Home - ACU (The Australian Catholic University)

Site Navigation

Summary of Positions - Therapeutic Cloning Forum

2 November 2006

Professor Frank Brennan SJ AO

This week the Australian Parliament will commence debate reconsidering its 2002 unanimous ban on therapeutic cloning. The Victorian government is a strong supporter of therapeutic cloning because much of the Australian research and development is likely to occur in Victoria.

The Australian Catholic University convened a public panel discussion on the issue on 2 November 2006 bringing together two leading medical scientists and two ethicists who disagree over the way forward on the issue of therapeutic cloning. All four happen to be Catholic.

There has been some tension this recently as senators have reflected on the role of religious thinking in such debates. Senator Kay Patterson responded testily to Bishop Anthony Fisher: "Dear me, I might be excommunicated! Anyway, I do not think I will be, because it is my choice, not the Church's choice, I suppose."

The debate in Australia is focused on the use of embryonic stem cells which are derived from human embryos. There is division in the scientific community about the utility of embryonic stem cells. It makes sense for scientists to pursue both research tracks (adult and embryo) if this can be done ethically and in accordance with accepted scientific standards.

Some scientists would like a relaxation of the universal ban on embryo cloning so that they could use somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). With this procedure, by way of example, they can take out the nucleus of a human or animal egg and implant the nucleus of an adult human skin cell. This produces an embryo.

In 2002, the majority of our politicians were supportive of experimentation on excess IVF embryos, but all who declared their position opposed the deliberate creation of human embryos only for destruction and experimentation.

The recent Lockhart review of the legislation favoured the creation of an embryo for experimentation and destruction, provided the embryo not be implanted and provided it not be permitted to thrive beyond 14 days.

Sir Gustav Nossal is a strong advocate for embryonic stem cell research. He says, "As a Catholic, I deeply value my nine years at a Jesuit school, and my career as a medical scientist has further deepened my respect and reverence for human life. Embedded in this value is the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to live as free from serious illness as medical science can ensure."

Sir Gustav thinks it is ethical and scientifically responsible now to permit SCNT. He says, "I cannot foretell which diseases will be cured, much less when, but it is deeply mischievous to close the door on a field that has shown so much progress in so short a time. I also find it curious that one group of people should seek to impose their views on another group of people who happen to disagree."

The other medical scientist on the panel, Professor John Martin, says: "Since the licensing system came into place in 2002, there have been no discoveries through this work, either in Australia or elsewhere, that could support arguments that there is an urgent need for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also often called 'therapeutic cloning'. Since this process involves the deliberate production of a human embryo to experiment on it, SCNT moves the ethical barrier to a much higher level. Many of those who accept the idea of experimentation on excess IVF embryos do not accept the deliberate production of embryos for research."

Martin is suspicious of the proposed 14 day limit on embryos created with SCNT. He has told the Senate Committee that "any research on embryos generated in this way for the study of disease would certainly require embryo development beyond 14 days".

If we permit the creation of human embryos only for experimentation and destruction up to 14 days, is there any coherent ethical reason for maintaining the 14 day limit once scientists decide that their research would be assisted by experimentation beyond 14 days?

Once we permit the creation of human embryos for experimentation and destruction, are we clearing the way for experimentation and destruction on pre-viable foetuses? If we permit the creation of SCNT embryos for destructive experimentation, should we also allow scientists to create embryos with sperm and ova for such experimentation? These are some of the ethical questions that confronted the panel. Though every participant in the public debate abhors reproductive cloning, some of the senators in the inquiry on the Lockhart recommendations have noted that "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.'"

One of the poignant moments in the Senate Committee hearings was the evidence of Paul Brock, a man now confined to a wheelchair with motor neurone disease. He is a strong advocate of embryonic stem cell research. Paul spent years teaching in Catholic schools when he was a Marist Brother. He comes from a strongly Catholic family, with siblings who are priests. He told the Senate Committee:

"Can you imagine looking my 90-year-old mum, my 43-year-old wife and our 15- and 11- year-old girls in the eye, and looking me in the eye—a bloke who 10 years ago was running around like a lunatic, playing golf, playing cricket, playing the piano and doing all the things in life—now reduced to two fingers that move a bit, a brain that works, a voice which obviously works too much, and telling us it is evil? I think you need to support this because it is the right thing to do."

Paul told the committee that he was not convinced by my analogy of the fire-fighter called to a house fire where a person with motor neurone disease is trapped. Next door is a petri dish with human embryos. There is time to enter only one room. The ethical fire-fighter will rescue the person. I had argued that this does not mean it is ethical to create human embryos only for the purpose of destructively experimenting on them in the hope of finding a cure for motor neurone disease.

The panel confronted the intellectual and emotional challenges of therapeutic cloning, contributing to an informed Catholic discussion of the issue.

You can watch the webcast from www.ils.acu.edu.au. Just follow the prompts.

  • Download the Podcast (259 Mb, MP4 format)
  • Subscribe to the Podcast by copying the following address into your podcast software (e.g iTunes) - http://my.acu.edu.au/videos/ILS_podcast.xml
    (for iTunes users, go to the "Advanced" menu and select "Subscribe to Podcast...", and then type the address)

Here, in summary, are the positions of each of the four panelists:

The Medical Scientists

(The summary of positions from the medical scientists is taken from their published opinion pieces prior to the forum.)

Sir Gustav Nossal

Cures, not clones, will flow from medical technologies

In the four years since the commonwealth legislated to allow embryonic stem cell research, Australian scientists have taken a huge leap forward and are at the forefront of this global endeavour. Knowledge in fields such as diabetes and diseases of the blood, heart, lung and breast has advanced, and the legislation has allowed improvements in in-vitro fertilisation technology, resulting in higher success rates. Embryonic stem cell research is rich in promise. It has already demonstrated its potential in the study of disease causation, in development of new diagnostic methods and in basic research. In the longer term, the possibility of new therapies for serious diseases is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years.

Australia's prominence in the field was the result of a conscience vote in the federal parliament in 2002. How can we ensure that our scientists stay in their leadership position? Stem cell science has advanced to the point where it is pushing against the boundaries of the existing legislation. It is time for the next step. This involves a marvellous new tool, validated in experimental animals, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which has become controversial because the first steps resemble those involved in cloning (for example, the sheep Dolly). No responsible scientist would contemplate cloning a human being, so why do we want SCNT?

In this technique, a single cell, for example a skin cell, is taken from a person, say a patient with a particular disease. A second cell, namely an egg cell, is obtained from an unrelated woman, usually as a spare egg from an IVF program. The egg's nucleus is removed and the nucleus of the skin cell inserted in its stead.

Then the egg is coaxed to divide and eventually embryonic stem cells genetically similar to the skin cell donor are developed. The first application of these methods would be to study the genesis of the disease in question and to test new pharmaceuticals as possible treatments.

When research has advanced to the stage where curing a disease by a stem cell transplant is possible (and I stress this is well into the future), SCNT could be used to ensure that the transplanted cells, genetically matched to the patient in question, would not be rejected by the immune system, thus removing a formidable obstacle.

Recognising that embryo research was a sensitive area, the commonwealth Government appointed former Federal Court judge John Lockhart to conduct a review and to make recommendations. His committee received more than 1000 submissions, met people of every shade of opinion on the science and ethics of human embryo research, and gave due consideration to societal values and the public good. Lockhart's committee consisted of distinguished and highly qualified Australians from the fields of science, law and ethics, including a Nobel laureate. Sadly, Lockhart died soon after his report was handed down. The report put forward 54 recommendations, including one permitting SCNT under strict conditions.

To the considerable surprise of the scientific community, this key element of the report appears to have been initially rejected by the federal cabinet, although Prime Minister John Howard has kept the door ajar by agreeing to an informed discussion in the Coalition partyroom next month. Tomorrow, the Lockhart report will be discussed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting.

Lockhart is not alone in his views. SCNT is allowed in 10 countries and the report's proposals closely mirror existing British legislation. The biggest concern of SCNT opponents is that scientists may use it for reproductive purposes. In fact, Australian scientists fundamentally oppose reproductive cloning. Moreover, the matter can and should be clearly and firmly addressed, with precise legislation and a rigorous licensing system.

Reproductive cloning is abhorrent and must be banned outright.

The situation has some similarities to the debate in the 1970s on IVF, again a field in which Australia was a pivotally important leader in research. In 2006, IVF is an accepted part of our lives, and this previous example demonstrates the virtue of an acceptable legislative framework to support emerging scientific technologies.

As a Catholic, I deeply value my nine years at a Jesuit school, and my career as a medical scientist has further deepened my respect and reverence for human life. Embedded in this value is the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to live as free from serious illness as medical science can ensure.

I do not know whether or when stem cell science will provide the breakthroughs we so earnestly hope for. I do know that the history of science shows that significant discoveries assiduously followed sooner or later provide practical benefits.

