Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will start off by speaking about something that may seem to be somewhat unrelated to this issue. There is a quote:

A splendid light has dawned on me about the absorption and emission of radiation ...

This was Albert Einstein, in a letter to Michele Angelo Besso in November 1916, regarding the stimulated emission of radiation. This led to the invention of the laser. The laser was in fact the application of stimulated emission theory. The laser was first made by Theodore Maiman in 1960. It was a ruby laser. This was 44 years after the discovery by Albert Einstein of stimulated emission, but even at the time of the invention of the laser it was seen to be an invention looking for an application. Now, of course, 46 years after that, the laser is ubiquitous. The point I am trying to put here is that the argument about the lack of breakthroughs in the short period of time that there has been embryonic stem cell research does not really hold water in terms of scientific research. Scientific research is something that takes time and something where you are not guaranteed an outcome.

In 2002 this House debated the merits of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. The object of the bill was to address concerns, including ethical concerns, about scientific developments in relation to reproduction and the utilisation of human embryos by prohibiting certain practices. Part 4 provides for an independent review of that act after the second anniversary of the day the act received royal assent. The Lockhart committee was established to carry out that review. The committee was chaired by the eminent Hon. John Lockhart AO QC, a former Justice in the Federal Court who sadly passed away in January this year.

We were extremely fortunate to have such high calibre committee members in Professor Ian Kerridge, Professor Pamela McCome, Professor Peter Schofield, Professor Loane Skene and, from Western Australia, Professor Barry Marshall, who in 2005, along with his colleague Dr Robin Warren, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Professor Marshall risked his own health to develop a cure for stomach ulcers. Is this an example of the questionable ethics of scientists involved in health research that some here are suggesting?

The committee’s terms of reference required it to consider a large number of issues and to consult widely. The committee consulted the community extensively. It received in excess of 1,000 submissions and facilitated stakeholder discussion forums, and both public and private hearings were held. The committee noted:

… despite the divergent views ... both proponents and opponents of embryo research agreed that the current system of legislation is valuable.

Something that needs to be stated about the review is that it extensively canvassed the issue, evaluating not only the scientific but also the ethical and moral aspects relating to the issue.

Like many members of this place, I have received representations from people with incredibly strong views on both sides of the argument. An interesting point is that, for me, the more ethically and morally questionable issue was decided upon almost 30 years ago, when embryos created so that infertile couples could have children were created in excess to what were strictly required for the IVF program. Many have stated that their objection is the creation of embryos that will ultimately be destroyed. However, that is exactly what has been happening for almost 30 years with the IVF program, sometimes naturally, as in miscarriage. Until 2002, these excess embryos were destroyed. The 2002 review allowed these embryos to be used for research.

It should also be added that a significant proportion of naturally fertilised eggs never achieve implantation, never mind being carried to term. Additionally, the one overwhelming argument that has been raised by the bill’s opponents is that the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer will give rise to an embryo which could result in a human clone if implanted in the uterus. A somatic cell is any cell of the body other than a germ or reproductive cell. Examples of these are blood cells, heart cells, liver cells et cetera. A human egg from which the nucleus has been removed then has the nucleus of a skin, liver or blood cell from a person placed into it. So, for example, the nucleus of a liver cell is transferred into an empty egg cell. The empty egg plus the transferred nucleus is stimulated by an electric shock and grows in a test tube. After about five days, when it is approximately the size of a pinhead, the cell can then be taken from it. These cells resemble embryonic stem cells.

Notwithstanding the legal definition, an embryo has been defined in medical textbooks as an ‘embryo’ only from the time of implantation. In fact, it is interesting that under the United Kingdom’s Human Fertility Act experiments on embryos were allowed. With the advent of SCNT, this meant these entities could be created for research purposes, too—in other words, if they fall within the definition of embryo. The ProLife Alliance went to the High Court, challenging the definition of the embryo as including SCNT. So it seems that the definition of an embryo varies. In Australia the definition is decided by us. It should be noted that artificial skin, such as that used by Australian of the Year Fiona Wood for burns victims, is the result of cloning of cells. It is all about definitions and how you interpret them. People’s personal interpretations vary and should be respected.

One unique property of SCNT derived embryonic stem cells is that, by using the somatic cells from a person with a particular disease, potentially scientists can create disease specific stem cell lines, enabling them to better understand disease process and test therapies for a variety of conditions. This cannot be achieved using excess IVF embryos because these diseases often only emerge as someone ages.

From a personal perspective, I had three second cousins in my family: two boys and a girl. The two boys both had cystic fibrosis. One died at approximately age 39 and the other died in his mid-30s. It is quite ironic that my parents sent me an email today showing me photographs of my remaining female second cousin, who recently got her PhD in anthropology. The point here is that people who have not seen the effects of diseases such as cystic fibrosis are not aware that not only does it shorten life but the quality of life that they have is not particularly good. I remember hearing both of my second cousins struggling for breath even at a young age, before the effects got worse and worse as they aged.

What drives scientists to research cures for these debilitating and often fatal diseases? I believe their drive is predicated on bringing hope to those of us who are unfortunate in that they do not enjoy full health as many of us do. I do not believe that our scientists are people who should be looked upon as rogues who wish to play around with the very foundations of life for the purpose of experimenting with human embryos, as has been suggested. As a scientist by training, I take exception to this.

This bill does not allow for the experimentation of human reproduction cloning. It is expressly forbidden. It prescribes strong penalties for doing so. That is what this legislation is seeking to do. It is not seeking to move to human reproductive cloning or manipulation between species. In all, the Lockhart review made 54 recommendations. Many were to continue the prohibition of certain acts. This bill addresses those concerns through a number of new clauses including and not limited to clauses 9, 14, 16 and 20. Clause 20 prescribes a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. I was interested to hear a researcher explain that in academic circles this was regarded as a tough measure, given that the usual penalty is often the risk of losing their research grant.

We are discussing the possibility for scientists to have the opportunity to research under strict licence the outcomes of this process in assisting people who have diseases to live better lives. There are important safeguards in the legislation, with strong checks and balances in place to enable research to go forward. A further amendment, the section 25A amendment, sets out a further review of the act, which will be required after the third anniversary of the day the amending act receives royal assent. This will ensure that the parliament has a continuous role in the operation of the act and that the very strict measures and penalties remain in place.

I have one final thought: there has been a lot of argument about issues that are subsidiary to the core of this bill, such as the issue of where the ova will be sourced. In my view the safeguards in this bill adequately address these issues.

See this speech in context