Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to set some context for this debate. Embryonic stem cell research is a relatively new area of research. It is within the last two decades that scientists have begun seriously to carry out research on embryonic stem cell lines. Contrary to some of what we have been hearing, the weight of medical and scientific opinion internationally is in favour of allowing this research to continue, albeit subject to strict conditions and regulations. I believe we are all agreed on the need for regulations.

I am grateful to the Minister of State for setting out clearly the findings of the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2005. It is also worth noting that in 2008 the Irish Council for Bioethics made similar recommendations about the need for a robust legal framework within which embryonic stem cell research would be permitted. That is important. I would welcome regulations.

The reason for these recommendations and that scientists internationally are agreed on the potential of this research is that embryonic stem cell research offers immense potential — it is only potential at this early stage — for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders in particular, such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. With an ageing population in Ireland, we face an epidemic of these disorders in the future. At present, approximately 7,000 people in Ireland have Parkinson's disease. We should not turn our backs on even a prospect of developing treatment for such disorders by ruling out altogether such developments by putting a blanket ban on embryonic stem cell research. The drugs, on the development of which we have spent enormous resources, do not work, but embryonic stem cell research offers exciting potential.

Much has been said about adult stem cell research. I believe we are all agreed on the immensely exciting potential of such research for treating different disorders. We have already seen the treatment of blood disorders and leukaemia. That is very exciting, but the weight of medical and scientific opinion states that embryonic stem cell research offers a different and greater potential for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders in particular.

The effect of this Bill would be to provide for an absolute prohibition on all forms of embryonic stem cell research. Where persons wished to donate embryos that they would never see develop into human beings, even for research abroad, that would become a criminal offence under this Bill.

I could not support and would have to oppose such an absolutist Bill and, on reflection, I believe most of us would agree that it is wrong to close a door absolutely. Instead, we should look at the regulations that have been provided for elsewhere. As the commission recommended, for example, it is not permitted to generate embryos specifically for research but rather only to use embryos that would not in any case develop into human beings. Currently in Ireland, as Senator Fitzgerald stated, embryos are being left frozen in liquid nitrogen indefinitely. Regulations would have to provide for fully informed consent of the parents of the embryos and that only embryos up to 14 days development could be used for research, as is the case in Britain.

The danger with this Bill is that it holds out no prospect of regulation of that sort. It simply bans this research. It includes the rather emotive term "destruction". It has implications for other developments in the future such as early detection of genetic diseases in embryos and so on. It would also send out a clear message that Ireland is not open to scientific research. There has been talk of academics leaving other countries to come to Ireland. I believe we would see academics leaving Ireland to conduct research they see as offering exciting potential to do good in other countries with less restrictive regimes. It would send out a dangerous message and it is important that the chief science adviser, Science Foundation Ireland, and others would be involved in any development of a regulatory framework. This absolutist position would not be helpful.

Many speakers referred to the meaning of human life and asked when does human life begin. All of us have different views on that and we must be respectful of each other's views, but whatever views we take, none of us can prove scientifically when human life begins, when an embryo becomes a human being.