Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

I will be supporting this bill.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 was drafted in response to the Lockhart Review which reported to the Parliament in December last year (2005).

In 2002 the Parliament passed the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002.

These Acts prohibit human cloning; prohibit the creation of human embryos other than to impregnate a woman; and allow the use for research, under strict regulation and licence, of excess embryos created using IVF.

Each Act had a sunset clause, requiring independent review after three years, and in June 2005, the Government appointed a Legislative Review Committee to undertake this task.

The committee was chaired by the late John Lockhart, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia.

The committee consulted widely including via a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings, public hearings, discussion forums and site visits.

It presented its report on December 19, 2005. The committee made 54 recommendations.

I want to pay tribute to the work of the late Justice Lockhart for the Committee’s careful and considered recommendations, and as I have indicated I support this bill which is intended to give legislative effect to those recommendations.

I also want to acknowledge Natasha Stott Despoja’s contribution to this debate, including her exposure draft Bill, co-sponsored by Senator Webber, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and Related Research Amendment Bill 2006.

On September 14 this year (2006), the Senate referred this draft Bill, as well the bill drafted by Senator Patterson which we are debating today, to the Senate Community Affairs Committee for investigation.

The Senate Inquiry into the Legislative Responses to Recommendations of the Lockhart Review reported on Monday last week (October 30, 2006).

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to allow a conscience vote on this bill, which as we know, raises serious moral, social and ethical questions.

Some of the questions include:

• When does human life begin?
• How far should we go in allowing research on human embryos?
• Should the creation of human embryo clones by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer be permitted under licence for research, training and clinical applications?
• What safeguards should surround research on embryos?
• How do we define an embryo?
• What safeguards should be provided to protect the rights of women?

I have been along--time supporter of ethical medical research, including strictly regulated research using embryonic stem cells.

In 2002 I voted to support therapeutic stem cell research using surplus embryos created using IVF.

In 2002, I also voted in favour of a ban on human cloning, and I want to stress that I continue to oppose any changes in the laws prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

The idea of human reproductive cloning is abhorrent to most people. There is clearly no public support whatsoever for this practice, and this bill does not alter provisions prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

In particular, the bill explicitly prohibits the following:

• creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm, for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman; and
• developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days.

The bill also prohibits the collection of a viable human embryo from the body of a woman.

I want to spend some time explaining why I am voting in favour of the bill being debated today, which would permit, among other things, the creation and use of cloned embryos provided these are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

The bill would also permit, under strict conditions and licence, the creation and use of so-called hybrid embryos.

These are complex issues, both medically and morally.

I want to start by spending a few minutes on the basic science of stem cell research and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and what researchers see as some of the potential benefits.

Some of what I am about to say is from literature by the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia.

Stem cells are ‘unspecialised’ cells that have the unique potential to develop into specialised cell types in the body, for example blood cells, muscle cells or nerve cells.

This can be either for growth and development, or for replenishment and repair.

Stem cells occur at all stages of human development, from embryo to adult—but their versatility and numbers tend to decrease with age.

Given the right conditions in the body or the laboratory, stem cells—unlike muscle cells, nerve cells or blood cells—can replicate themselves many times over.

When a stem cell replicates, the resulting cells can either remain as stem cells or can become specialised cells.

Stem cell research shows promise in medical treatment in two main areas: a better understanding of diseases such as cancer; and making cells and tissues to replace or regenerate tissues that are either diseased or have been destroyed.

By understanding how stem cells transform into the specialised cells that make up our bodies, we can better understand and potentially find cures for diseases such as cancer, which is a major example of where this process has gone wrong.

Stem cells also offer the possibility of a source of replacement cells that could be used to treat diseases and conditions from Parkinson’s disease to heart disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes and arthritis.

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from human embryos.

They have the potential to develop into all cell types in the body.

Currently in Australia, embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos that are left over from assisted reproductive technology—or ART—treatment programs and have been donated to research by the couple for whom they were created.

Adult stem cells, often called somatic stem cells, are found in many organs and tissues of the body, where their main function is to replace cells that have died in the tissue or organ where they are located.

In certain circumstances, adult stem cells may transdifferentiate into other cell types.

Adult stem cells extracted from the bone marrow of patients or compatible donors are used routinely in treating diseases such as leukaemia.

Umbilical cord blood, extracted from the umbilical cord and placenta when a baby is born, is a rich source of adult stem cells.

These cells may be useful for medical research or therapeutic use in the future. In the USA in particular, many people are having cord blood frozen for possible use later in life.

The advantages of embryonic stem cells are that they can be grown in the laboratory for long periods and be made to change into most types of tissue found in the body.

Adult stem cells are present in the body in low numbers, and, with the exception of bone marrow, are difficult to obtain.

Although adult stern cells are currently difficult to grow in the laboratory and may not develop into every kind of cell, recent developments in this field are promising.

Some people who object to this bill say that there has been insufficient proof of concept to justify the need for changes to the law.

There are some who say that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research shows just as much, or perhaps even more promise.

Still others, who are not against embryonic research per se, maintain that it is one thing to use embryos which would otherwise be discarded, but that it crosses an ethical boundary to create embryos for the purposes of research. I will come back to this point later.

The terms of reference for the Lockhart Review included reporting on “developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic application of such research”.

