John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If politicians seek to limit and constrain scientific research, their reasons must be strong. The arguments against the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the arguments in favour of continuing the prohibition against creating human embryos for the purpose of research or using the extra embryos created by assisted reproductive technology are, on the one hand, scientific and, on the other hand, religious. Let me say at the outset that I do not find either argument sufficiently convincing to persuade me that it is appropriate for politicians to be the arbiters of science. The many letters and emails that I have received about this bill—well over 800 at last count—have argued for the continuing ban on the creation of embryos for research because, firstly, other fields of research, such as adult stem cell research, are more promising.

Other fields of research may, indeed, be more promising. When scientists are deciding where to expend their efforts or institutions are deciding where to spend their research dollars, that is no doubt a consideration for them. But should it be a consideration for politicians debating whether or not to ban a particular kind of research? I believe not. After all, the relative value of research has to be consistently reassessed in the light of new discoveries. No politician can predict what discoveries or disappointments lie ahead. We are neither scientists nor soothsayers, and we ought not to pretend that we are either when voting on legislation.

The second argument against this bill arises from religious or moral convictions: opposition to the creation of embryos for research and to the use of excess ART embryos because of the belief that a fertilised embryo ought not to be destroyed for research. This belief is deeply felt and strongly held by some, but I do not share it. My own opinion, also deeply felt and also strongly held, is that fertilisation marks the beginning of a process that ultimately may become human life. I believe that in 2006 public opinion on methods of contraception, termination of pregnancy, IVF and embryonic stem cell research shows that our community also draws a strong distinction between a microscopic group of undifferentiated cells without heart or brain and a human being. It is on the basis of that distinction that I support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. It is on the basis of that distinction that I support the access by Australian women to contraception methods such as the ‘morning after’ pill and to reproductive technologies that require the creation of multiple embryos, and it is on the basis of that distinction that I will vote in favour of this legislation.