been completely absent from the debate. I am not insisting that animals should have equal value in our society as humans, but I am saying that animals do also have value, maybe a different value or a lesser value, but there is value there that is not being considered.

I was part way through speaking to this amendment prior to dinner and was only in the preliminary stage. The issue of using animal eggs in SCNT research did receive a reasonable amount of attention, some of it based around fairly wild assertions that we will have half-animal, half-human creatures galloping around. That is not my concern. But I do have some other concerns, nonetheless, and given the public controversy over the recommendation, I was a little bit surprised how fleetingly the majority report of the Senate committee dealt with it. Many scientists who are broadly supportive of SCNT research have not given great weight to this particular recommendation from the Lockhart review regarding the use of animal eggs for somatic cell nuclear transfer. The proposal to use animal eggs was put forward in part to alleviate concern about the pressure to find enough eggs from women to enable necessary research to take place. As far as I can ascertain, there is no specific essential requirement or need to use animal eggs in creating human embryos from a research point of view. It is purely a matter of them just being available and able to be used so that there is less demand for the use of human eggs from women.

I have listened to the concerns of those who are worried that there may be a risk of undue pressure being placed on women to donate their eggs for SCNT research. I think that there is validity in expressing that concern and making people aware of it, because no doubt there is always a potential for inappropriate or undue pressure. But after examining the varying evidence put forward about this and the reality that some women in Australia already choose to voluntarily donate their eggs for IVF purposes—and of course many already donate other body parts in various ways—I do not believe that there is a need to specifically treat the potential donation of women’s eggs separately from the regulatory regime we have in place at the moment, which does include the donation of eggs, as long as there are appropriate regulatory safeguards.

Speakers on all sides of this debate during the Senate committee process and during debate in this chamber have expressed concern for enhancing the wellbeing of people and minimising the suffering caused by disease, concern about women egg donors, concern about people in general, and concern about embryos of course. I have not heard much concern, if any, about the impact on animals now used for medical research in this country and their suffering. I am not saying that there should not be animals used in research but I am saying that they should not be forgotten and they should not be dismissed. There are ethical issues involved in using animals in research and, indeed, we do have an ethical code, overseen by the National Health and Medical Research Council, specifically governing the use of animals in research. I think that it is important to at least pay attention to it because of some of the comments that have been made. To use just one example, in a media release made by Archbishop Pell in December last year when he was commenting on the Lockhart report after it was released, he said:

The report takes it for granted that human embryos are merely a ‘resource’ to be exploited like an inferior animal or plant.

I realise our society accepts this exploitation of animals and may do it in ways that I am not comfortable with. That is the community view. But I think that the least we can do is try to avoid adopting a mindset that animals are nothing more than a resource to be exploited. They may have less value than humans but they have value and should at least be thought about. That total absence of any consideration being given to animals used in research is one example of how blase and accustomed to particular practices we can become over time.

About six or seven years ago I served on a university animal ethics committee—coincidently with Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, whose name has been mentioned a lot in this debate as an expert on adult stem cell research. One of the basic considerations that is meant to be applied in considering the proposed use of animals in research is what is sometimes called ‘the three Rs’—reduction, replacement and refinement. That means reducing the number of animals used to as few as possible and using alternative non-animal methods where they are available. I would suggest that using animal eggs when there is clearly an alternative available, when we are able to use human eggs, is actually a breach of those general principles for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. As the NHMRC Australian code of practice says:

Scientific and teaching activities using animals may be performed only when they are essential to:

obtain and establish significant information relevant to the understanding of humans or animals...

and a range of other purposes. I would argue that they are not essential for this purpose. In some ways I think it is just making things a bit more convenient for us and making it easier for us to avoid confronting what is involved in this research. As I have said, I am not opposed to this research. I think that you can confront something and embrace it at the same time. In fact, if you do embrace it after truly confronting the reality of it, it is better.

The quote that has been used a lot—and was indeed helpfully provided in the majority report of the Senate committee—came from the Chief Scientist, Dr Peacock. He said that in the Lockhart review it was suggested:

... animal eggs could be used for some of the research so that fewer human eggs would be required. Many scientists think that using a nucleus and egg cell from different species complicates the research. Most scientists regard this particular recommendation to be of little importance.

The majority committee report just has a single sentence after that saying that his statement was about safety. I do not read it as being about safety at all, frankly. I would also note comments by Professor Bob Williamson from Melbourne university, material that was helpfully sent around by Dr Mal Washer MP:

... in contrast to the great importance of permitting the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer into human enucleated eggs in culture, the use of animal eggs in this way is not critical for scientific progress. Indeed, he said that using more than one species could make the interpretations of some experiments more difficult.

We have a range of scientists supportive of the thrust of the research who are saying using animal eggs is not essential—that in some ways it can be potentially problematic and not significant. In that context, taking into account existing codes of practice of ethics regarding reducing the use of animals in research, this is one occasion when we could at least make a small attempt to do that.