The Lockhart Report contained a literature review which was commissioned by the NHMRC on behalf of the Minister for Ageing, of recent scientific advances in the areas we are discussing.

While it is true that research using embryonic stem cells and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is in its infancy, as the Lockhart Review shows, there have been significant breakthroughs.

Medical research is not about finding instant cures. Scientists have said at the outset that this technology may take many years to bring about new medical applications.

But while embryonic stem cell research has not yet translated into clinical trials or treatments, the use of excess ART embryos to derive embryonic stem cell lines has contributed to progress in the derivation and culture of the cells and in methods of promoting the growth of different types of cells.

I agree with the view of the Lockhart Committee that “it is not possible or helpful to try to establish the relative experimental or potential therapeutic merits of embryonic and adult stem cells.”

“There have been many preliminary findings in animal studies that indicate sufficient potential to warrant further investigation.”

I’ll now move on to the specific practice of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer or SCNT.

This is the scientific technique through which human embryo clones can be created.

SCNT involves obtaining a woman’s egg cell in the same way eggs are obtained for ART treatment, then removing genetic material and replacing it with DNA from a cell of a body.

With the right triggers this new cell can be turned into an embryo.

If a cloned embryo is grown in the laboratory for a few days, stem cells could be harvested from it to form a new embryonic stem cell line.

This possibility is often referred to as therapeutic cloning, since the embryonic stem cells could be encouraged to develop into human tissue or (possibly in the future) a complete organ for transplant.

Because the stem cells from a cloned embryo have identical nuclear DNA to the person who donated the original body cell, this theoretically overcomes the rejection hurdle that exists with current organ or tissue transplants or with stem cells derived from embryos leftover from IVF.

SCNT is widely used in animal research.

It is not illegal to use this technique to create human embryos in countries including the UK, the USA, Singapore and Sweden.

SCNT requires a source of ova. Concern has been raised about the potential for exploitation of women as egg donors and also about the issue of human-animal hybrids.

Lockhart acknowledged that it can be difficult to attract women to donate oocytes for research and that the potential exists for coercion.

To avoid coercion of women in ART programs—ho may be asked to donate eggs for research—Lockhart recommends that there be clear separation between the obtaining of eggs for ART practice and research.

The Lockhart Review also recommends that egg donation be managed by strict ethical guidelines.

It is important to make it clear that this bill prohibits the commodification of human eggs.

It maintains the current ban on the sale of human eggs, sperm and embryos, allowing only the reimbursement of “reasonable expenses”.

This bill also maintains the ban on implanting into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human-animal hybrid embryo.

In addition the bill continues to prohibit the placing of a human embryo into an animal or vice versa, for any period of gestation.

On the other hand, to reduce the need for human eggs during the developmental stages of nuclear transfer research, the bill permits, under licence, the use of animal oocytes. Again, I will come back to this point, and why, on balance, I think this is desirable.

The Lockhart Committee found that there is strong community support for medical research to help people who suffer from debilitating or incurable disease or conditions.

It found considerable community support for medical research to help people to have children, including the acceptance that this process involves the ‘wastage’ of some embryos.

For some people the values attached to treating disease and overcoming infertility are more important than the value of an embryo.

For others, the value of an embryo, as a potential human being, is predominant.

I acknowledge that there are strongly held and divergent views within the community—and indeed the Parliament—on this issue and I support in full the rights of all groups to participate in this debate.

I know that many Senators speaking today will have looked very closely at the Senate Committee report which as I said was handed down last week (October 30, 2005).

This Committee gave bipartisan support to this bill. The support was not of course unanimous, with 5 members supporting and 3 opposing.

The Committee considered 494 submissions and held public hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne.

In conclusion, this is what we know:

Most people in the community are very supportive of medical research.

There is evidence of strong support for SCNT.

In June this year 0006), Roy Morgan Research conducted a poll which found that 80 per cent of respondents approved of therapeutic cloning or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

Like others in the Parliament, it was my task to weigh up the social and moral implications of this bill.

I pay tribute to the Lockhart Review Committee for its very thorough report, and to the Senate Committee who, in a very short space of time, had to grapple with some very difficult issues.

I appreciate—although I don’t share the view that SCNT crosses an ethical boundary.

I believe that while a 14 day embryo deserves respect, on balance, it is for the greater good to allow research that may one day alleviate human suffering and death.

This is also my view in respect to the creation and use of less than 14-day old human-animal hybrid embryos, when conducted under licence, and. the strict conditions as laid down in this bill.

There are many people with diseases and conditions to whom stem cell technology offers hope.

This is not pie-in-the-sky research as some opponents indicate, and we have already seen some very promising results.

I have mentioned some of the diseases for which there are potential treatments and cures.

Another one is cystic fibrosis.

My family has a long history of cystic fibrosis.

Around two-and-a-half thousand Australians suffer from cystic fibrosis, which is characterised by a build-up of thick mucus in the lungs and pancreas, leading to breathing difficulties and life-threatening infections.

On my mother’s side, my family has lost five members to this disease.

Stem cell research offers great hope for people with cystic fibrosis, and I am pleased to say that significant progress is being made.

In 2004, for the first time, British scientists created a human stem cell line with the mutation for cystic fibrosis.

This was the same team who in 2003 were the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in the UK.

I commend this bill to the Senate.