Judith Adams (WA, Liberal 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. In doing so, I would like to thank all those people who have taken the time to write to me or email me with their support for or concerns about the bill. The decision I have made to support this bill has not been taken lightly. It is my decision, and I thank the Prime Minister for allowing all members of parliament to have a conscience vote on this issue. I can assure those who have contacted me that I have thoroughly researched both sides of the debate in order to come up with my decision.

I have probably had an added advantage in gaining more information on this issue. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, I participated in the three-day inquiry which examined the legislative responses to the recommendations of the Lockhart review. I thank those who prepared submissions for the inquiry and those who appeared before the committee as witnesses. As we have heard, almost 500 submissions were received for this inquiry, and many presented a personal perspective of the issue. I was disappointed that a number of submissions chose to cast aspersions on my colleague Senator Kay Patterson for changing her position on the issue and for her decision to introduce this private member’s bill to the Senate. The Senate community affairs committee report on the legislative responses to recommendations of the Lockhart review was tabled in the Senate out of session—so senators have not had an opportunity to speak to the report. The evidence on which my support for this bill is based is contained within chapter 3 of the committee’s majority report, and I would urge those interested in this debate to read it.

It is necessary to understand the history of the Lockhart report and why the Patterson bill has been introduced to debate the issue again. Parliament last addressed the issue in 2002 when it voted to allow excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation to be used for research but to ban the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. Since then, 18 new senators have been elected to the Senate and 21 new members have taken their place in the House of Representatives. These people were not involved in the 2002 vote but, as individuals, they have their thoughts as well. So when people say, ‘Nothing has changed since 2002; why should we have another vote on the issue?’ it is important to note that we now have 39 new members of parliament, and I think they are entitled to their view.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each contained a provision that, two years after the act received royal assent, an independent review of the operation of the act had to be undertaken by persons chosen by the minister with the agreement of each state. In June 2005 the then Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, who had portfolio responsibility for human cloning and stem cell research, appointed a six-member legislative review committee to independently review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The committee was required to report by December 2005, as stated in the 2002 legislation. The membership of the committee comprised a group of six eminent Australians. It was chaired by the late Hon. John Lockhart AO, QC. He was a highly regarded member of the international legal community and had expertise in chairing high-level committees that deliberated on contentious issues.

Other members of the committee were Associate Professor Ian Kerridge of New South Wales, a highly regarded clinical ethicist and specialist haematologist; and Professor Barry Marshall, Research Professor of Microbiology at the University of Western Australia—a highly awarded scientist of international renown who is also a successful community advocate both in Australia and overseas. It is important to note that Professor Marshall and his colleague Dr Robin Warren were recognised in October 2005 when they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the link between the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers.

Also on the review committee were Associate Professor Pamela McCombe—a consultant neurologist and visiting medical officer at the Royal Brisbane Hospital, who holds the position of Associate Professor, Department of Medicine at the University of Queensland; Professor Peter Schofield—a renowned neuroscientist, whose skills and expertise are in a highly relevant scientific discipline to the review subject matter; and Professor Loane Skene, a renowned lawyer, ethicist and academic who has highly relevant skills and expertise demonstrated through her work and publications in the fields of health law and ethics.

I was most disappointed that those who opposed the Lockhart review recommendations chose to call into question the credibility of the review members and their work. After listing all of those credentials, it is hard to accept the description by Professor James Sherley that the members were a ‘poorly outfitted group’. Professor Sherley’s comments were rejected by five of the eight-member Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, rejected outright by the majority of witnesses appearing before the committee and rejected by members of the Lockhart review committee, who described the comments as unwarranted criticism. I think his comments sound very similar to shooting the messenger.

The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to legislation last debated in 2002. These amendments reflect the 54 recommendations made in the Lockhart review. One of the most significant changes is to the title of the bill, to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The change to the title reflects the fact that the bill no longer prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes using techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. SCNT is a process commonly called ‘cloning’—a term that I feel brings very negative connotations and leads people to believe that we want our scientists to clone human beings for introduction into our society. That is simply not the case.

It is important to remember that the word ‘cloning’ is used to describe replication of single cells and genetic material as well as whole beings. It is most essential that the different outcomes are clearly acknowledged. In the SCNT process the nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by one taken from a donor adult cell—for example, a skin cell. This is then stimulated and it behaves like an embryo produced by sperm and egg. While the basic SCNT technique is the same as that used to clone whole animals, there are several reasons why this will not happen. Scientists believe that the current indications are that the chances of these SCNT embryos developing beyond the blastocyst stage are very remote.

