Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened with great interest to my colleagues as they have shared their thoughts about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I have been struck by the earnestness of the contributions from both the proponents and the opponents of this bill. However, as befits matters of conscience, in this debate no one argument can lay claim to the absolute truth. Every contribution and viewpoint has been balanced by the beliefs and circumstances that contribute to each person’s personal faith and moral code. Every opinion shared in this chamber is as valid to the speaker and their cause as any other. However, the attempts by both sides to support their position through the selective quoting of eminent Australians or research scientists has only reaffirmed my belief that scientific researchers also have disparate opinions on human cloning.

So who is right? Although it may surprise some of my colleagues to hear it, that is not really the question that we should be pondering. As legislators, the real question we need to resolve is a rather more simple one, and I propose to return to that very issue in a moment. Before I do, there are some immutable facts that must be entered into this debate and they simply cannot be disputed using any rational or honest argument. One of these facts is that an embryo, at any stage of development, is the beginning of human life. This is a fact supported by the Lockhart report. It is a fact supported no less passionately by the response of every woman hoping to have a baby upon discovering that she is pregnant. Also beyond dispute is the fact that cloned embryos could ultimately result in cloned human beings. It is a case of simply adding a womb and hoping for the best.

Also beyond dispute is the value of science to humanity. Scientific research has eradicated smallpox, it has saved millions from tuberculosis and it has given hope to everyone diagnosed with cancer or similar debilitating illnesses. Science has the proven capacity to improve lives and to cure disease, and it gives hope to a secular world. Australia is an acknowledged leader in scientific research and, hitherto, we have done it in an ethical and respectable manner. One example is the 15 years of research it took Professor Chris Parish and his team from the John Curtin School of Medical Research to develop a drug that could stop a cancerous tumour from growing by starving it of blood supply. As a nation, we can be proud of our contribution to science and to the improvement of human life.

But some scientists have also been known to have pushed ethical or community boundaries to further their own knowledge or aspirations. There are numerous historical examples of actions taken in the name of science that have led to morally questionable outcomes. Take for example the scientific epiphany of Darwinian evolutionary theory that developed into the science of eugenics. Sadly, this purported breakthrough led to alarming levels of racism. It led to forced sterilisations on the grounds of racial hygiene. Handicapped people were euthanased in the mistaken scientific and social belief that it was in the best interests of the human species. Incredibly, some of these horrors were not limited to a few despotic regimes. Over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilised in the United States under eugenics legislation between 1907 and 1963. Of course, these scientific and social theories were never intended to cause such horrific outcomes. However, the very fact that humans were evaluated according to their materialistic and evolutionary value meant that their innate worth as human beings was cast aside. Individuals suffered from the worst form of degradation as a result and society suffered, but it ultimately saw the light.

Let us not make a similar mistake with this proposal to disregard the value of human life in the name of scientific research. The justification given for research such as that advocated by this bill is often the benefit or potential benefit to mankind. Whilst it is human nature to challenge and to strive for achievement, we are also the only species that is capable of fully comprehending the implications of such research. We as a society need to be aware of the potential costs of what we are debating. The costs to which I refer are not financial costs but rather the unknown costs to the human condition, and these costs are extracted through a process of desensitisation. Just as we have become desensitised to an increasing level of violence in movies, just as we have become desensitised to an increasing level of bad language in our music and just as we are becoming increasingly desensitised to the use of quasi-pornographic images in advertising, so too are we becoming desensitised to the creation of human life for the sole purpose of medical experimentation.

There is clear and demonstrable evidence of this. When the cloning of mammals was considered impossible, human cloning was the preserve of science fiction. However, with the creation of Dolly the sheep, the world rushed as one to prohibit human cloning. The horror of what might eventually evolve from this extreme science was recognised as a clear affront to mankind. Then the desensitising process began. What was initially considered an outrage suddenly became an opportunity with amazing potential. The scientists said, ‘We just need a few stem cells to experiment with.’ But, despite the promise shown by stem cells given voluntarily by adult patients, this was not good enough. Lawmakers were encouraged by the scientific community to make concessions for research involving embryonic stem cells.

Just four years ago, this parliament made the first concession to researchers by allowing experimentation on surplus embryos within the IVF program. The key justification at the time was that surplus embryos were set to be destroyed anyway and in this way their demise could benefit mankind. Then it was clearly and unanimously agreed by this parliament that the cloning of human embryos was ethically and morally unacceptable. Now just 48 months later we are being asked to support the cloning of human beings and the creation of life for the sole purpose of medical research. That is the next step in the desensitisation process, and if this bill fails I am in no doubt that another variation of it will be presented to this parliament in future years. However, should this bill pass, the process of desensitisation will begin again and further bills will seek to extend the creation and cultivation of human life for the simple purpose of harvesting the result.

This bill reduces the human species to just another species amongst species. Human embryos are not the same as chickens, dogs or monkeys. Human embryos are special for exactly the same reason that we all are. Like us, they are special because they are human, and they deserve to be valued as more than just another part of the animal kingdom.

There are a number of eminent scientists who are trying to suggest that embryos are not really human life—somehow they are regarded as lesser. Somehow we are expected to believe that an embryo at 14 days is less valuable than one at 15 days, 21 days or 28 days. How else can we hope to understand the logic of their limiting the experimentation to embryos of less than 14 days? Creating human life, no matter how basic the cell structure, for the purpose of destruction or experimentation is just wrong. This bill is another example of the process of desensitisation that presents a clear danger to our society.

Even the supporters of this bill acknowledge that there are dangers. They acknowledge that it is dangerous for women, who may be encouraged to supply eggs. And in her speech Senator Stott Despoja said that if there were not enough women to donate eggs for the research to continue then, tough, the scientists will have to learn to do without. I would suggest to Senator Stott Despoja, and those who support this bill, that we should adopt this exact same approach with regard to those who say that the more than 104,830 embryos currently available for embryonic stem cell research are not enough.

But for many scientists when is enough ever really enough? During this debate we have heard examples of how women in the UK and the United States are being offered incentives to submit themselves to egg harvesting. This bill is the first step in the human spare parts industry. This industry begets the question: do the means justify the ends—the end being a cure, or a treatment, to ease the suffering of thousands of people afflicted by terrible diseases and conditions? And this is a noble end. The desire to heal another’s suffering is indeed a righteous one. It is the proper and fitting purpose of all medical research.

However, what of the means? It is the means that is creating this moral and ethical quandary for our parliament, and for our country. The cloning of human embryos may indeed lead to amazing advances in the treatment and cure of disease. Or it may simply be another mirage giving false hope.

So who is right? Well, as I said at the commencement of my address, this is not about who is right; this is about what is right. Creation of human life for the purpose of experimentation is simply wrong, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.