Footnotes

Chapter 1 - Introduction

[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/leg_response_lockhart_review/legis_doc/leg_doc.htm

[2]        Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings, Australian Health Ethics Committee, 1998.

[3]        Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Report on the Provisions of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, October 2002, pp.2-8. https://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/emb_cloning/index.htm

[4]        Prime Minister of Australia, Media Release, Lockhart Review, 23 June 2006.

[5]        Council of Australian Government's meeting 14 July 2006, Communiqué p.13

[6]        Senator Stott Despoja, Draft Second Reading Speech, p. 1.

[7]        Senator Patterson, Second Reading Speech, Senate Hansard, 19 October 2006, p.14.

Chapter 2 - The Lockhart Review Recommendations

[1]        The complete report of the Legislation Review Committee may be accessed at http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/index.html  See also Appendix 5.

[2]        These profiles are reproduced from Legislation Review, Appendix 1, p.188.

Chapter 3 - The Majority Report - The case for the Lockhart Recommendations

[1]          Nature, Vol 436, 7^th July, 2005

[2]        Multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa. Murrell et al Dev Dyn 2005 Jun;233(2):496-515.

[3]        Takahashi and Yamanaka (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126: 663-676.

[4]        Professor James Sherley, Submission 181, p. 2.

[5]        'Inquirer', Weekend Australian, October 21-22 2006, p.28.  

[6]        Legislation Review, p. 170.

[7]        Dr Paul Brock, Submission 2, p. 6.

[8]        SpinalCure Australia, Submission 29, p. 2.

[9]        Professor Melissa Little, Submission 167, p. 2.

[10]      Professor Andrew Elafanty, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p. 68.

[11]      Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p. 13.

[12]      Submission 74, p. 1.

[13]      The Monash Researchers, Submission 73, p. 2.

[14]      Kidney Health Australia, Submission 56, p. 1.

[15]      Professor Melissa Little, Submission 167, pp. 1-2.

[16]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 5.

[17]      See for example Kidney Health Australia, Submission 56, p. 2.

[18]      Senator Stott Despoja, Tabling speech, 14 September 2006, p.5.

[19]      The Monash Researchers, Submission 73, p. 1.

[20]      Tuch and Sidhu, Submission 1, p. 2.

[21]      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Submission 72, p. 2.

[22]      Professor Barry Rolfe, Submission 6, p. 4.

[23]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.39.

[24]      Professor Phil Waite, Submission 93, p. 1.

[25]      Stem Cell Sciences Ltd, Submission 104, p. 1.

[26]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 5.

[27]      Professor Williamson, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p. 46.

[28]      Dr Munsie, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p. 27.

[29]      Sir Gustav Nossal, Submission 74.

[30]      'Progress in Stem Cell R&D', GJV Nossal and GF Mitchell, 12 September 2006.

[31]      Human embryos, stem cells and cloning – developments in research and regulations since 2001: Literature Review, prepared for the Department of Health and Ageing by Biotext PL, August 2005, p.xvii.

[32]      Professor Phil Waite, Submission 93, p. 2.

[33]      Professor Melissa Little, Submission 167, p. 3.

[34]         Submission 104, Attachment, 'Advances in Human Embryonic stem cell research since 2002'.

[35]         Ludwig T et al (2006). Derivation of human embryonic stem cells in defined conditions. Nature Biotechnol. 24: 185 – 187; Liu Y et al (2006). A novel chemical-defined medium with bFGF and N2B27 supplements supports undifferentiated growth in human embryonic stem cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 346: 131 – 139; Ellerström et al (2006). Derivation of xeno-free human ES cell line. Stem Cells (published on-line June 1 2006).