The Lockhart recommendations are very clear in stressing that reproductive cloning is unacceptable, and the bill proposes very serious penalties for anyone attempting to do so. All technologies bring with them the risk of misuse, but the National Health and Medical Research Council members are highly qualified to enforce the laws and ensure that community standards are adhered to. The creation of an embryo other than by human sperm and egg will only be permitted under licence and only for up to 14 days. Embryos created using sperm and egg may only be created for achieving pregnancy. Embryos created by any other means will not be able to be created unless under licence. Creation of an embryo by human sperm and egg and involving genetic material from two or more people will be prohibited.

Creation of an embryo by other means, where it includes genetic material from two or more people, will only be permitted under licence. Using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus to create a human embryo will only be permitted under licence, for up to 14 days of development. Creating and developing a hybrid embryo of up to 14 days will only be permitted under licence and in very limited circumstances. If the Patterson bill is passed, the strict prohibition on SCNT embryos being implanted in the body of an animal or a human shall remain. They are also prohibited from being developed beyond 14 days. Under the proposed legislation, attempting to do either of those things, with intent or otherwise, will attract a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment for the person or persons who tried to do it. If the genome of a human cell is altered in such a way that the alteration is inheritable by descendants of the human whose cell was altered, the person or persons responsible will receive 10 years imprisonment.

Scientists will face 10-year penalties if they act inappropriately with human cells. Some of these offences include: collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; creating a chimeric embryo; intentionally placing a human embryo in an animal; intentionally placing a human embryo in the body of a human, other than in a woman’s reproductive tract; intentionally placing an animal embryo in the body of a human for any period of gestation; intentionally importing or exporting an embryo into or from Australia knowing that the embryo is a prohibited embryo or being reckless in not questioning as to whether it is; intentionally placing an embryo in the body of a woman knowing that the embryo is a prohibited embryo or being reckless as to whether it is; commercial trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos; creating a human embryo by a process other than the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm or developing a human embryo so created where the creation or development of the human embryo by the person is not authorised by a licence; and using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus to create a human embryo or developing such an embryo. I believe those elements should be prohibited, and they will continue to be prohibited under this bill.

It is very important that we differentiate between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to develop into virtually any tissue in the body, given the right conditions. This means that embryonic stem cells could turn into pancreatic insulin-secreting cells, curing diabetes; cardiac muscles, eliminating heart attacks; cells capable of laying down the insulation that surrounds nerve fibres, treating spinal cord injuries; cells making neurotransmitters, curing Parkinson’s disease; and cells that regenerate the immune system, treating immunodeficiencies. The committee received many submissions arguing that adult stem cells have achieved much success in 50 years of research, which is true. But embryonic stem cells offer a world of possibilities like those I have just mentioned.

Research on embryonic stem cells has been under way for just eight years, compared to 50 years for adult stem cell research. A number of scientists agree that the progress made since 1998 in the field of embryonic stem cell research has been nothing short of startling. Rudolf Jaenisch MD, of the Whitehead Institute, wrote to the community affairs committee last week refuting Professor James Sherley’s statement on embryonic stem cell research. Dr Jaenisch stated:

It is fundamentally wrong and disingenuous to claim that adult stem cells are an alternative to embryonic stem cells because they may, at some point in the future, be useful for therapy. Rather, we need to support research in both of these areas as they complement each other.

I strongly believe that we will have to understand the biology of both embryonic and adult stem cells to make progress in transplantation medicine.

It is important to note that Professor Frazer, the Australian of the Year, started his research on the papilloma virus 20 years ago, but it was just recently that his findings were registered to produce a vaccine which is now available to young women and schoolgirls.

One of the review committee members, Professor Barry Marshall, whom I have mentioned previously, while working with Dr Robin Warren, discovered the link between the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers. This bacteria was first discovered in 1982. It took 22 years for the link between the bacteria and gastric ulcers to be confirmed. Professor Marshall and Dr Warren were recognised in October 2005 when they shared the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In presenting the award, Professor Staffan Normark, a member of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute, said:

Ulcers are one of the most common afflictions of humanity. For a long time, ulcers were regarded as being a result of stress and improper diet. Barry Marshall’s and Robin Warren’s discovery that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection was therefore completely revolutionary and was initially met by great skepticism.

                 …         …           …

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who with tenacity and a prepared mind, challenged prevailing dogmas.

Galileo is the most celebrated example of where society savagely persecuted those who held views that swayed away from dogmatic views of science. There are numerous examples throughout history that show that if people had not sought to satisfy their own curiosity we would not have cures for some of the most devastating diseases and infections that we have today.

The year 1996 marked the 200th anniversary of Edward Jenner’s first experimental vaccination: inoculation with the related cowpox virus to build immunity against the deadly scourge of smallpox. His research was based on careful case studies and clinical observation, more than 100 years before scientists could explain the viruses themselves. His innovation was so successful that by 1840 the British government had banned alternative preventive treatments against smallpox.

Science must be allowed to progress. Stem cells are not a miracle cure and one will not be found overnight. It will probably take decades rather than years to achieve results. Therefore, the effect of our decisions here this week will take many years to reach fruition. We are not giving people false hope for a miracle cure. Time is an intrinsic factor.

I would now like to focus on the progress made and the changes in technology which have occurred since this debate was initiated. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs received a letter from Foursight Associates Pty Ltd. I would like to highlight a few passages from this letter. The authors, Dr Graham Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal, state that as chief scientists they have provided commentary on technological developments over the past few years in the field of human stem cells in regenerative medicine. It is their firm opinion that recent advances in this technically challenging, highly regulated field have been very substantial and are worthy of notice.

Dr Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal highlighted four main technical developments in the field of embryonic stem cell research since it was first created in 1998 from very early human embryos: a discovery of better methods for growth and maintenance of human embryonic stem cell lines in vitro, including major advances to ensure regulatory good manufacturing practice compliance and even commercial scale production; advances in methods to more reliably drive embryonic stem cells along particular pathways of specialisation—for example, they can develop into cells of muscle, brain or pancreas, a process known as differentiation; demonstration of the medically relevant capabilities of human embryonic stem cells and their differentiated progeny in at least five animal models of human disease; and the isolation of many new embryonic stem cell lines and establishment of international, collaborative cell bans and networks for the sharing of lines and techniques. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech. (Time expired)

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

They also note that:

“The Lockhart Report is a wise, considered, balanced report and its recommendations should be accepted and broadcast.”

SCNT is already permitted in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Israel, Spain, China and some States of America.

I fear that if research on SCNT is stymied in Australia, we will lose many of our brightest and best scientists in this field to these countries. Indeed, some high profile Australian scientists have already left to pursue this cutting-edge technology overseas.

Another report titled “Key Recent Advances in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research—A Review of Scientific Literature” commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development of Victoria confirmed that:

“for a field as new and as complex as this, the rate of progress has arguably been dramatic”.

Advancements over the last four years do not need to be limited to medical science. Look at your mobile phone—how different does it look and how many extra features does it have now, that you didn’t even think was possible four years ago?

At the committee’s hearings in Sydney, we heard from Dr Paul Brock, a witness who was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease in 1998.

During his 15 years in the religious order of the Marist Brothers in the Catholic Church, Dr Brock spent six years of solid formal studies in philosophy, theology and ethics.

Dr Brock stated that a large proportion of society is against embryonic stem cell research because of the simplistically asserted grounds that the ‘ends never justify the means’.

Indeed quite a number of submissions the committee received had based their arguments against the Bill on this issue.

Dr Brock said:

Embryonic stern cell research is not the be-all and end-all of hope for this disease; it is but one of a whole range of potential research areas and therapies that may help us understand the cause, help us prolong the quality of life that we have and eventually find a cure. I am a public supporter of adult stem cell research and of all sorts of research which is ethically valid and scientifically justifiable.

Can you imagine looking my 90 year old mum, my 43 year old wife and our 15 and 11 year old girls in the eye and looking me in the eye, a bloke who 10 years ago was running around like a lunatic, playing golf, playing cricket, playing the piano and doing all the things in my life, now reduced to two fingers that move a bit, a brain that still works, a voice which obviously works too much and telling us—using embryonic stem cells is evil? I think you need to support this because it is the right thing to do.

With an example like this, how could one not support this Bill? I fully support this Bill.