Dr. Joanna Rose:

My answer is addressing that. The only longitudinal studies that are really appropriate to making informed decisions are from adoption, from kinship groups that have been separated from their genetic families. Otherwise, if there is no precautionary principle, a situation is set up where anything can be done to the next generation and scientific evidence of harm has to be accumulated after the event. There is no precautionary principle in place with that type of logic. I am arguing for a different approach based on the understanding of the best interests rather than the welfare of the child and on the research we already have, one where it is not just left it to the industry and its users to do whatever they want and then collect scientific collateral damage over the following decades. Legislators have a duty of care to the most vulnerable people, namely, the children. If the committee wants to bring in scientific evidence, it should bring in people like Pauline Ley. There are professionals who have worked in the field of adoption, such as Alexina McWhinnie MBE, and Pauline Ley who was awarded an Order of Australia, particularly for transferring knowledge from adoption to donor conception. The problem with the framework that is going ahead is that it does not transfer knowledge from adoption to donor conception. It pretends to be a new and wonderful treatment and that we have to assess harm after the event. I do not believe that is responsible.