Scientists given the go ahead

The shouting is over, at least in the corridors of power. It was damned as the Frankenstein science or the saviour for sufferers of chronic diseases. It was indeed the topic of conversation for many months.

The controversial therapeutic cloning Bill was given the green light after it was approved by the Australian House of Representatives in Canberra by 82 to 62 votes. Therefore, the existing ban on the use of embryonic stem cells was overturned by 20 votes. Scientists can now clone embryos to extract their stem cells for medical research.

It was also an unusual occasion when members of Parliament were given a conscience vote, which meant they were able to express their inner feelings without provoking the wrath of their party.

Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition voted to retain the ban.

The PM, known for his balanced views, said that in the end you have to take a stance. There are some absolutes in society - and what one was talking about is a moral absolute. The PM emphasised as well that we live in an age where we have slid too far into relativism.

The new Leader of the Opposition, who lost his mother to Parkinsons' disease two years ago, was close to tears. He said his mum was not around any more for him to ask her for an opinion, yet he found it difficult to support a law for the single and explicit purpose of conducting experimentation on human life.

The key points as I see them are: Therapeutic cloning is a laboratory procedure that involves taking the nucleus of a human cell and injecting it into a modified egg to create an embryo from which embryonic stem cells can be extracted.

It differs from reproductive cloning, where the embryo is implanted in a womb and allowed to develop into a cloned human.

The Bill as passed bans reproductive cloning of humans.

The debate, at times very emotional, had the supporters of therapeutic cloning arguing that it offers the best hope for curing diseases, including cancer and diabetes, and the others saying it violates the sanctity of life by creating a life for the purpose of destroying it. They also claim it could create a burgeoning human spare parts industry.

Some are even claiming that the passing of the Bill might mean a cure of diabetes in our lifetime.

I was very impressed with comments made by Chris Bowen, the federal member for Prospect (NSW). He is married to a Maltese. He stressed that much has been made of the influence of religion in this debate. No doubt, some MPs have been influenced by their religion. There is, of course, the separation between Church and state but there can be no separation between religion and conscience.

Mr Bowen argues that there is insufficient evidence of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research - over and above those of adult or cord stem cell research - to justify this very significant step.

Both Houses of Parliament have now asserted their authority over the executive and with a conscience vote Parliament was able to reach a decision away from the totalitarian dictum of the party.

Let us hope scientists can now go forward and continue their advances for the benefit of mankind.