Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1579 ..

that the use of embryonic stem cells to produce “cures” has so far been a signal failure. There is a body of evidence that shows that work to develop embryonic stem cells for treatment is fraught with difficulties and even danger. I quote here from a presentation given by Professor David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine in Brisbane in August 2002. Professor Prentice said:

It is difficult to get that dish of embryonic stem cells to form all the types of neurone we need… Instead it is a mixture. In fact that is what you invariably get. One or two per cent of cells in the dish are the type of cell you want the rest of the cells are a hotch-potch. A mixture of heart, muscle, skin, a few nerves and then some cells which are continuing to grow which leads to another problem – these cells have the potential for tumour formation. When placed into animals in many cases this is what happens. The cells form tumours rather than forming the desired tissue. There is a publication last summer—

which would have been 2001—

which showed that, genetically, they are unstable. It is hard to direct them. That may be why you can’t get pure cultures and you can’t get around this tumour formation.

When confronted with not just the failure but the positive dangers in this line of research, I think we should adopt the precautionary principle and not legislate to allow any expansion of the current research. Ms Tucker’s amendment does not allow expansion of current research beyond assisted reproductive technology. Further government moneys directed to this line of research should be redirected into more fruitful areas of research.

There are ethical arguments. More important than the argument that the use of embryonic stem cells for treatment of a variety of diseases simply does not work is the argument that it is not morally or ethically permissible to do so. To obtain the stem cells necessary for this research, the researcher must destroy the embryo. Although this embryo is a cluster of only about a dozen cells, it is surely as human as you or I. The only essential difference is the elapsing of time and the fact that we were given the right to go on while many embryos are not.

Many in this debate would say, “We’ve got 70,000 excess embryos. It would be a waste if we didn’t do something with them.” I cannot embrace this mindset. The 70,000 embryos in cold storage in laboratories around this country are, as far as I’m concerned, human beings. It is our job as legislators to protect those human beings from experimentation.

We need to draw attention to the fact that we are talking about a whole range of experimentation, not just about miracle cures, which, so far as we can tell, do not happen. In addition to embryonic stem cell research, a range of things can also happen. Embryos can be used for a whole lot of other things, such as to work out whether or not new culture mediums are effective. Embryos can be put in petrie dishes with various culture mediums to see whether they survive, whether they live or die. It is like putting a human being in a room and saying, “We will apply this chemical and see what happens.” Embryos can also be used to assist in understanding embryonic development and fertilisation; for the training of clinicians in microsurgical techniques; transport and

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .