Stem Cell Debate Needs Positive Proof

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren have joined the ranks of the Nobel laureates for their work on fighting stomach ulcers, being recognised for more than 20 years' work trying to track down the cause of common and crippling ulcers.

The scientists have saved the federal health budget an estimated $200 million a year and the research was done without fundings. This is a sobering experience as federal Parliament prepares to embark on a new debate about scientific research, medical cures, political lobbying and taxpayer-funded grants.

In 2002 there's been lot of debating on allowing embryonic stem cell research and cloning. The debate became bitter, personalised and ultimately did a disservice to parliament, science, taxpayers and, most regrettably, to those suffering debilitating and terminal conditions. The results were that limited embryonic stem cell research was allowed and cloning was unanimously opposed.

Australia bans creating human embryos to harvest stem cells but scientists may use embryos left over from IVF (in-vitro fertility) treatment. Stems cells harvested through other means, such as from the nose, is legal.

Now there is a review by former Federal Court judge John Lockhart under way into embryonic stem cell research, and cloning is likely to trigger a legislative debate. Prime Minister John Howard, who supported the use of excess embryos from IVF programs for embryonic stem cell research, said: "It is also my very strong belief that human embryos should not be created for any purpose other than IVF treatment."

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and the Victorian and ACT governments are opsing the arguments for cloning. Macfarlane explained: "I hope there will be a cooling of heads on both sides of the debate, with more people listening to the alternative argument. It would be naive to think Australia's opposition to this new science could stop or slow its global development. We're just dealing ourselves out of the chance to scrutinise the field and snuffing out the light of a happier, healthier life for generations to come."

Macfarlane's Liberal colleague, Christopher Pyne, who opposed embryonic stem cell research in favour of adult stem cell research, is not surprised parliament is reconsidering the arguments though. He beleives that once we crossed the ethical line on the treatment of human beings we were betraying our credentials as a civilised society and would soon face demands for cloning.

The Nationals' Senate leader Ron Boswell also responded to Macfarlane's arguments with a simple question: "Where are the promised cures?", pointing that "we are not even close to the promised cures from embryo research." He is not against stem cell research, but supports research using adult stem cells, which do not require the destruction of embryos.

It is known from the previous debate on embryonic stem cell research that emotional blackmail, false hopes, lies to MPs about science and the lack of disclosure about shareholdings occurred on the unemotional, scientific side last time.

The president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Robert Winston, warned last month that it is "unlikely that embryonic stem cells are likely to be useful in healthcare for a long time".

Further he explained: "I was concerned that parliamentarians ... have been convinced that it was just a ... few years before we would be able to transplant stem cells and cure a lot of neurological disorders, like Alzheimer's disease, which I think is going to be a hugely difficult problem and probably completely insoluble by stem cells."

Stem cell debate calls for cool heads