[36]         Trounson (2006). The production and directed differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Endocrine Rev 27: 208 – 219; Ben-Hur et al (2004). Transplantation of human embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors improves behavioural deficit in Parkinsonian rats. Stem Cells 22: 1246 – 1255; Takagi et al (2005). Dopaminergic neurons generated from monkey embryonic stem cells function in a Parkinson primate model. J Clin Invest 115: 102 – 109; Kehat et al (2004). Electromechanical integration of cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells. Nature Biotech 22: 1282 – 1289; Faulkner and Keirstead (2005). Human embryonic stem cell-derived oligodendrocyte progenitors for the treatment of spinal cord injury. Transpl Immunol. 15: 131 – 142; Keirstead et al (2006). Human embryonic stem cell-derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cell transplants remyelinate and restore locomotion after spinal cord injury. J. Neurosci. 25 : 4694 – 4705; Fujikawa et al (2005). Teratoma formation leads to failure of treatment for type I diabetes using embryonic stem cell-derived insulin-producing cells. Am J Pathol 166: 1781 – 1791; Zheng et al (2006). Skeletal myogenesis by embryonic stem cells. Cell Res 16: 713 – 722.

[37]        Chang et al (2006). Correction of the sickle cell mutation in embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 1036 – 1040; Rideout et al (2002). Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell 109: 17 - 27.

[38]        Gorba and Allsopp (2003). Pharmacological potential of embryonic stem cells. Pharmacol Res 47: 269 – 278; Davila et al (2004). Use and application of stem cells in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 79: 214 – 223; Gorba and Allsopp (2003). Pharmacological potential of embryonic stem cells. Pharmacol Res 47: 269 – 278; Kulkarni and Khanna (2006). Functional hepatocyte-like cells derived from mouse embryonic stem cells: a novel in vitro hepatotoxicity model for drug screening. Toxicology In Vitro 20: 1014 – 1022.

[39]      Brambrink et al (2006). ES cells derived from cloned and fertilized blastocysts are transcriptionally and functionally indistinguishable. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103: 933 – 938; Wakayama et al (2006). Equivalency of nuclear transfer-derived embryonic stem cells to those derived from fertilized mouse blastocysts. Stem Cells 24: 2023 – 2033. 

[40]      Rideout et al (2002). Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell 109: 17 – 27; Barberi et al (2003). Neural subtype specification of fertilization and nuclear transfer embryonic stem cells and application in parkinsonian mice. Nature Biotech 21: 1200 – 1207.  

[41]         Blelloch et al (2004). Nuclear cloning of embryonal carcinoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 39: 13985 – 13990; Hochedlinger et al (2004). Reprogramming of a melanoma genome by nuclear transplantation. Genes and Dev 18: 1875 – 1885.

[42]      Submission 73.

[43]      There is no federal legislation covering this area of research in the U.S., though the federal government does not provide funding for research involving the destruction of embryos. Some states have legislated to allow SCNT. See Biotext Pty Ltd, Human embryos, stem cells and cloning – developments in research and regulations since 2001: Literature review, August 2005, http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/_files/Literature%20Review%20(Biotext).pdf, (accessed 17 October 2006).

[44]      CAMRA, Submission 21, p. 2. Also Committee Hansard 20.10.06, p.45 (Australian Academy of Science).

[45]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 5.

[46]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 2.

[47]      Lockhart Review Committee, Submission 20, p. 3.

[48]      Dr Paul Brock, Submission 2, p. 2. Dr Brock's PhD is in English.

[49]      Section 7 of the RIHE Act; s. 8 of the PHC Act.

[50]      The second part of the definition, part (b), proposed in the Lockhart Review refers to development up to fourteen days, rather than the primitive streak.

[51]      Legislation Review, Executive Summary, pp.xiv-xv.

[52]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 1.

[53]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 1.

[54]      Professor Susan Dodds, Submission 84, p. 2.

[55]      Fertility Society of Australia, Submission 40, p. 1.

[56]      The Monash Researchers, Submission 73, pp. 1-2.

[57]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 3.

[58]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 3.

[59]      ACCESS, Submission 176, p. 1.

[60]      The Monash Researchers, Submission 73, p. 8.

[61]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 6.

[62]      Senator Stott Despoja, tabling speech, 14 September 2006, p.7.

[63]      Tuch and Sidhu, Submission 1, p. 2.

[64]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 7.

[65]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 3.

[66]      CAMRA, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, p. 33.

[67]      Professor McNeil, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p. 24

[68]      Lockhart Review Committee, Submission 20, p. 3.

[69]      Dr Paul Brock, Submission 2, p. 3.

[70]      Professor Susan Dodds, Submission 84, p. 3.

