Page 1075 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We do know that there can be no import or export of stem cell lines derived from embryos using practices consistent with Australian legislation. Certainly, one concern about this bill is the potential for the privatisation and commercialisation of this research. The dangling question in my mind is really about corporate control of beneficial technologies. Who owns the science and who benefits? How will those benefits be shared? Will the intellectual property be held for the public good or held by the company that undertakes the research? Will this bill lead to corporate control of cures for diseases? Will this bill feed into a system in which human tissue and embryonic cells are traded for profit?
There is a disappointing and worrying lack of protections in the bill to guard against these things happening, and this is the issue that Mrs Dunne has raised with this amendment. This bill does prohibit the sale of eggs, sperm or embryos. It also prohibits discounted or free assisted reproductive technology services in exchange for the donation of eggs, sperms or embryos. But that is not the output of the research; it is the sale of the stem cells and related research outcomes that we need to watch.
It seems possible that companies that develop therapies arising from this type of research will be able to patent the knowledge, monopolise it and make a great deal of money. The ability of a person to access the benefits of research would be based on ability to pay in this case rather than on their need. My colleagues Senator Kerry Nettle and Senator Bob Brown raised these concerns in the federal debate and moved amendments that would have ensured that the fruits of the research remained in the public domain. Unfortunately, those amendments were defeated.
The Greens would like to see a tighter regulatory framework of the biomedical industry to ensure that medical breakthroughs are not exclusively for the wealthy. Transnational biotechnology companies dominate stem cell research around the world, and the patents on stem cell lines are bringing massive profits for the biotech industry.
I have a few concerns which Greens in other jurisdictions, especially in the federal arena, have raised and which could be helped to some extent by Mrs Dunne’s amendment. A model which would probably create more public confidence in this issue would ensure that benefits and profits remain in the public domain and therapies remain available within the public health system. It seems only logical that research and not a quest for corporate profits should be driven by the public good.
In the United Kingdom the stem cell bank is a key mechanism to ensure that embryonic stem cell research stays as much as possible in the public domain. All viable stem cell lines must be deposited with that bank. It is disappointing that we do not have a similar body in Australia to ensure that innovations are shared. Following this thought about the public good and ensuring it is not just the biotech companies which profit, Senator Kerry Nettle for the Greens noted that we should not just leave it to each separate IVF clinic to make different individual commercial arrangements with the women who donate eggs to them, which is how the situation currently stands.
Sydney IVF, for example, has an arrangement now whereby each egg donor is able to access any benefits from research done on the woman’s donated eggs. I believe that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .