Senate committee divided on stem cells

The outcome of a Senate committee inquiry into proposed embryonic human stem cell research legislation suggests it may require extensive surgery to pass a Senate vote.

Unusually, no conclusions or recommendations were filed by Liberal Senator Susan Knowles, who chaired the Senate Community Affairs Committee examining the Research Involving Embryos 2002 Bill.

Her report, filed after the committee considered input from more than 1000 witnesses and submissions, contented itself with outlining the issues.

The lack of any clear guidance for senators who shortly will be casting conscience votes on the legislation which has already cleared the House of Representatives, reflects the controversy which has surrounded the legislation since its inception.

But seven of the 12 committee members issued a commentary which effectively stated their belief that ethical problems in the current bill may outweigh its scientific benefits.

The group concluded that flaws in the arguments of the bill's proponents "amount to a failure to justify the need for the legislation with respect to destructive embryo research, and a failure to make the case for the ethically-questionable destruction of human embryos."

Cross-party signatories of the commentary were: Liberal Senators Guy Barnett and Bill Heffernan, Labor Senators Stephen Hutchins, Senator Mark Bishop and Jacinta Collins, National Party Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Brian Harradine (Independent).

They said that considering embryonic stem cells are "still a long way off being used in the production of therapies, and that there are adequate stem cell lines to continue research and establish proof of principle, it is unclear why access is now being sought to excess IVF embryos."

Another committee grouping, consisting of Senators Natasha Stott Despoja, Jan McLucas and Ruth Webber, issued a supplementary report supporting the legislation as it stands and recommending passage of the Bill.

Common ground between the two groups was agreement that continued scientific research on embryonic stem cell lines is desirable. However, the anti-Bill group concluded surplus human embryos should not be exploited in destructive research because "no persuasive argument has been put forward that justifies the destruction of human life.'

The group had no problem with research continuing on pre-existing human embryonic stem cells lines and noted such research is not dependent upon the Bill being enacted.

Chief among their suggested amendments to the Bill were:

• A limit on the number of embryos required for particular research be made a requirement of the NHMRC's licensing committee.
• Legislated restrictions on the scope of permissible research rather than leaving it to the discretion of the NHMRC.
• The imposition of an automatic NHMRC licence revocation for offences.
• Regular assessment of outcomes of research conducted under the Bill.

The result of the committee's inquiry was "a tremendous boost for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research," according to Barnett.

"It sets out the evidence to support the view we can avoid the ethical dilemmas [around ES cell research] whilst at the same time deriving the scientific benefits of research into adult stem cells," he said.

But Barnett said it would be dangerous to draw from the committee results any conclusions about the direction of the upcoming Senate vote on the issue.

The Bill is scheduled to be introduced in the Senate on November 11 for debate. Following a further committee phase, it is expected to come to a vote in December.