Page 1076 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this is something that should be applied consistently across the country. I have not proposed this today as I think it is probably best to do it through NHMRC guidelines. However, I would like to hear that the minister is taking up this issue with her federal counterparts.
Another issue about the profiteering potential of these biotech companies is about a central accessible national stem cell bank. Senator Nettle proposed a requirement that all licence holders deposit a sample of any stem cell lines that they derive in a publicly run national stem cell bank. Professor Robert Williamson from the Australian Academy of Science stated at the Canberra hearing why he supported a stem cell bank:
If we have a national stem cell bank, that bank reduces the number of experiments that will be done on embryos. In the second place, it guarantees a level of transparency because people will be noted as using it. And, in the third place, it will operate in practice to facilitate public rather than private research.
When Senator Nettle proposed the concept of the national stem cell bank, the parliament was supportive of it in principle. However, it was not prepared to commit to its formation within the two-year time frame proposed. Recommendation 48 of the Lockhart report states that consideration should be given to the feasibility of the Australian Stem Cell Centre operating the stem cell bank. Establishing the bank need not be a difficult process, as there is already an Australian Stem Cell Centre, but it is a private institution. What we need instead is a framework to use the existing infrastructure but give it public standing and accessibility. This is an issue that I will be following up with our health minister.
Also of concern is to ensure that the products and profits from the research in the development of stem cell lines, including a stem cell bank, should they proceed in Australia, should remain in public control and ideally be equally available within the public health care system. So, to add to Mrs Dunne’s amendment, if I thought it was to be passed today, I would add the requirement for applicants to the licensing committee to address in their applications and for the licensing committee to look at what contribution their research would make to reducing the global health burden to allow that public interest and public health component to be in it.
I am very aware that the majority of the current research is occurring in private institutions, and this could be a real worry in terms of access to these research benefits and what the research is being skewed towards. Associate Professor Wendy Rogers from Flinders University, in her submission to the Lockhart review, stated:
… there is a serious ethical issue of equity that arises when tissues donated by Australians for the benefit of the Australian community (including both researchers and patients) are then used to develop commercial products for private enterprise. The products and profits from the research involving SCNT and the development of stem cell lines, including a stem cell bank … should remain in public control, and equally available within the public healthcare system.
I note that the NHMRC will be providing a review on human cloning and human embryo research to the federal minister this year and that the Minister for Health must
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .