Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I am sure you do. Then he put up his opinion that he himself did not know. We have taken the genie out of the bottle and we are experimenting with powers of nature inherent in the universe and changing them. He called it a sick joke, but I do not think it is at all. One of the questions we have to ask ourselves in doing the rounds in science, he says, is, ‘Why haven’t we been visited by aliens?’ And the answer to that is: because every time a civilisation gets to our stage it cannot contain its abuse of the powers available to it and it implodes—a very sobering thought. Evolution has a habit of running in parallel.

The question for us human beings on this planet, in this age of extraordinary advance and technological powers, is: can we not go the route of self-destruction but instead go the direction of the enhancement of life and the ability of our own intelligence to go on to explore the universe without unleashing powers which will destroy our biological ability to survive and therefore, ipso facto, the ability of that intelligence to proceed down the thousands of years to come? We hope it will continue to be able to grapple with the magical questions of why are we here, how did we come to get here, who are we and what does the future hold for us.

Above all, in answering all of those questions we must take time, we must be prudent and we must be cautious. The question really facing this chamber at the moment is: is it incautious to be taking this next small step in allowing cell experimentation which may improve the collective lot of humanity? And on balance I think we are.

Nevertheless, let me acquaint the chamber with the thinking of Mr Bill Joy, who was Chair of President Clinton’s United States Information Technology Task Force, and who six years ago wrote in that salient essay, ‘Does the Future Really Need Us?’ a remarkable exposition of the dangers we face:

If our own extinction is a likely or even possible outcome of our technological development shouldn’t we proceed with great caution? Knowing is not a rationale for not acting.

The nuclear, biological and chemical technologies used in 20th century weapons of mass destruction were and are largely military, developed in government laboratories. In sharp contrast the 21st century Genetic, Nano,-Robotic technologies have clear commercial uses and are being developed almost exclusively by commercial enterprises. In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology—with science as its handmaiden—is delivering a series of almost magical inventions that are the most phenomenonally lucrative ever seen. We are pursuing the promise of these new technologies within the now unchallenged system of global capitalism and its manifold financial incentives and competitive pressures.

This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself—as well as to a vast number of others.

Senator Vanstone last night simplified the answer to that question—maybe oversimplified it—but I think it is at the heart of the question here. Are we doing good or are we doing harm? In the end I have come to the conclusion that this legislation will do more good than harm. But I commit myself, along with all fellow senators, to being a watchdog on the future. For those who might think that scientists are the best people to make ethical judgements, I disagree. The very fact that we have a $1 trillion armaments industry on this planet flowing out of science, with everything from cluster bombs through to hydrogen bombs, shows that that is not so. Who is the moral arbiter in the 21st century? It has to be the democratically elected makers of the law listening to the society which, from time to time, puts them in and takes them away.

I was in the United States two weeks ago, and I was implored by an 85-year-old lifelong Republican man to support stem cell research. I came home and on Saturday night the daughter of an 84-year-old Tasmanian woman, an ardent Greens voter, also implored me to support stem cell research. I have had many letters with absolutely the contrary point of view. But in the end I have come to a conclusion out of all these many strands that it is better this legislation passes than we obstruct it. However, I ask all senators to look very carefully at Senator Nettle’s amendments. I think they make this legislation better. I think they curb the commercial zeal which may drive any scientific experimentation and therefore concentrate science more on what will benefit humanity. We are in an age where we have failed many moral dilemmas. The war in Iraq is a clear example of that, as is the destruction of forests around the planet and the failure to deal with climate change, although we have known about climate change for decades. It was first speculated on by Arrhenius in 1895, and here we are in 2006 with a realisation that the planet is in real trouble because we did not listen to the scientists.

When it comes to experimentation with the very basic human fabric, ourselves, and with the very basis of life, the cells that make up all life on this planet, we have to be extraordinarily cautious. This legislation does have the ability to improve the general wellbeing and happiness of people not just in our own country but around the world. I will be watching carefully as further legislation comes into the Senate or, indeed, if it does not come in. We will be introducing legislation if we see this or other technologies being abused in our laboratories by corporations and people who have lost the ultimate value in medical experimentation, which is a commitment, as Senator Vanstone said, to the good, to the general feeling that this will improve our delight and happiness in the experience of life on the planet while we have it.