Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text (IE only).

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking the graphic at right.

Age and Australian items
To list all Echo-indexed items on this topic for 2002, click the graphic at right

Sydney Morning Herald items
To list items indexed by the NSW State Library's Infoquick, click the graphic at right

Should stem cells be taken from 'spare' human embryos for use in medical research?

What they said ...
'We just cannot get comfortable with the idea that the sanctity of innocent human life, certainly at its most elementary and vulnerable, can be qualified for the convenience of others'
Herald Sun commentator, Michael Barnard

'These scientists are the only gods and we should all step back and let them produce their miracles'
Kate Riethof, whose paralysed 17-year-old brother hopes to be cured as a result of embryonic stem cell research

The issue at a glance
On September 25, 2002, Prime Minster John Howard's bill to allow research on 'spare' human embryos was passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate.
The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 began to be debated in the Senate in October and is not expected to become law, if indeed that is the result of its passage through the Senate and then probable return to the House of Representatives, until into 2003.
On the bill's first passage through the House of Representatives, members of Parliament voted 99 to 33 in favour of using 'spare' human embryos for stem cell research. The issue had been debated over 35 hours during preceding weeks.
Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have allowed their members a conscience vote on the issue. It remains one that divides parliamentarians, medical researchers, ethicists and members of the general community.

Background
April 5, 2002, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a set of guidelines that would determine how Australia's research using human embryos would be conducted.
The most significant element in these guidelines is that they represented a shift in the position adopted by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. Mr Howard had previously opposed stem cells being harvested from 'spare' embryos created as part of the IVF process. Over the weeks prior to April 5th the Prime Minister changed his mind and decided this harvesting would be permitted under the proposed guidelines. However, only currently existing embryos would be allowed to be used for this purpose.
It is these guidelines that were passed by the House of Representatives on September 25.

a) Proposed guidelines for determining how research involving human embryos will be conducted
Human cloning, therapeutic or reproductive, is to be banned.
Embryonic stem cell research using cells derived from surplus IVF embryos will be allowed when
i) the owners of the embryos give their approval,
ii) research is conducted only on existing embryos.
There is to be a bam on the creation of embryos for research.
Embryonic stem cell research is to be overseen by the National health and Medical Research Council.
These stem cell research guidelines will be reviewed in three years.

b) What are stem cells?
Most human cells are differentiated. This means they are of a specific type and have a specific function. What makes stem cells so important is that they are either undifferentiated or are far less differentiated than the majority of cells. This means, that depending on the type of stem cell they are, they can either develop into one of many types of cell or, if more restricted, into a narrower variety of cells. Stem cells that have the potential to develop into one of many cells are called pluripotent. Those that can develop into one of a narrower variety of cells are called multipotent.

c) What makes stem cells potentially important in the treatment of disease and injury?
i) Probably the most far-reaching potential application of human pluripotent stem cells is the generation of cells and tissue that could be used for so-called "cell therapies."
Many diseases and disorders result from disruption of cellular function or destruction of tissues of the body. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue. Unfortunately, the number of people suffering from these disorders far outstrips the number of organs available for transplantation.
Pluripotent stem cells, stimulated to develop into specialised cells, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat many diseases and disabilities, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

ii) Pluripotent stem cells could also help scientists understand the complex events that occur during human development. A major goal of this work would be to study the cellular decision-making process that results in cell specialisation. Turning genes on and off is central to this process, but not much is known about these "decision-making" genes or what turns them on or off.
Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell specialisation and cell division. A better understanding of normal cell processes could allow medical scientists to better understand the fundamental errors that cause these often-deadly illnesses.

iii) Human pluripotent stem cell research could also change the way drugs are developed and tested. For example, new medications could be initially tested using human cell lines. This would not replace testing in whole animals and testing in human beings, but it would streamline the process of drug development. Only the drugs that are both safe and appear to have a beneficial effect in cell line testing would graduate to further testing in laboratory animals and human subjects.

d) Where are stem cells found in human development?
i) Embryonic stem cells
Human development begins when a sperm fertilises an egg and creates a single cell that has the potential to form an entire organism. This fertilized egg is totipotent, meaning that its potential is total.
Approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, these totipotent cells begin to specialize, forming a hollow sphere of cells, called a blastocyst. The blastocyst has an outer layer of cells and inside the hollow sphere there is a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass.
The outer layer of cells will go on to form the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development in the uterus. The inner cell mass cells will go on to form virtually all of the tissues of the human body. Although the inner cell mass cells can form virtually every type of cell found in the human body, they cannot form an organism because they are unable to give rise to the placenta and supporting tissues necessary for development in the human uterus.
These inner cell mass cells are pluripotent embryonic stem cells, that is, they can give rise to many types of cells but not all types of cells necessary for foetal development.
The pluripotent stem cells undergo further specialization into stem cells that are committed to give rise to cells that have a particular function. Examples of this include blood stem cells that give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets; and skin stem cells that give rise to the various types of skin cells. These more specialised stem cells are called multipotent embryonic stem cells.

ii) Adult stem cells
While stem cells are formed during early human development, multipotent stem cells are also found in children and adults, for example, the blood stem cell. Blood stem cells reside in the bone marrow of every child and adult, and in fact, they can be found in very small numbers circulating in the blood stream. Blood stem cells perform the critical role of continually replenishing our supply of blood cells - red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets - throughout life. A person cannot survive without blood stem cells.
Multipotent stem cells have not been found for all types of adult tissue, but discoveries in this area of research are increasing. For example, until recently, it was thought that stem cells were not present in the adult nervous system, but, in recent years, neuronal stem cells have been isolated from the rat and mouse nervous systems. The experience in humans is more limited. In humans, neuronal stem cells have been isolated from foetal tissue and a kind of cell that may be a neuronal stem cell has been isolated from adult brain tissue that was surgically removed for the treatment of epilepsy.
Until recently, there was little evidence in mammals that multipotent cells such as blood stem cells could change course and produce skin cells, liver cells or any cell other than a specific type of blood cell; however, research in animals is leading scientists to question this view.
In animals, it has been shown that some adult stem cells previously thought to be committed to the development of one line of specialised cells are able to develop into other types of specialised cells. For example, recent experiments in mice suggest that when neural stem cells were placed into the bone marrow, they appeared to produce a variety of blood cell types.

e) Where are pluripotent embryonic stem cells harvested?
i) 'Spare' IVF embryos
Pluripotent stem cells are isolated directly from the inner cell mass of human embryos at the blastocyst stage.
The embryos used for this purpose are usually those produced for invitro-fertilisation but not implanted in the mother's uterus.
Extra embryos are produced in case the family want later children or the first implantation does not result in a successful pregnancy. These 'spare' embryos are frozen until they are required.
In many jurisdictions, including Victoria, if the 'spare' embryos are not implanted after a specified period they must be destroyed.
To create human embryonic stem cells for research, some of the 'spare' embryo's blastocyst cells are isolated, harvested and allowed to grow in a separate dish. To turn them into long-lasting stem cell lines, the cells are fed special growth factors.
The embryo is destroyed in the process.

ii) Aborted embryos
In some countries stem cells have been harvested from aborted embryos. Using this source of embryonic stem cells does not appear to have been proposed in Australia.

iii) Therapeutic cloning.
Another potential source of embryonic stem cells would be through therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the creation of a clone for treatment purposes, where there is no intention that the clone will ever reach maturity. This is distinguished from reproductive cloning where a clone is produced and allowed to survive to maturity.
In cloning studies with animals, the nucleus has been removed from an egg cell and then replaced with the nucleus from a somatic cell (a cell of the body which is not a sperm or egg cell) taken from another animal of the same species. The resulting fused cell has the potential to develop into an entire animal with the same genotype as the animal from which the somatic cell was taken. The clone develops to form a blastocyst from which embryonic stem cells can be harvested.
This method of creating stem cells has been suggested as a way of overcoming the problems of tissue rejection. If the stem cells were used to treat the animal or human from which the somatic cell had been taken there should be no rejection of the transplanted cells as they would have the same genotype.

f) The current legal situation in Australia
Human reproductive cloning is banned nationally under the federal Gene Technology Act. However, there are no federal laws governing other aspects of embryonic research.
National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines allow accessing spare IVF embryos under strict conditions.
All research that destroys human embryos is banned under state laws in Victoria. South Australia and Western Australia have recently liberalised their laws to remove such a ban. There is no relevant legislation in the other Australian states and territories.

Internet information
Perhaps the most comprehensive Internet source of information on this issue are the submissions received by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee as part of its Inquiry into research involving embryos and prohibition of human cloning bill 2002.
The index for these submissions can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/emb_cloning/submissions/sublist.htm
This is an extremely valuable set of documents giving detailed information and argument from both sides of the debate. Three submissions taken from this source have been listed next as an indication of the quality of the material.
On August 29, 2002, the National Health and Medical Research Council made a submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee re the Research involving embryos and prohibition of human cloning bill 2002.
The Council's submission supports the bill, however, its primary purpose is not to present argument so much as background information on the genesis of the bill and the current state of regulation in Australia re research involving embryos.
The Council's submission can be found at
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/emb_cloning/submissions/sub23.doc

On September 3, 2002, bioethicists and consultant, Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, made a submission by invitation to Senate Community Affairs References Committee.
Dr Tonti-Filippini is a staunch critic of the Research involving embryos and prohibition of human cloning bill 2002. His submission is virtually a clause-by-clause critique of the bill.
This submission can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/emb_cloning/submissions/sub86.doc

On September 10, 2002, the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, Centre for Early Human Development, made a submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee re the Research involving embryos and prohibition of human cloning bill 2002.
This submission strongly supports the bill, stressing the argument that the embryos to be used for research are already destined for destruction.
The submission can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/emb_cloning/submissions/sub477.doc

The full Report on Provisions of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 prepared by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/emb_cloning/report/index.htm
This report gives background information, an overview of the scientific aspects of the question and a wide-ranging consideration of the ethical issues involved.
It gives a detailed discussion of each provision of the proposed bill and considers the situation re embryonic stem cell research in a number of other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

Another valuable source of information about the stem cell debate in Australia is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on 'Human Cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research'
This is a fine source giving detailed technical information as well as canvassing the full range of positions on the various issues raised.
At 267 pages it is a lengthy report, however it is clearly indexed and the reader is easily able to refer only to areas of particular interest.
The Australian House of Representatives committee recommended a ban on human reproductive cloning but voted in favour of wide-ranging research on stem cells, although with a three-year moratorium on the creation of cloned human embryos for therapeutic use.
This report is presented as a PDF file and requires Adobe Acrobat reader.
The report, also known as the Andrew's report for its chairman, Dr Kevin Andrews, the federal Minister for Aging, can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/humancloning/report.pdf

On April 11, 2002, ABC TV's Science program, Catalyst, devoted an edition to Stem Cells. A full transcript of the program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s528800.htm#transcript
The program includes comments from Professor Alan Trounson and Dr Peter Mountford. It considers both the advantages and the disadvantages of embryonic and adult stem cell therapy.

The ABC Science Lab feature pages have a detailed report on stem cells. Though it has a bias in favour of researching and using embryonic stem cells it is clear and detailed. It has a number of useful diagrams and gives a summary of the state of the debate in both Great Britain and the United States.
It is titled 'Cloning around with stem cells' and can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/stemcells/default.htm

The US Department of Health and Human Services' National Institute of Health has produced a detailed explanatory primary giving detailed information about stem cells, the sources from which they can be derived and the uses to which they can be put.
The source is titled 'Stem Cells: A Primer'. The rather enthusiastic language in which the 'primer' is written suggests a bias in favour of the use of embryonic stem cells. This primer is the source of much of the information presented in the background section of this issue outline, though the language in which the information is presented has been appropriately modified.
The primer can be found at http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm

Do No Harm; The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics is a national coalition of researchers, health care professionals, bioethicists, legal professionals, and others dedicated to the promotion of scientific research and health care that does no harm to human life. The Coalition has a section of its website that presents articles either arguing against the use of embryonic stem cells or arguing in favour of the use of adult stem cells. An index of these articles can be found at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Arguments in favour of stem cells being taken from 'spare' human embryos for use in medical research
1. Australian law has already gives little or no legal protection to embryonic life
It has been noted that Australian law currently allows unused embryos created within an IVF program to be destroyed. Different state laws also allow for abortion under certain circumstances. Supporters of the use of 'spare' embryos for research purposes note that it is irrational to extend legal protection to embryos that the law already allows to be destroyed.
Professor Peter Doherty has stated, 'It is a question of whether society wants to go along with a minority of opinion which would say abortion is totally unacceptable, any form of termination of pregnancy is unacceptable ...'

2. Embryos used for stem cell research would be discarded were they not used for research purposes
The Victorian Health Minister, John Thwaites, has made this point. Mr Thwaites has stated, 'The choice facing us is to simply discard these excess embryos, or to allow the use of them for some good purpose.'
This argument also appears to be one that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, found compelling when deciding to lend his support to the use of 'spare' embryos for research. Those who hold this position note that though the research will cause the destruction of the embryo, as it was not intended for implantation, the embryo was to have been thawed within the laboratory and allowed to die.
Those who support the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes argue that to do so is to gain something from the embryo, rather than simply allowing it to be destroyed.

3. Embryos used for stem cell research have not been specifically created for this purpose
Under the terms of the proposed legislation, the embryos used for research would be those left over from the IVF process. As the bill currently stands there will even be a provision that, at least in the short term, prohibits embryos frozen after April 5, 2002, from being used for research.
This time restriction is intended to ensure that there is no possibility that an embryo will have been created specifically for the purpose of supplying stem cells. This provision is meant to reassure those who are disturbed by the idea that human life might be created as a means of affecting a cure for certain diseases, rather than as an end in itself.
Indeed, in some regards, the new legislation is said to be more restrictive and protective of embryo life than current practice.
The bill will ban the use of embryos for research purposes unless a laboratory had a specific licence for the practice - which some researchers fear the new regulatory committee could easily deny.
Current regular practices, such as those which 'damage or destroy' an embryo when handled by trainee IVF scientists, may be banned under the bill.

4. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure or provide treatments for many serious diseases and injuries
Stem cells, stimulated to develop into specialised cells, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat many diseases and disabilities, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
The Victorian Health Minister, John Thwaites, has made this point. Mr Thwaites has stated, 'There is a responsibility to sufferers of conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury and Parkinson's disease to at least explore the potential benefits from embryos that would be destroyed anyway.'
This point has also been made by 17-year-old quadriplegic, Zane Willaims, who has argued, 'We could get better, walk again, get on with life.' The same sentiment has been expressed by quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeve, who has stated, in a letter to the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, 'support for human embryonic stem cell research will give millions of people all over the world hope for a better life.' Another high profile supporter of stem cell research as a source of potential cures is former United States first lady Nancy Reagan, who husband, former American president Ronald Reagan, suffers with advanced Alzheimer's. Mrs Reagan knows her husband is beyond treatment, however, she is reported to want to save other families from the suffering hers has endured.

5. Many of those opposed to the use of 'spare' embryos represent minority religious viewpoints
It has been argued that many of those who oppose the use of 'spare' embryos for research purposes represent minority religious viewpoints. Their opponents claim that those who hold views not shared by most of the community should not be in a position to impose their values on a majority of people who think otherwise.
Professor Peter Doherty has stated, 'People who claim to be ethicists, or claim to be taking an intellectual position on something, I ... want to hear where they are coming from.
If they're devout Catholics, I want to know about that. I want to have that put out there as well. If they're devout fundamentalist Christians ... I just want to know about it ...'

Arguments against stem cells being taken from 'spare' human embryos for use in medical research
1. Embryonic human life should not be treated as a commodity or a means to an end
Herald Sun commentator, Michael Barnard, has made this point. 'We just cannot get comfortable with the idea that the sanctity of innocent human life, certainly at its most elementary and vulnerable, can be qualified for the convenience of others.'
According to this liner of argument, even though the embryos to be used for research purposes would otherwise be destroyed because they are surplus to the IVF process, it is commodifying them, treating them as products or objects, rather than unique human lives, to simply harvest their stem cells and destroy them in the process.
Critics of this development are also fearful that it will not be long before embryos are being created specifically so that their cells can be harvested. Opponents of this development argue that respect for human life is an absolute and that no human life can be used as a means toward some other end.
It has further been suggested that as much of the stem cell research has attracted sponsors, presumably seeking to exploit whatever commercial potential the research might have, there is the real danger that human embryos may ultimately be viewed as a product that can be developed for their profit making potential.

2. It is inappropriate to value one life more highly than another
This point has been made by an insulin-dependent diabetic, who when interviewed by The Herald sun asked to be identified by only her first name, Val. This woman believes that her life is worth no more than that of an embryo and so does not consider another human life should be taken so that she might be cured.
Val has stated, 'We're all of equal value, even if some of us are embryos and some of us are living in old people's homes.'
According to this line of argument, the claim that the embryos will be used to save or improve the lives of other people, does not alter the basic problem that embryonic life is being rated as of a lesser value than that of other human beings. Critics claim that this is a very dangerous precedent to set as it might pave the way for a whole groups of people being regarded as of lesser importance than others and thus being seen as in some way exploitable for the benefit of other supposedly more significant lives.
Explaining this viewpoint, federal Liberal Member of Parliament, Christopher Pyne, has argued, 'I wish to live in a society that values human life, that values each individual ... no matter how able, sick, demented, old or young, for the intrinsic worth of that particular life. Each human life must be respected for its intrinsic value - that is a defining characteristic of a civilised society.'

3. The treatment benefits claimed for embryonic stem cells can be achieved by other means
It has further been argued that the treatment prospects claimed for embryonic stem cells are more likely to be achieved using adult stem cells. This point has been made by an insulin-dependent diabetic, who when interviewed by The Herald sun asked to be identified by only her first name, Val. Val has stated, 'If you read the medical literature, embryonic stem cell research hasn't even passed the rat stage.
Whereas in adult stem cell research for diabetes, they are awaiting human trials in the US, so its much more advanced, which all means we don't have to be in this moral dilemma.'

4. The advances made via embryonic stem cell research have been exaggerated
Jack Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne and recently departed director of St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, has claimed that no research has been done with stem cells in humans, and that very little research with animals, support the optimistic claims made by some scientists.
The same criticism of exaggerated claims has been made in relation to stem cell researcher Professor Alan Trounson who has been accused of making false claims for the efficacy of embryonic stem cells to treat spinal column injuries.
Professor Trounson showed many parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister, a video purporting to show a crippled rat regaining the ability to walk, supposedly after having been injected with stem cells. In reality the injected cells were germ cells from a much older aborted foetus.

5. It is unlikely that stem cell research will stop with material harvested from early stage 'spare' embryos
It has been claimed that once human life has been commodified to the extent 'spare' embryos are 'cannibalised' for stem cell research then other more objectionable practices will follow. This is what is commonly called the slippery slope argument, which holds that once a formerly held taboo is broken progressively more questionable behaviours will become the norm.
Herald Sun commentator Michael Barnard has made this point. Mr Barnard has stated, 'Once you adopt such procedures you automatically open the field to "next-step" demands and procedures ...' As an illustration of this, Mr Barnard has noted, 'Who, at the time abortion was popularly embraced by legislators, would have declared that within a few decades clinics would be hacking the life out of highly developed, third-trimester foetuses - babies in a simple word.'
The slippery slope argument has been said to have already come into operation with regard to embryonic stem cell research. Once the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, had indicated his support for the use of 'spare' embryos for this purpose, some researchers then began to press for therapeutic cloning as a source of compatible foetal tissue.
Michael Barnard has argued, 'What happens when (not if) the scientists suddenly say, "Hey, we're making good progress, but for a real breakthrough we need access to more advanced embryos."?
How do the legislators say No when a (potential) breakthrough has been the justification for enabling legislation in the first place?'

Further implications
Given the ease with which the proposed legislation passed the House of Representatives it now seems extremely likely that it will ultimately win the support of the Senate and, even if somewhat amended, be passed by both houses of parliament.
It is interesting to note that at least one media commentator considers the outcome of the debate such a foredrawn conclusion that he criticised those who opposed the bill in the House of Representatives as obstructionist.
The proposed legislation has generally been praised as moderate and there appears to be a wide measure of media support for it. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard's, position on the question has been commended for its caution. Under the proposed guidelines there will be no guaranteed access to 'spare' embryos as yet not in existence, cloning has been banned, and stem-cell research guidelines are to be reviewed in three years.
Despite the caution embodied in the current federal position on using 'spare' embryos to harvest stem cells, it seems highly unlikely that some of the restrictions currently being imposed will continue.
Logically, if a government is going to allow researchers access to 'spare' embryos currently in existence, there is no reason why they should not have access to embryos that will come into existence at a later date as a by-product of IVF techniques. What is interesting here is why researchers would want further embryos.
Many medical researchers clearly want access to embryonic stem cells for a range of purposes, some of which are outlined in the background to this issue outline. However, the primary purpose of such cells will not be the imminent treatment and cure of certain high profile injuries and diseases. Doubtless research effort will go into these areas, but application would appear to be a long way off. The dual problems of malignancy and rejection will have to be overcome before treatments are a real possibility.
Adult stem cells do not present rejection problems, however, they are generally difficult to harvest and slow to grow. Further, though there are grounds to suspect that it may be possible to encourage them to develop into a wider range of cells than was first thought, as multipotent rather than pluripotent cells, their application for disease treatment is more limited than that of embryonic stem cells.
The rejection problem associated with using embryonic stem cells would be overcome if it were possible to clone an embryo so that it would have the same genotype as the patient to be treated. This would be possible if the embryo had been cloned from the patient. Thus, the use of embryonic stem cells for treatment purposes appears to be in part dependent on a general acceptance of 'therapeutic cloning'. The only place in the world where therapeutic cloning is currently legal is in Great Britain.
At least some of Australia's medical research community appears to want therapeutic cloning. The Prime Minister had no sooner indicated that he was prepared to allow researchers access to 'spare' embryos than Professor Alan Trounson, director of Monash University's Institute of Reproduction and Development, declared his support for therapeutic cloning 'absolutely, unreservedly'. Professor Trounson urged, 'Let us have the competitive edge and then let us take it right to the core of the issue of being able to deliver applications.'
Clearly, if applications, rather than pure research, is at issue than therapeutic cloning would make this far more possible, though the apparent problems of malignancy associated with embryonic stem cells would still have to be overcome.
On an ethical level therapeutic cloning would appear to leave our politicians and perhaps our population in a dilemma. The promise of wonderful cures has brought many within the community and many of our political leaders to the point of accepting the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from 'spare' embryos. Now it appears that these cures or 'applications' may be dependent on 'therapeutic cloning.'
Many people are apparently prepared to accept harvesting from embryos that are already destined for destruction. However, would the Australian community be prepared to accept that a life be created solely so that it could be used to cure another person and in the process be killed? It is a question both the Australian people and their leaders will soon have to answer.

Sources
The Age
8/9/02 page 10 analysis by Paul Heinrichs, 'When stem cell researchers meet hard sell imperatives'
16/9/02 page 2 news item by Tom Noble, 'Victorian bill starts ball rolling on stem cell growth'
25/9/02 page 4 news item by Darren Gray, 'Stem cell researcher denies misleading MPs'
26/9/02 page 4 news item by Darren Gray and Sophie Douez, 'Stem cell research bill clears hurdle'
27/9/02 page 4 news item by Darren Gray and Sophie Douez , 'Embryo research bill gains support'
30/9/02 page 8 news item by Alessandra Stanley, 'Nancy Reagan: "just say yes" to stem cell research'

The Australian
16/9/02 page 9 comment by Christopher Pyne, 'Bill marks fight for small life'
17/9/02 page 4 news item by Misha Schubert, 'IVF research warning as cell bill heads for victory'
25/9/02 page 3 news item by Misha Schubert, 'Trounson denies he misled MPs'
26/9/02 page 2 news item by Misha Schubert, 'MPs back stem cell research in good conscience'

The Herald Sun
8/9/02 page 39 comment by Michael Barnard, 'Smell a dirty rat in the stem cell lab'
21/9/02 page 25 analysis by Jen Kelly, 'Cells that divide'