[71]      Professor Susan Dodds, Submission 84, p. 1.

[72]      Stem Cell Sciences Ltd, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p. 23.

[73]      Lockhart Committee, Submission 20, p. 2.

[74]      Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Legislative Responses to Recommendations of the Lockhart Review, Friday 20 October 2006, p. 41.

[75]      Senator Stott Despoja, Tabling speech, 14 September 2006, p.4.

[76]      Submission 35, section 3(ii).

Chapter 4 - The case against - Arguments opposed

[1]        Professor Martin, Submission 35, p. 1.

[2]        Legislation Review, p.42.  See also Dr Monique Baldwin, Submission 57, p.2;  Gene Ethics, Submission 106, p.2; Professor Mackay-Sim, Submission 178;  Dr Silburn, Submission 180;  Associate Professor Sherley, Submission 181.

[3]        Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 2.  See also evidence of Dr van Gend (Do No Harm) Senate Committee Hansard 24 October 2006, pp.97-98.

[4]        Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, Submission 178, pp. 1-3. See also Submission 105 & evidence of Dr van Gend (Do No Harm) Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, pp.97-98 citing publications of Professor Savulescu “Should we clone human beings? Cloning as a source of tissue for transplantation,” (1999) 25 Journal of Medical Ethics 87, and D. Elsner, “Just another reproductive right? The Ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure,” (2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 596.  Elsner is from the University of Melbourne.

[5]        Professor John Martin, Parliamentary Library Lecture, 10 October 2006.

[6]        Legislation Review, p.42.

[7]        See for example Professor John Martin, Submission 35, p. 2; Dr Monique Baldwin, Submission 57, p. 2; Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Submission 100, p. 6; Evidence of Mr Campbell (Queensland Bioethics Centre) Senate Committee Hansard 24 October 2006, p.98.

[8]        World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm, (accessed 11 October 2006).  The Nuremberg Code provides that “the experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random or unnecessary in nature.”

[9]        Catholic Health Australia, Submission 26, p.4.  The citation from the President’s Council on Bioethics 2002 report, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, is from p.49.

[10]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.6.

[11]      See for example Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, Submission 178, p. 2 & Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, Submission 78, p. 9.

[12]      Professor John Martin, Parliamentary Library Lecture, 10 October 2006. See also Australian Family Association, Submission 97, p. 20.

[13]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 7.

[14]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 8.

[15]      See for example, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Submission 100, p. 7.

[16]      Professor John Martin, Submission 35, p. 2.

[17]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 6.

[18]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.25.

[19]      Professor John Martin, Submission 35, p. 3.

[20]      Professor John Martin, Parliamentary Library Lecture, 10 October 2006.

[21]      Dr Joe Santamaria, Submission 25, p. 4.

[22]      Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, Submission 178, pp. 2-3.

[23]      Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, Submission 178, p. 3.

[24]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, pp.24- 25.

[25]      Professor James Sherley, Submission 181, p. 4.

[26]      Catholic Health Australia, Submission 26, p. 9. See also Professor James Sherley, Submission 181, p. 4, and the testimony of Dr Silburn, Senate Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, pp.25 & 26.

[27]      Takahashi and Yamanaka, Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors, Cell, 126, pp. 663-676, 25 August 2006.

[28]      See for example Dr Monique Baldwin, Submission 57, p. 1; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 68, p. 4.

[29]      Professor John Martin, Submission 35, p. 3.

[30]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.27.

[31]      Committee Hansard 24 October 2006, p.72.

[32]      Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p.60.

[33]      Women's Forum of Australia, Submission 80, p. 2.

[34]      Women's Forum of Australia, Submission 80, p. 3.

[35]      FINRRAGE, Submission 32, p. 2.

[36]      WFA, Submission 80, p. 10.

[37]      WFA, Submission 80, pp. 3-4.

[38]      See for example Dr Con Pelanki, Submission 49, p. 2; WFA, Submission 80, pp. 4-5.

[39]      Dr Sheryl de Lacey, Submission 27, p. 3.

[40]      Professor Wendy Rogers, Submission 67, p. 2.

[41]      FINRRAGE, Submission 32, p. 7.

[42]      WFA, Submission 80, p. 12.

[43]      Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese, Submission 41, p. 5.

[44]      Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 3.

[45]      Dr Peter McCullagh, Submission 85, p. 5.

[46]      Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p.101 (Mr Phelps); pp.99-100 (Dr Klein).

[47]      Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, Submission 78, p. 10. See also Do No Harm, Submission 105, p. 13.

[48]      Australian Stem Cell Centre, Submission 63, p. 6.

[49]      Professor Bob Williamson, Parliamentary Library Lecture, 11 October 2006.

[50]      Medical law text books question how long legislative bans on reproductive cloning can be maintained.  For example, see Law and Medical Ethics, Seventh Edition, (J.K. Mason; G.T. Laurie) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) p.252: “We suspect that the days of the outright prohibition on reproductive cloning are numbered.”

[51]      Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 2.

[52]      Australian Family Association, Submission 97, p. 22.

[53]      See for example Do No Harm, Submission 105, pp. 14-15.  Evidence of Dr van Gend citing D. Elsner, “Just another reproductive technology?  The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure,” (24 October 2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 596-600.

[54]      Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 3. See also Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese, Submission 41, p. 8; Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Submission 108, p. 4.  Dr. McCullagh, Submission 85 quotes prominent philosopher and IVF advocate, Baroness Warnock, in relation to the “14 day marker” as indicating that it was at that time “that I became me.”  In 2002 she asked rhetorically “Would the cloning of humans be intrinsically wrong?”  See Mary Warnock, Making Babies: Is there a right to have children? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) pp.102-108.  Australian researchers have very recently pursued the same argument in favour of reproductive cloning.  See D. Elsner, “Just another reproductive technology?  The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure,” (24 October 2006) 32 Journal of Medical Ethics 596-600.  Elsner is from the University of Melbourne.

[55]      See for example Gene Ethics Network, Submission 106, p. 5.

[56]      Festival of Light Australia, Submission 34, p. 16.

[57]      Evidence of Dr van Gend, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, p.104; Dr Klein, p.105.

[58]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.9. 

[59]      NHMRC, Submission 168, p. 4.

[60]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 2.

[61]      Dr Peter McCullagh, Submission 85, p. 1.

[62]      See for example Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Submission 108, p. 2.

[63]      Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 3.

[64]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 3.

[65]      Dr Joe Santamaria, Submission 25, p. 6.

[66]      Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese, Submission 41, p. 3.

[67]      Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese, Submission 41, p. 3.

[68]      Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 68, p. 6; Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Submission 100, p. 8; Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Submission 108, p. 2.

[69]      Dr Peter McCullagh, Submission 85, pp. 2-3.

[70]      See for example Queensland Bioethics Centre, Submission 31, p. 4; Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, Submission 78, p. 13.

[71]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, pp. 3-4.

[72]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Submission 15, p. 4; Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Submission 100, p. 8. See also Pro-Life Victoria, Submission 43, p. 4.

[73]      Subject to proposed changes to the consent process, ie removing the 14 day cooling off period in some circumstances. See the committee's discussion of Lockhart Review recommendations 20-22.

[74]      Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese, Submission 41, p. 4.

[75]      Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Submission 16, p. 4.

[76]      Dr Peter McCullagh, Submission 85, p. 6.

[77]      See Lockhart Review Recommendation 30.

[78]      NHMRC, Submission 168, p. 4.

[79]      Schedule 2, Item 4.

[80]      Fertility Society of Australia, Submission 40, p. 2. Also ACCESS, Submission 176, p. 2.

[81]      For example, Legislation Review, p.176.

[82]      See the exchange between Senator Moore and Dr van Gend, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, pp.110-111.

[83]      See for example Family Council of Queensland Inc, Submission 89, p. 2; Do No Harm, Submission 105, p. 23; Coalition for the Defence of Human Life, Submission 23, p. 2.

[84]      Queensland Bioethics Centre, Submission 31, pp. 2-3.

[85]      Australian Family Association, Submission 97, p. 8.

[86]      Submission 181, p. 2.

[87]      See for example Australian Family Association, Submission 97, p. 8.; Do No Harm, Submission 105, p. 27. The details of this survey can be found at http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4036/, (accessed 16 October 2006). 

[88]      Queensland Bioethics Centre, Submission 31, p. 3.

[89]      Professor John Martin, Submission 35, p. 4.

[90]      Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Submission 108, p. 3.

[91]      Critchley and Turney, 'Understanding Australians' Perceptions Of Controversial Scientific Research', Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2004, pp. 82-87, http://www.swin.edu.au/sbs/ajets/journal/V2N2/pdf/V2N2-2-Critchley.pdf, (accessed 16 October 2006).

[92]      Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 68, p. 3.

[93]      Australian Family Association, Submission 97, p. 18.

[94]      Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, p.6.

Additional comments - Senator Stott Despoja and Webber

[1] The Age, 24/03/2006.

[2] Canon Alan Nichols, Submission 7, p.2.

[3] ACCESS, Submission 176, p.2; Fertility Society of Australia, Submission 40, p.2.

Additional comments - Family First

[1]        Professor T John Martin, submission 35

[2]        Professor T John Martin, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA35

[3]        Professor Sherley, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA54

[4]        Professor Sherley, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA44

[5]        Professor Peter Silburn, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, page CA27

[6]        Professor Peter Silburn, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, page CA30

[7]        Dr Renate Klein, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA109

[8]        Do No Harm, submission 105

[9]        Professor James Sherley, submission 181

[10]      Professor Peter Silburn, submission 180

[11]      Professor Mackay-Sim, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA84

[12]      Dr Peter McCullagh, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, page CA23

[13]      Professor Sherley, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA55

[14]      Professor T John Martin, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA36

[15]      mpconsulting, Analysis of Advice on Developments in Assisted Reproductive Technology and Related Medical and Scientific Research.  Prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, June 2006. Page 22.

[16]      Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, submission 41

[17]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, submission 15, page 8

[18]      Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, submission 41

[19]      Dr Megan Best, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA15

[20]      Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, submission 41

[21]      Dr Megan Best, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA16

[22]      Professor Mackay-Sim, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA75

[23]      Professor Mackay-Sim, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA91

[24]      GeneEthics, submission 106

[25]      Professor Anderson, NHMRC, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, page CA19.

[26]      Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, submission 37

[27]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, submission 15, page 3.

[28]      Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, submission 15, page 3.

[29]      For example, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA81 or Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA104.

[30]      Legislation Review Committee (Lockhart Committee), Legislation Review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. December 2005. Page 170

[31]      Professor Loane Skene, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2006, page CA9

[32]      Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, submission 41

[33]      Professor James Sherley, submission 181

[34]      Professor Sherley, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA53

[35]      Do No Harm, submission 105

[36]      Dr David van Gend, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA112

[37]      Playing the Name Game, Nature, Vol 436, 7 July 2005

[38]      Professor Mackay-Sim, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA71

[39]      Dr Monique Baldwin, submission 57

[40]      Professor Peter Silburn, submission 180

[41]      Women's Forum Australia, submission 80

[42]      FINRRAGE, submission 32

[43]      Dr Sheryl de Lacy, submission 27

[44]      Women's Forum Australia, submission 80

[45]      Ms Katrina George, Women's Forum Australia, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA59

[46]      FINRRAGE, submission 32

[47]      Dr Sheryl de Lacy, submission 27

[48]      Women's Forum Australia, submission 80

[49]      Professor T John Martin, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2006, page CA41

[50]      Do No Harm, submission 105

[51]      Members of the Lockhart Committee, submission 20, page 3

[52]      Dr Megan Best, Social Issues Executive, Anglican Church, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2006, page CA14

[53]      Do No Harm, submission 105

[54]      Professor T John Martin, submission 35

Appendix 5 - Lockhart Review recommendations and explanations

[1]      Embryos created by fertilisation or activation of any combinations of human and animal gametes or cells, or embryos into which an animal cell or part of an animal cell has been introduced (see Glossary)

[2]      House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2001). Human Cloning: Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (Andrews Report). https://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/ humncloning/contents.htm

[3]      Discussion Paper: Human Embryo — A Biological Definition (NHMRC December 2005)

[4]      Where such potential is defined by the appearance of the ‘primitive streak’ (see Glossary)

[5]      National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (NHMRC 1999) see http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm

[6]      Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Clinical Practice and Research (NHMRC 2004) see http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e56syn.htm