Page 944 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cells are naturally occurring cells which have the capacity to develop into many different types of cells or tissues in the human body.
I will come to Dr Foskey’s comments in a moment, but it is true that over 70 treatments have been developed using adult stem cells. The long list includes treatments for brain cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, several types of leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, anaemia, stroke and regeneration of the corneas. It is a fairly long list indeed of where adult stem cell research has been used to actually find cures.
Dr Foskey talked about the pluripotent ability of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells. There are two papers, one by Yamanaka in the journal Cell2 and one by Thomson in the journal Science3, which show that the ordinary skin cell of a human can be transformed into the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell without ever creating or destroying an embryo.
I know that a number of speakers have highlighted these comments, but it is worth, particularly in response to Dr Foskey, putting them on the record again. Professor Ian Wilmut of Edinburgh university, famous for cloning Dolly the sheep, announced that he would now pursue adult stem cell research as a result of these exciting scientific breakthroughs. Professor Loane Skene, a leading member of the previous government’s Lockhart committee which recommended therapeutic cloning, told ABC radio:
It’s a very exciting breakthrough and if it works then it wouldn’t be necessary to use the embryo process any longer, which would take away a lot of the ethical concerns.
I think this is at the heart of the issue. It is about the science moving forward more quickly than it would seem the legislation, and that would be my reservation about this legislation.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill and the presentation speech by the minister in December last year would have people believe that this legislation is really all about national consistency and uniform regulatory arrangements and would skate over some of the ethical issues that are raised. The minister said that the legislation is required by an intergovernmental agreement that commits all jurisdictions. Unfortunately, I think this kind of bureaucratic explanation is disappointing because it does not really honestly explain what this bill is about or the basis on which this Assembly will decide.
This legislation does involve important decisions about ethics, about the protection of human life, about promises and prospects for cures to disease and about the existence of viable alternative research techniques. The many issues of principle in this bill are so important that we should not accept the minister’s assertion that this Assembly is obliged to go along with what other parliaments may have decided. The basis on which MLAs cast their vote should pay greater regard to the ethical questions that are in play. That is why I think, as part of this debate, it would be important to hear from members, given it is a free vote, as to why they will be voting in whatever way their conscience dictates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .