Reps.

DO NO HARM – Australians for Ethical Medical Research

Response to House of Reps passing Embryo experimentation Bill.

“Members of the House of Representatives were simply not strong enough to crawl out from beneath such a heap of embryonic hype”, according to Dr David van Gend, Queensland spokesman for Do No Harm – an association supporting stem cell research, but opposing embryo destruction.

“They are not scientists or doctors, and simply believed the fevered fantasies about curing Alzheimers and Superman. Or if they had any doubts, these were silenced by confrontation with true believers – parents of afflicted children who embraced passionately the false hope that embryo cells would make their son walk again or daughter stop taking insulin, and asked “how could you block my child’s best hope?”

“What can an MP say to that? As the leader of the opposition, Mr Simon Crean, said in his Parliamentary speech, how could you look a paralysed child in the eye “and say you did not want to find him a cure?”

“That quote symbolises the woefully misguided arguments that won the day for Big Biotech, in its quest for an ongoing supply of human lab rats to test drugs on.

However, Dr van Gend felt that the more systematic consideration of the Bill being undertaken by the Senate may lead to a different conclusion.

“The Senate is given to more skeptical reflection”, he said, “and may not succumb to magical thinking over an embryo science which is likely to remain, despite all the hype, both useless and dangerous.

“In recent days the Senate enquiry into the Research on Embryos Bill has been reminded of local therapeutic trials in humans using adult stem cells in spinal injury (Brisbane, PA Hospital), heart disease (Newcastle, John Hunter Institute), and in the months ahead, Parkinson’s (Melbourne, Peter McCallum Institute). This is real and tangible science, real grounds for cautious hope, contrasting to the implausible speculation and blank score-card of embryo therapies.

“For serious technical reasons – that of tumour formation and immune rejection – embryo stem cells are highly unlikely ever to be even trialled in humans. But the fantasy will continue to be fermented of miracle cures just around the corner, for as long as biotech companies need to ensure access to embryonic material for more practical research. Such research will above all, as the Senate Committee has heard, include drug testing (Hansard 17/9 p.40-41), as well as allowing IVF scientists to practise new techniques.

Dr van Gend commented, “The Senate may understand that these are the real purposes for obtaining human embryos, and claims of miracle cures are merely the sugar coating to make society swallow these less palatable lines of research.”

“The other revelation that might direct the Senate towards a more “wait and see” approach to embryo destruction is the confirmation by top scientists involved in embryo research that they have no need for further embryo stem cell lines for current research. The only need for more lines will be in the unlikely event of ever reaching the stage of therapeutic trials.

The Executive director of Bresagen, Dr Christopher Juttner, was quoted in the Canberra Times of 17th September 2002 saying “there were already enough stem cell lines available for research”. He confirmed that opinion before the Senate Committee the same day. The need for new stem cell lines free of possible animal contaminants would only arise “when it looks as if you have moved to a stage where you can reasonably consider on the grounds of animal models, safety and efficacy that you are ready to move into human trials”. He added: “But that is a long way down the track. So it is not to do with this basic stage of research at all.” (Hansard p.38-39).

Professor Bernie Tuch, a diabetes transplant specialist and supporter of embryo research, agreed: “If we are provided with a dozen embryonic stem cell lines, that would seem to be enough in terms of research purposes… If they are already available to us, then the answer would be exactly what Dr Juttner has said… I think the distinction has been made by Dr Juttner… between therapeutic and research purposes. We are not at the stage of therapeutic purposes.” (Hansard p.39)

“Given this admission that there is no need for further embryo destruction for new stem cell lines, what is the great haste to hand over thousands of frozen embryos?” Dr van Gend asked.

Professor Peter Silburn, a Parkinson’s specialist, testified to the Senate Committee after Dr Juttner and Professor Tuch, and said: “The previous people have agreed that we do not need more embryos for reseach. So what do we actually need them for?”. (Hansard 17/9 p.51).

Silburn and several leading Australian researchers signed an open letter to the Parliament (text attached below – it was sent mid-September) in which they concluded: “Consistent with proper research principles, we advise that there be a moratorium on the destructive use of human embryos until, if ever, animal models are able adequately to demonstrate “proof of concept”, and human safety issues have been adequately addressed.”

“For now, the Senate may come to understand, research will continue without any need to harvest a single further human embryo. That insight may allow the legislation to be considered by the Senate in a more moderate and less pressured atmosphere than that which has prevailed in the lower House.”

“Australian doctors, ethicists and citizens espousing the ancient medical motto “Do No Harm” will continue to urge skepticism on our Senators, and attention to the disparity between an embryo science which remains fancifu l, useless and dangerous, and an adult stem cell science which is ethically innocent, medically safe and actually treating humans in novel and exciting ways.”

No scientific imperative for destructive research on human embryos

Open Letter to Australian Parliaments regarding Stem Cell Science

We the undersigned medical researchers submit the following points for the consideration of our elected representatives:

1. While accepting that the debate about destruction of human embryos for research purposes is primarily an ethical one, it is relevant to note that from a purely scientific point of view, arguments claiming the urgent need for embryonic stem cell (ES cell) research are not compelling.

2. Undue expectations have been created in the community, particularly in those with various medical afflictions, as to the imminence and likely scope of ES cell therapy.

3. The community has not been properly informed of the scientific difficulties involved in developing ES cell therapies, which include major obstacles of immune rejection and cancer formation.

4. Research using adult stem cells, by contrast, avoids issues of rejection and cancer formation, and has the clear advantage of being able to use the patient’s own cells to repair any deficits.

5. Such research on stem cells derived from adult and placental tissues, which has seen great advances in the last three years, is quite compelling in its clinical promise, and does not involve the destruction of nascent human life.

6. In proper medical research, “proof of concept” must first be established in animal models before moving to human subjects. Such proof using ES cells has not been established in any of the conditions such as Alzheimer’s, MS, diabetes and Parkinson’s which are so often part of public discussion. Some of the proposed cures are highly unlikely, and others are only potentially viable on a very long time-frame. For example, Alzheimer’s disease is a global disorder of the brain and is highly unlikely to be amenable to any form of cell therapy at any time in the future.

7. Therefore it is scientifically premature and improper to move to human experimentation at this early stage of research: there is much to be learned from animal models, with no need to use human material.

8. Consistent with proper research principles, we advise that there be a moratorium on the destructive use of human embryos until, if ever, animal models are able adequately to demonstrate “proof of concept”, and human safety issues have been adequately addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Emeritus Professor of Medicine, John Martin, Endocrinologist

Professor Michael Good, Immunologist

Professor Peter Silburn, Neurologist

Associate Professor Joanne Shaw, Endocrinologist

Professor Peter Rowe, Children’s Medical Research Institute

Professor Bryan Mowry, Geneticist & Psychiatrist

Professor Colin Masters, Neurobiologist

Dr Peter McCullach, Developmental Immunologist

Professor Michael Pender, Neuroimmunologist