Stem cell review committee meets in Sydney

The independent committee appointed to review federal laws restricting stem cell research in Australia met for the first time yesterday, in Sydney.

Since the partial ban lapsed on April 5 this years, researchers have been free to apply to the National Health and Medical Research Council to create new embryonic stem cell lines from post-2002 IVF surplus embryos.

But amid continuing controversy over the use of human embryos in research, besieged researchers have been in no haste to show their heads above the parapet since the sunset clause expired.

The committee's media officer, Kay McNiece, said the National Health and Medical Research Council had received no new applications since April 5. Technically they could obtain permission to do so from the NHMRC before the review presents its findings in December.

The six-person committee was appointed last month by the federal minister responsible for stem cell research, Julie Bishop.

It is headed by a retired Federal Court judge, John Lockhard, and will review the two relevant Commonwealth Acts: the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The committee is due to report to Parliament by the end of December.

The other members are Assoc Prof Ian Kerridge, a clinical ethicist, Prof Barry Marshall, a specialist gastroenterologist and community advocate, Prof Loane Skene, a lawyer and ethicist, Prof Peter Schofield, a neuroscientist, and Assoc Prof Pamela McCombe, a clinical neurologist.

Some of the religious opponents of any change in the current legislation have already taken to the trenches -- the Catholic Church has already stated that will not accept any further relaxation in the laws that currently forbid cloning of human embryos.

The Australian newspaper today quoted Lockhart today as saying he is prepared for "a torrent of strongly worded submissions".

Prof Martin Pera, director of embryonic stem cell research at Monash University and the National Stem Cell Research Centre, said the stem cell research community would be seeking two results.

"We want to be able to move forward with using embryos in research -- we want to at least maintain the position under the current legislation," he said.

"And now is the time to very carefully review the current prohibition on the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Things have moved on considerably since the first debate, and there are sound reasons for pursuing SCNT. There needs to be a thorough and balanced discussion.

"We hope that the community will understand the distinction between human cloning and creating ES lines by SCNT for research."

Pera said he assumed the view of religious opponents would be that the cellular entities developed by SCNT are human embryos.

"I don't think they'll ever shift from that view, and we have to respect it, but it's not a question that can be addressed in scientific terms, it's a matter of philosophy," he said. "We'll point out, as we have in the past, that the community, in accepting procedures like IVF, therapeutic termination of pregnancy and many forms of contraception, has already made the decision that a pre-implantation embryo is not a child."