Researchers gear up for stem cell review process

Individuals and groups opposed to stem cell research have dominated submissions to the Lockhart Legislative Review of Australia's stem cell legislation.

The review, headed by former Federal Court Judge John Lockhart, has received more than 200 submissions opposing any change to national legislation that currently bans research into human cloning, and imposes rigid conditions on research into somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or so-called therapeutic cloning.

Among the few scientific organisations to have made submissions are the Australian Academy of Science and the Coalition of Medical Research Australia (CAMRA).

But Michelle Singe, director of the Australian Stem Cell Centre in Clayton, Victoria, said she knew of about eight submissions being prepared by research agencies and associations, including her own centre, and the biotechnology industry body AusBiotech.

Dr Bronwyn Kingwell, president of the Australian Society for Medical Research, said her society would be presenting a submission to the independent review.

"A lot of our submission is devoted to clearly defining the differences between reproductive and therapeutic cloning," Kingwell said. "There are a lot of misconceptions, and many organisations opposed to reproductive and therapeutic cloning do not really understand the difference between them."

Singe said the Australian Stem Cell Centre had not canvassed research institutions or associations to support changes that would allow research into therapeutic cloning in Australia. She said she was unsurprised at the volume of submissions from opponents of any relaxation the current legislation, and confident that the Lockhart review would attach due weight to the expert views of researchers working in the field. "I know that a lot of institutions, like ours, hope that therapeutic cloning gets up," she said.

Therapeutic cloning involves transferring a nucleus of a somatic cell taken from a patient and using it to replace the haploid nucleus of an evacuated oocyte, or egg cell. The egg cell is then induced to divide and differentiate, forming embryonic stem cells carrying the patient's own genetic blueprint -- because they are identical genetically to the recipient's own cells, they can differentiate into new tissues or organs without inducing a host-versus graft rejection reaction.

Singe said she expected that most submissions from research agencies would be broadly similar, and supportive of lifting the current restrictions on therapeutic cloning.

"There are really good arguments for allowing research into somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and a good chance that it will be legislated," she said. "When we consider how much research into SCNT is going on in other countries, like the UK, Japan, Korea and the US, we'd be left out on a limb of the new legislation does not allow therapeutic cloning research."

Singe said there was a misconception among those who opposed any relaxation of the current legislation that therapeutic cloning was currently banned in the US. "Although the Bush administration has banned research in federally funded institutions, states like California, Wisconsin and Massachusetts still allow it, and others are looking at it positively."

The Lockhart review committee goes on the road from tomorrow for a series of public consultations: Adelaide (September 1), Canberra (September 5-6), Sydney (September 8-9), Brisbane (September 19-20) Melbourne (September 29-30), Hobart (October 7), Perth (October 21) and Darwin (October 31). Committee members will also meet with government representatives, and visit relevant IVF and stem cell research facilities.

The deadline for submissions to the Lockhart review is September 9. More information: www.lockhartreview.com.au