I am proud of Australia's achievements in medical research. Our scientists would bring to the study of SCNT cell lines the imagination and resourcefulness so characteristic of Australia's medical research. Australian legislators must now decide whether our scientists will be allowed to keep pace with the world's best or whether they will gradually fall behind. Here's hoping for a change of heart at the highest political level in the land.

Professor Jack Martin

ALTHOUGH I share the great enthusiasm for the successes of Australia's medical research, those achievements have been won within a framework of ethical constraint. In all of medicine and related research, when undertaking a certain procedure requires that ethical barriers be surmounted, the more formidable the barrier, the greater must be the benefit of the proposed work.

Preparation of the human embryo for research remains a significant ethical obstacle for a substantial portion of the community. Australian legislation is that, under licence and with the permission of parents, experimentation can be allowed on human embryos in excess from IVF programs.

Since the licensing system was introduced in 2002 there have been no discoveries through this work to support arguments of an urgent need for somatic cell nuclear transfer, often called "therapeutic cloning".

Since this process involves the deliberate production of a human embryo to experiment on it, somatic cell nuclear transfer moves the ethical barrier to a much higher level. Many of those who accept the idea of experimentation on excess IVF embryos do not accept the deliberate production of embryos for research. Some accept it because great benefits might come from it, either with specific new treatments or with better understanding of difficult diseases.

What is the evidence for any of these possibilities? There are no cell-based therapies for any disease that would warrant the preparation of human embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Proof of this as an approach has never been obtained from any experimental model of disease in animals. When claims of the benefits of embryonic stem cells are made, the list of diseases usually consists of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, muscular dystrophies, the replacement of dead heart muscle following heart attacks, of brain tissue following strokes, and the like.

For several of these conditions there are experimental models that can be studied in animals, but embryonic stem cells have never yet been shown in animal research to provide a cure sufficiently prolonged and free of complications to warrant human studies. To accept the urgency of work on human embryonic stem cells in the face of the ethical barrier, then at least one experimental example of safe, prolonged and substantially effective treatment better than any existing treatments should be provided.

It is argued that very valuable research into certain diseases could be carried out by preparing embryonic stem cells with somatic cell nuclear transfer, using nuclei from patients with those diseases. Again, proof of this has not been provided by appropriate animal experimentation, yet this could be done to establish the possibility.

It is difficult to support, or even understand, the basis of many of the recommendations on these matters in the Lockhart report, which is under government consideration. It recommended approval under controlled licensing conditions of development of human cell lines using somatic cell nuclear transfer. It also provided further recommendations that exceeded the "wish list" of those most fervently supporting human embryonic stem cell work, and contains many examples of faults in logic and principle. A remarkable argument in the report is that an embryo is not an embryo unless it is implanted in the uterus, that it is something quite different if it stays in the laboratory and is used for research. This is pure sophistry.

Another of its peculiar recommendations goes beyond what any other country has considered, in suggesting that human-animal hybrid embryos be produced for research and training purposes, putting human nuclei into animal eggs to overcome the great problem of the supply of human eggs from women volunteers.

There is a long way to go before a compelling argument can be made for developing human embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whatever the nature of the science it must be ethically justifiable. It is up to science to show that there would be real value in the manufacture of embryos for this purpose.

There has still been no proven success with human somatic cell nuclear transfer. Someone will probably succeed in doing this, and technical aspects of this require skills in the manipulative procedures of IVF, which are readily available among some Australian groups. This does not require great science; success will likely come with persistence and technical modifications applied to existing methods that have been shown to work with other animal species.

If and when it happens, the question will still need to be asked: is there a compelling reason to do this work? On present evidence there is none. If proof of concept can be provided through animal experimentation, perhaps a case for somatic cell nuclear transfer could be made more convincingly than it can be now, but only if we accept the questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means.

The Ethicists

Max Charlesworth:

My argument for allowing experimentation on embryonic stem cells is a very simple one. A human embryo is not 'created' ex nihilo by medical scientists in a laboratory, but it is brought into being by its biological parents using in vitro fertilisation or some other form of assisted reproduction technology. Again, embryos formed by somatic cell transfer are produced solely from a woman's ovum. It is then the biological parents, or the mother, who must make the decision whether or not medical scientists should be allowed to conduct approved or licensed experimentation on the embryo that they, the parents, have brought into being. (In Australia any experimentation on human embryos must be licensed by the National Health and Medical Research Council's Embryo Licensing Committee.)

Under Australian laws women and men must give their informed consent to any medical or scientific procedure involving their gametes (i.e. their ova and sperm) and, as I have said, it is the biological parents who must make a decision of conscience for themselves as to whether they should allow , or not allow, experimentation on their embryos. This is not a decision to be made by medical scientists and it is certainly not a decision to be made by politicians or by Church authorities.

In a sense, the issues about embryonic stem cells are much the same as the issues about the abortion drug RU 486. In the parliamentary debate on RU 486 in 2006 it was resolved by our politicians that the use of the drug was a matter for the woman, advised by her doctor, to decide and that it should not be prohibited by the law. I believe that the same approach should be taken to experimentation on embryonic stem cells. .

However, it must be said that in some cases, current scientific practices deny women's rights to effectively control what is done with their embryos when, for example, cell lines are developed from tissue taken from them and commercially marketed. For that reason it is important that a woman be given sufficient information by researchers so that she can give genuinely informed consent. Again, it is important that any commercial trading in either ova or sperm should be outlawed so that the primary role of the biological parents of embryos to control how they are used is recognised. As an American bioethicist has put it: 'Guidelines and standards are called for to ensure that donors of embryos are not coerced or pressured into creating extra embryos for stem cell research at the time of treatment; are not coerced or pressured into donating extra embryos at the end of treatment, and have the opportunity to give adequately informed consent both to the creation ad donation of extra embryos'. (I understand that Senators Stott Despoja and Patterson have addressed these concerns in their draft legislation.) Two recent Australian surveys of patient attitudes to donation of embryos for research involving stem cells or the improvement of IVF techniques have shown that a majority of patients are in favour of such research. They also show that patients want specific information about the research proposed and that lack of control of the research was a major concern for couples.

If it is a matter of conscience for the biological parents of an embryo, and particularly for the mother, to decide whether or not the embryo should be donated for research purposes, this requires, of course, a basic knowledge of the development of the human embryo. If you believe that the human embryo is a human person from the moment of its conception, then you won't donate your embryo for research. That would be tantamount to committing infanticide! But if you believe that the fertilised ovum and early stage embryo is not a human person, then you might well donate the embryo for research that may help other infertile people or those with severe genetic disorders. Couples using IVF obviously don't believe that the embryo in its early stages of development is a human person because they have to be willing to allow 'excess' or surplus embryos to succumb.

The present official position of the Catholic Church is, of course, that the human embryo is a human person that deserves absolute respect from the moment of conception, though there is also significant support for this view from evangelical fundamentalists, as is evident from the recent move by President George W. Bush to refuse federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. However, I believe, along with many other Catholics, that the present official Catholic position is scientifically and philosophically untenable and that we need to return to what was the traditional, 1600 years old, Catholic position ( from St Augustine onwards) that the embryo becomes a human person only when it has reached an advanced state of development with the appearance of a rudimentary brain and nervous system. It is only then that we can speak of the beginnings of the conscious self (or 'soul') with a potentiality for self-awareness and self determination, and give it unconditional respect.

This long tradition of Catholic thinking about the human embryo was abandoned by Pius 1X in 1869 when the present doctrine came into favor. Vigorously reinforced by John Paul 11, the view that an embryo is a person deserving of absolute respect from the moment of conception aligns the Catholic Church with evangelical fundamentalists who dismiss scientific evidence about the development of the embryo and see the conception of the embryo as a quasi-miraculous event which involves divine intervention. The sole argument that John Paul 11 provides for his position is that the embryo would never become human if it were not human already. But this begs the question because, while the early human embryo is no doubt biologically human, it is entirely another question as to whether it is a human person with the potentiality for consciousness and self-awareness and self-determination

A I have said, a number of eminent theologians - Karl Rahner, S.J., Richard McCormick S.J., Joseph Donceel O.P, the American feminist theologian Margaret Farley and many others- have dissented from the position of Pius 1X and John Paul 11 and have called for a reassessment of the question of the moral status of the human embryo in the light of scientific findings about embryonic development. Again, many Catholics have, so to speak, voted with their feet in that they have opted for IVF treatment. Most young Catholic women I know who are on IVF programs don't see in vitro fertilisation as violating the intrinsic meaning of the sexual act, and they certainly don't see their IVF children as 'commodities'. Nor do they see their unimplanted embryos as 'unborn children'. On donating embryos for research, I suspect that the attitude of many Catholic couples is much the same as their attitude to IVF: that is, they see the donation of their embryos for research as a matter of conscience which they, and only they, have to make their own informed decision about.

Associate Professor Bernadette Tobin:

  1. What are the facts?

    I have nothing to add about the scientific facts, except this. Even if those who say 'we need to do both kinds of research, on embryonic and adult stem cells' are on the therapeutic money, we still have to ask: 'And what do our established ethical principles, common morality, imply for each kind of research?' In particular: Should research on human embryos, freshly-minted or in excess, be classed as the deliberation destruction of innocent human life that common morality prohibits.

    Here there is ethical disagreement, disagreement about what this established prohibition prohibits, about its proper scope and proper application. So for example, there are ethical disagreements about whether the entities created by processes other than fertilization are human life in an ethically-relevant sense: they are certainly human, but not yet individuals, so there is room for different views here. And there is ethical disagreement about whether human embryos should be thought of as 'innocent' in the relevant sense: that customarily applies to non-aggressors, so once again there is room for disagreement.

    But note these are ethical disagreements, to be resolved by doing the difficult ethical thinking, not by a Lockhartian survey of people's opinions on these matters, not by the urging of scientists, particularly those who are prepared to exploit the legitimate hopes of patient groups for projects about which they are merely curious and/or from which they will themselves benefit, and not by the spin-doctoring with contrasts 'bright new world' scientists out to cure disease with conservative Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.

  2. What's right?

    I'll take this as an ethical question. Established ethical principles are not limited to prohibitions: they include requirements. One such requirement is that we look to the likely consequences of a proposed act or policy. Consequences aren't all that matter, but it would often be irresponsible to ignore them. So responsible parliamentarians need to consider the likely consequences of the proposal in front of them. Here's my prediction.

    Four years ago the parliament was told: permit research on embryos left over from IVF for they are just going to waste, but draw the line at two other things: prohibit creation of human embryos for research purposes (so called 'therapeutic cloning'), and prohibit creation of human embryos by means other than fertilization of sperm and egg for reproductive reasons (so called 'reproductive cloning').

    Today, the parliament is told. Notice that in fact we already permit the creation and destruction of human embryos for the purpose of helping people have families (since it is normal practice in IVF to create more embryos than are going to be implanted). Surely it's unfair to ban their creation and destruction to help people with other medical problems. That privileges infertility over other problems. So move the legislative line down a bit. Permit the creation and destruction of embryos not just to overcome infertility but to overcome medical problems quite generally.

    In another four years, I predict, the parliament will be told. Well, we permit the creation and destruction of embryos to help people who have medical problems including problems with infertility. But some people still can't overcome their infertility problems. Surely it's unfair to prohibit them from using modern techniques of embryo formation to have a family. That privileges one response to infertility over another; it privileges one way of creating embryos over another. So move the legislative line down a bit further. Permit the creation of embryos by SCNT and simply regulate so called 'reproductive cloning' according to that famous ethical device: 'strict ethical guidelines'. (And, by the way, the bioethical literature is replete with model regulatory frameworks how to do that: there's the 'adoption' model, the 'commitment to rear' model and most recently 'the lives not worth living' model.

    Of course, proponents of next week's Bill will protest: we are not proposing that it be legal to create and destroy any embryo for research, but only those not formed by fertilization of sperm and egg, only those created by somatic cell nuclear transfer or some other technique. They will says that they follow Lockhart in making the following distinction: embryos produced by fertilization are entities of some moral significance because of their association with the start of human life; embryos produced by other means have a different moral significance, less it is implied, because of their potential for research to develop treatments for medical conditions. Notice that here Lockhart departs from common morality. Common morality has an inherentist view of the significance of the human embryo, however it is formed: its significance is a matter of what it is in itself. Lockhart takes a non-inherentist view: its significance depends on what attitude others happen to take towards it. On the inherentist view, you have to do the hard ethical thinking. On the non-inherentist view, you can just do surveys of what people think.

  3. What should our politicians do?

    They should ask why it is that the sponsor of next week's Bill could have said in the Parliament four year ago: 'I strongly believe that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research...' and today tell us that she just changed her mind.

    They should explain how they can solemnly, even piously, say 'thus far and no further' each time they shift the goal posts.

    They should recognize that there is no morally relevant difference between an embryo produced by fertilization and one produced by other means: inherently they both the kind of entity from which each of us began.

    They should reject the Patterson Bill proposal to permit the creation of human-animal hybrids.

    They should reject its proposal to permit the creation of human embryos with multiple genetic origins.

    And they should do something about the one morally-relevant difference between 2002 and 2006: the revelations about scientific fraud and misconduct among stem cell researchers in Korea. Our Parliament should ensure that, whatever Bill it enacts, it requires the NHMRC to establish some arrangement for ethical oversight of work on embryonic stem cells, and on the embryonic stem cells lines derived from them, which is conducted here in Australia, ethical oversight that is independent of the researchers who stand to benefit, directly and personally, from that research.