News & Views item - December 2005

 

 

Legislation Review Committee: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (December 24, 2005)

    One December 19 John S Lockhart AO QC, Chair, Legislation Review Committee wrote to

The Hon Julie Bishop MP
Minister for Ageing
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
 

Dear Minister

 

In accordance with section 25(3) of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and section 47(3) of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, I am pleased to present the reports of the reviews of both Acts.

 

The reports represent the consensus view of the Legislation Review Committee.

 

The Committee received 1035 written submission and heard personal presentations from 109 individuals. It also consulted with State and Territory Government representatives.

 

What resulted is the distillation of two reports totalling over 250 pages.

 

In June 2005, the Minister for Ageing, Julie Bishop, who has portfolio responsibility for human cloning and stem cell research, appointed a six-member Legislation Review Committee. The committee's membership is worth noting* and a number of their 54 recommendations are so striking that Nature has commented:

An Australian report on embryonic stem-cell law could pave the way for the creation of one of the world's most permissive research environments.

The government-commissioned report, which was released on 19 December, recommends relaxing the country's current ban on therapeutic cloning and establishing a national stem-cell bank. It also advises permitting the creation of cross-species chimaeras — where human somatic cells are fused with non-human eggs — for research and training.

The government-commissioned report, which was released on 19 December, recommends relaxing the country's current ban on therapeutic cloning and establishing a national stem-cell bank. It also advises permitting the creation of cross-species chimaeras — where human somatic cells are fused with non-human eggs — for research and training.

Australia's current laws, dating from 2002, were seen as an impediment to the field; some of the nation's leading researchers and biotechnology entrepreneurs have already moved elsewhere.

In the Committee's media release Mr Lockhart writes: [T]here was clearly overwhelming support from the general public and the medical and scientific communities for maintaining a strong regulatory framework to oversee work being conducted under the two Acts, including the maintenance of an effective system of licensing and monitoring, and continued:

The Committee has concluded that, based on its wide consultations, there is a need for an augmentation of the current system to allow research, within a rigorous ethical framework, into emerging scientific practices that will assist in the understanding of disease and disability.
 

The Committee believes that it is important for Australia to maintain its role as a leader in the advancement of high quality and ethically sound scientific research and medical practices. To this end, we support the continued use of both adult and embryonic stem cells under existing guidelines for research and do not recommend that any additional legislative restrictions be applied.
 

The Committee also acknowledged the importance of establishing a national stem cell bank in Australia, recommending that consideration be given to it being operated at the Australian Stem Cell Centre at Monash University in Melbourne.
 

The Committee heard strong arguments for reform on experimental fertilisation techniques to improve assisted reproductive technology treatment, and we have recommended increased regulatory flexibility to facilitate research in this important field.
 

On the contentious issue of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as therapeutic cloning, the Committee has given its support for SCNT and the creation and the use in research of certain other types of experimental embryos in the very early stage of their development and under strict ethical and scientific regulation.
 

The Committee agreed that the existing prohibitions in place to prevent reproductive cloning and the placement of prohibited embryos in the body of a woman should be maintained.

 

The reports are perhaps best summarised it the paragraph:

In framing the recommendations, the Committee considered that the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity. Conversely, where there is evident or possible harm, or where there is widespread and deeply held community objection, a total prohibition through the legal system may be justified. The Committee’s view is that it does not necessarily follow that even though some people think that an activity is unethical, it is necessary to make that activity illegal. Furthermore, the wider the range of ethical views on a particular activity, the weaker the case becomes for declaring that activity to be illegal, with all the attendant consequences of criminal conduct.

It is unlikely that the recommendations made as a result of critical consideration and thoughtful discussion will alter the views of those morally opposed to somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) or embryonic stem cell research under any circumstances. Therefore, just what will be the reaction of the federal parliamentarians in general and the cabinet in particular is problematic. However, it would be a brave individual who would bet on proactivity in the near term.

 


Committee members as described in the reports' first appendix.
 

The Hon John S Lockhart AO QC (Chair)
   
The Honourable John Lockhart is a highly regarded member of the international legal community. He was a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia from 1978 until 1999. He has been a member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland since 2002 and was appointed as the Deputy Chair of the International Legal Services Advisory Council in 2004. Mr Lockhart has highly relevant experience in chairing high level committees that deliberate on contentious issues.
 

Associate Professor Ian Kerridge (New South Wales)
   
Associate Professor Kerridge is a highly regarded clinical ethicist and specialist haematologist. He is Associate Professor in Bioethics and Director of the Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine at the University of Sydney and Staff Haematologist/Bone Marrow Transplant Physician at Westmead Hospital, Sydney. Associate Professor Kerridge has highly relevant skills and expertise demonstrated through his work and publications in the fields of health ethics.
 

Professor Barry Marshall (Western Australia)
    Professor Marshall is Research Professor of Microbiology at the University of Western Australia and also brings generalist scientific expertise in addition to his abilities in community representation. He is a highly awarded scientist of international renown who is also a successful community advocate both in Australia and overseas. He is a specialist gastroenterologist who is noted for his discovery of the link between the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers. Professor Marshall and a colleague won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this discovery.
 

Associate Professor Pamela McCombe (Queensland)
    Associate Professor McCombe is a Consultant Neurologist and a Visiting Medical Officer at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and holds the position of Associate Professor, Department of Medicine at the University of Queensland. She is Chair of the Wesley Research Institute Research Committee and Chair of the Scientific Program Committee of the Australian Association of Neurologists.
 

Professor Peter Schofield (New South Wales)
    Professor Schofield is a renowned neuroscientist. He is Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Senior Principal Research Fellow at the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Conjoint Professor at the Faculty of Science and Faculty of Medicine at the University of New South Wales. Professor Schofield’s skills and expertise are in a highly relevant scientific discipline to the review subject matter.
 

Professor Loane Skene (Victoria)
    Professor Skene is a renowned lawyer, ethicist and academic. She is Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Law in the Law Faculty and an Adjunct Professor of Law in the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Professor Skene has highly relevant skills and expertise demonstrated through her work and publications in the fields of health law and ethics.