Additional comments by Senators Polley,
Stephens and Hogg
- Cloning, whether to create
embryos for destruction in research, or for implantation to birth, is still
cloning. Neither language nor semantics can disguise this fact.
- In 2002, both Houses of the
Australian parliament unanimously rejected all forms of human cloning (i.e.
reproductive and therapeutic) and approved the release of surplus IVF embryos
for research and study.
- However, only 30% of the
surplus IVF embryos have been used for obtaining embryonic stem cells for
research. The other 70% have been used for training clinicians and for refining
infertility treatment.
- Some scientists are now
seeking other sources of embryonic stem cells, namely from cloned human beings
or cloned animal/human hybrid embryos, achieved by the process of SCNT.
- In 2002, the option was
available for any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to move an
amendment to allow for therapeutic cloning whilst banning reproductive
cloning. No one did.
- This debate is about
crossing an ethical line, i.e. deliberately creating cloned human embryos
expressly for destruction to obtain stem cells for a wide range of research.
- The current debate is not
about the efficacy of adult stem cells versus human embryonic stem cells
obtained from excess IVF embryos.
- This quantum leap in
research is being advocated well in advance of similar research being done on
cloned animal embryos.
- Some scientists are
therefore asking for the freedom to pursue this research on relatively weak
grounds purely and simply because they want to go down this path.
- Bad science cannot justify
this freedom, even if it may be regulated by a government authority.
- We believe that the Patterson
Bill and similar Bills should be rejected in their entirety.
Senator Helen Polley
ALP, Tasmania
Senator Ursula Stephens
ALP, New South
Wales
Senator John Hogg
ALP, Queensland
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page