Research cloning down under
Posted by Jesse Reynolds December 7, 2006
Biopolitical Times
Both houses of Australia's parliament recently voted to lift that country's moratorium on creating cloned embryos for stem cell research. The Senate approved the change 34 to 32 on November 7, and the House of Representatives did so by 82 to 62 yesterday.
Some background: A few years ago, parliament affirmed the legality of human embryonic stem cell research while banning cloning for both research and reproductive purposes. But there was an agreement to revisit the ban on research cloning after three years. This year, a special committee reviewed the ban, and recommended that it be lifted. Prime Minister John Howard initially rejected its recommendation, but after protest allowed a rare "conscience vote," in which MPs can vote individually and need not follow the party line.
What has struck me most is that the rhetoric has been less polarized and exaggerated than during similar public debates here in the US, such as the recent initiative in Missouri. Sure, there was some talk of curing Alzheimer's and the imperative of protecting nascent life. But the debate seemed more focused on balancing the potential benefits of this research opportunities with a range of qualms and concerns. How to acquire the human eggs needed for this research was part of debate, and there are plans to establish regulation and a licensing system. And the media described the process more accurately, as "cloning human embryos for stem cell research" - not stimulating an egg whose nuclear material has been replaced, so it begins dividing, for "early stem cell research."
Several MPs even openly spoke of the difficulty of their vote. For example, Lindsay Tanner, a Labour Senator who voted to lift the ban, said:
As before, the Australian policy will be reviewed in another three years.
Some background: A few years ago, parliament affirmed the legality of human embryonic stem cell research while banning cloning for both research and reproductive purposes. But there was an agreement to revisit the ban on research cloning after three years. This year, a special committee reviewed the ban, and recommended that it be lifted. Prime Minister John Howard initially rejected its recommendation, but after protest allowed a rare "conscience vote," in which MPs can vote individually and need not follow the party line.
What has struck me most is that the rhetoric has been less polarized and exaggerated than during similar public debates here in the US, such as the recent initiative in Missouri. Sure, there was some talk of curing Alzheimer's and the imperative of protecting nascent life. But the debate seemed more focused on balancing the potential benefits of this research opportunities with a range of qualms and concerns. How to acquire the human eggs needed for this research was part of debate, and there are plans to establish regulation and a licensing system. And the media described the process more accurately, as "cloning human embryos for stem cell research" - not stimulating an egg whose nuclear material has been replaced, so it begins dividing, for "early stem cell research."
Several MPs even openly spoke of the difficulty of their vote. For example, Lindsay Tanner, a Labour Senator who voted to lift the ban, said:
We are as a society gradually acquiring the ability to change the nature of what it means to be human. Because of scientific and technological advances we are gradually getting into a position where we can recreate ourselves as a species, and the implications of that are absolutely profound. At some point we may cross a moral boundary where we will in effect re-engineer what human life is... I fear that we are getting close to that point.Unfortunately, I can't imagine an American Senator voicing such concerns in the current climate. Hopefully that will change.
As before, the Australian policy will be reviewed in another three years.
.jpg){kind=link}