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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1589 ..

infancy. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated and characterised in 1998 and adult stem cell research followed shortly after. While some results in adult stem cell research and therapies and mouse embryonic stem cell research appear well confirmed, many results, including, for instance, recently published work identifying and culturing a rare adult stem cell, have not yet been confirmed or replicated in other labs—one of the major points of scientific research.

The characteristics of stem cells and basic biological questions concerning the factors that contribute to cell differentiation, specialisation and regeneration are not yet well understood. This constitutes a fundamental and significant ongoing research challenge for stem cell science. Consequently, I believe it is premature and unreasonable to expect definitive answers to many of the questions that arise from stem cell science. We see unpredictability and uncertainty as intrinsic characteristics of science, particularly at the forefront of a new and complex field. Whether scientists will fully or partially address the myriad of challenges and questions in the short-, medium- or long-term is simply not known.

Embryonic stem cells have two very significant properties: firstly, they give rise to all tissue types and, secondly, they can be placed in a culture medium, replicate and remain undifferentiated indefinitely. To date there have been no proven treatments developed from human embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, there are problems to be overcome if embryonic stem cells were to have therapeutic application for tissue transplantation because of possible immunological rejection and insufficient knowledge on how to control differentiation.

These problems are fully acknowledged by all proponents of stem cell research, and I put that recognition on the record tonight. It is not possible to predict whether such work will be successful in overcoming immunological rejection of embryonic stem cells in some or all transplantation therapies. As a consequence, proponents of embryonic stem research advise that transplantation therapies may be five, 10 or 15 years away, if they are possible at all. However, in view of the potential of embryonic stem cell research to cure a wide range of ailments and human sickness, we believe that it would be premature to unnecessarily constrain or indeed prohibit this research. Time needs to be taken to make sure that this work happens.

We are not debating tonight the impact on research into and clinical use of adult stem cells. It is worth acknowledging that adult stem cells have been successfully used to treat a range of diseases, including cancer and damaged heart tissue. As exciting as the progress with adult stem cells undeniably is, it must be noted that they are difficult to isolate and are not easy to grow or remain undifferentiated in culture. In addition, adult stem cells have not demonstrated the capacity to meet all needs to cell therapy. However, what I believe to be absolutely certain is that there are real benefits in allowing adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed side by side in the same laboratories so that experiments cross-refer and lessons can be learnt by comparing the two systems.

The Democrats conclude that it is a false dichotomy to consider the issue in terms of embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells. We believe that a very strong case has been made to encourage research into both with a view to understanding the relative merits and disadvantages. Moreover, there is a very good case to be made for encouraging productive cross-fertilisation ideas and methodologies. While not a 100 per cent relevant

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