Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I second the motion and, together with my colleague, Senator Hanafin, am glad to do so. I commend Senator Mullen on his work on the Bill, as well as my intern, Dualta Redmond, on his tremendous work while researching it. It is worth reminding Members that in 1988, the High Court ruled the Offences against the Person Act 1861 protects the unborn from the moment of conception. However, the High Court judgment of 2007 that an embryo before implantation does not enjoy constitutional protection obviously has implications in this area. This matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court and Members must await the outcome. However, neither the courts nor individual judges should decide this matter; it should be the Oireachtas. This is the reason I welcome the Bill today and I am glad to second it. Members have the mandate to decide policy and should be involved in it.

It is a highly complex area from a scientific, moral, ethical and human life point of view. At the outset, I wish to state that curing debilitating conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and many others, is worthy of serious and well-funded research. However, embryonic stem cell research is an avenue that should not be pursued. There is a number of valid reasons for this, including a plethora of scientific research confirming the value of adult stem cell research.

Members learned last week of the amazing results in Spain, where a 30 year old Colombian lady, who had been diagnosed with tuberculosis with complications and who struggled to breathe, presented herself for treatment. The surgeons carried out the world's first tissue-engineered whole organ transplant in a pioneering technique using a windpipe made with the patient's own stem cells. That such amazing breakthroughs using stem cells are beginning to garner publicity makes UCC's recent decision all the more disheartening.

By the narrowest of margins, the governing body of UCC voted to give the green light for the use of embryonic stem cell research for medical purposes. I understand the measure was approved on the casting vote of the chairman. It is unacceptable for UCC to decide unilaterally to forge ahead with embryonic stem cell research. It is worth noting that the chair of the ethics committee of UCC, who was instrumental in making the recommendation to the governing body, is a member of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction. She was also appointed by the Government to the ethics committee of the Medical Council. While I will not comment in this regard, it is essential that people of independent opinions be appointed to such bodies. If people with predispositions are appointed, the outcomes on which Government policy are based are predetermined and inevitable. There are similar instances elsewhere, for example, in civil partnership.

Professor William Reville, head of the biochemistry department in UCC, stated:

Most people do not realise that an alternative stem cell approach to curing disease is now available that is just as promising as the HESCR approach but which poses no ethical problems. I refer to induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC). And, of course, adult stem cell research, which is likewise free from ethical problems, is also available and is producing very promising results.

As has been discussed, the reason embryonic stem cells are the focus of so much attention lies in their ability to differentiate into virtually any cell of the body. This in turn would allow for the possible regeneration of damaged brain tissue, for example. However, leading Japanese scientist Dr. Yamanaka of Kyoto University has managed to reprogram normal human skin cells to an embryonic-like form. These are induced pluripotent stem cells and have the same properties as embryonic stem cells. Along with the Spanish situation, good research along the same lines is being conducted in Toronto University.

Professor Reville has written a number of articles on and is a strong proponent of this issue. As he is also a member of my home town, I am familiar with him and know him to be a balanced individual. When he contacted us regarding this matter, he stated:

Although it goes deeply against the grain for me to oppose any research, I must oppose HESC research on ethical grounds. Biology, the science of life, tells us that human life begins at conception, thereby starting a living continuum that ends only in death. To deliberately kill the embryo is to violate its human rights.

He continued by stating that, when the ovum meets the sperm, the process of fertilisation is complete and a new life comes into being. A whole new genome is created and determines gender, height — subject to normal nutrition — and colour of skin, eyes and hair. The Irish Council for Bioethics recognises this position, but inexplicably favours embryonic stem cell research. It also favoured animal-human hybrid cell lines. With the exception of Britain, this has been banned in every country that has legislated in this area.

In an article entitled "Life Continuum" in UCC News, Professor Reville stated, "The whole process is a continuum of human essence between the boundaries of conception and death and is programmed to proceed automatically under normal circumstances." In addition, he stated:

Each stage along this continuum is fully human, having the full human properties appropriate to its stage — zygote, foetus, baby, adolescent, adult and older person. All the genetic information in the human adult is already present in the single-celled zygote. Each point on this human continuum is dependent on the preceding part of the continuum and determines the succeeding part of the continuum. Interrupt the continuum at any point and nothing happens beyond that point. These are biological facts. Accepting these facts, it seems clear that it is arbitrary, and therefore wrong, to pick any point on this continuum and claim it marks the boundary between the preceding 'not fully human and not deserving of protection' section and the succeeding 'human enough to deserve protection' section. The same full human essence is present everywhere along the continuum.

He could have gone further. It is not just a life. We all started as zygotes and developed because we were not destroyed. On a pro-life basis, we must oppose the destruction of the embryo because destroying it would not only affect that life, but also the progeny it might produce. We do not have the right to destroy a genetic lineage.

The European Science Foundation's briefing on stem cell research discusses the ethical problems associated with the use of embryonic cells over adult stem cells. It refers to the use of embryonic stem cells as the "instrumentalisation of human embryos", in other words, the reduction of life to a commodity. Destroying an embryo is to end a person's story after the first sentence. Arguments in favour are utilitarian, namely, the end justifies the means. This cannot be an acceptable basis for legislation or scientific advancement. Biology is the science of life. Let us keep it that way.