Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I will not be supporting Senator Patterson’s bill, although I understand the considerable amount of work and the good intent of her and her supporters. I remember the debate we had on embryonic stem cell research in 2002. It was a very difficult debate, and the parliament was divided on the issue. However, we were not divided on the issue of cloning. There was no voice raised in opposition to the prohibition of human cloning at that time. There was no voice raised saying we should allow the creation of embryo clones for research. Now it is 2006. We are not having the stem cell debate all over again. We have embryonic stem cell research in Australia. It is already happening. Today we are simply having a debate about cloning. And I have to say that I have not seen sufficient evidence to make me change my opposition to creating embryo clones for research or reproduction.

It is a huge proposition to put to me that I should support human embryo cloning. It is a major step to go from using excess IVF embryos for research to creating embryos that are the clone of a human being and then using them for research. You would need ironclad guarantees that it was going to solve all the woes of medical research in order to go ahead. And they are not there. No-one has even created a human embryo clone yet. No-one has derived stem cells from one, and no-one has proven that the technique will be therapeutic in any way. I need to see a lot more evidence of benefits than I have seen so far in the four years since 2002. As Professor John Martin submitted to the Senate committee:

Any move towards the deliberate manufacture of human embryos for research purposes constitutes a major elevation in the ethical barrier, and the standard of proof required for a positive outcome of that research becomes all the higher.

I was astonished to learn from the NHMRC that only nine licences have been given since the 2002 debate. Only four of these relate to deriving embryonic stem cells and only one—imagine that: only one—has been given with the aim of treating a specific condition. What did we go through all that debate for last time? It makes me extremely wary of listening to the claims by the same people this time around for cloning.

We are legislators. It is our job to allocate resources across competing interests. It is our job to make tough decisions, and, frankly, this one is not tough. 2002 was tough. But human embryo cloning is a no-brainer in my view. Creating human embryos with eggs from cadavers or animals is not a process I would be proud to endorse. Surely there is a lot more to do under the existing regime before we need to go down that road, if we go down it at all. We are not being asked to sign off on a routine medical procedure or a straightforward research proposal here today. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque on an unknown and unproven theory, a hypothesis that one day in our grandchildren’s time might—might—lead to cures for diseases.

I am also very put off by all the division within scientific ranks over the cloning hypothesis. Frankly, I do not understand why we are even considering a proposal for human-animal hybrids when Australia’s Chief Scientist, James Peacock, has called for the banning of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning. Why is this bill running contrary to the advice of Australia’s Chief Scientist?

Amongst all the conflict and division of the experts as they faced the Senate committee hearings, I was struck by the unanimity of one line of reasoning. Everyone seemed to agree that there was a lot that could be done under the present regulatory environment, which was installed after the 2002 debate. I would like to demonstrate this by reading a few quotes from the Senate Committee Hansard. Senator Polley asked in one of the hearings:

... does the current legislation environment allow further human embryonic stem cell research into the areas of proof of concept of treatment in animal experiments, overcoming their teratoma cancer problem and the instability of human embryonic stem cell properties and learning whether disease-specific colonial embryonic stem cell lines will be helpful? Can all of these things be studied now without changing the law?

The reply from Dr Sidhu, the Manager of the Embryonic Stem Cell Group at the Prince of Wales Hospital, was:

Absolutely; we can do that with the existing legislation in place.

Professor Mackay-Sim, a former Queenslander of the Year, was asked a similar question on whether the current legislative environment allows for much further work to be done using embryonic stem cells without cloning being required, and he responded:

That about sums it up, yes.

Professor Tuch, Director of the Diabetes Transplant Unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital, was asked at the Senate committee hearings:

Would you agree that there is still a lot that you could do within the parameters of the current regulatory regime?

And he replied:

The answer to that question is: absolutely yes, of course; under the current situation, yes.

Dr Munsie is the Scientific Development Manager at Stem Cell Sciences Ltd. She reported to the Senate committee on the objectives of a research project currently underway under the existing legislation:

At the moment we are going to learn how to grow embryonic stem cells better, and the crux of this project is exactly that: how to grow them and then how to direct their fate—how to direct them into nerves—so that ultimately we can treat diseases where there is damaged tissue, such as a cardiac infarct or a Parkinson’s disease patient. But we are not at that stage yet.

I think, as Professor Martin Pera previously indicated, there are many hurdles to overcome and we want to address these responsibly. The first is how to grow the cells without animal products. We want to be able to grow cells that are of an acceptable clinical grade. The second issue is how to direct their fate so that we are putting back cells that are going to be beneficial to the patient and that do not have a risk of tumour formation. I think we are a while away.

The point is exactly that—these researchers are a while away from anything conclusive. They are busy doing lots of important things and have lots of other important things to do, all of which can be done under the existing legislation. I think we should let them do just that—get on with the job of proving up their science. They have the tools, including the regulatory environment of 2002, which still has a long shelf life, according to even the most ardent pro-cloning scientists. (Quorum formed)