David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the clear and balanced position adopted by the Government in the Minister of State's speech. I was very heartened by it. I do not support the Bill. I do not believe a fertilised embryo is a full human being. I never have believed that and I never will. It reminds me of the abortion debate in which I do not think the men in this House distinguished themselves by valuing their spouses at the same level as a microscopic cluster of cells. I do not deride that but that is the equation. I would not want to be married to a person who had that view.

The argument has certain characteristics. There is a template here that I have observed with concern in recent times. There is the invocation of compassion, the adoption of the language of human rights and the colonisation of language such as "embryo-destructive". A lot of embryos get destroyed. They get destroyed by nature. That happens frequently. What about that? Is that an accident? Is God not in control in those circumstances? The view comes from the theological perspective of the dominant religion in this country. That needs to be taken into account. It is not just Christian, it is denominational and it places a particular view on those matters.

Then there is the scare tactic that a lot of money will be wasted and there is the possibility of cancer. It is said that the money is being wasted because the results have been produced by adult stem cell research alone. That is not true. That is Reader's Digest science combined with rhetoric. The recent wonderfully positive experiments in Spain that had success with a woman was as a result of the interdependence of research on adult and embryonic stem cells. The discovery of the first IPS cells came out of systematically testing 400 genes in embryonic stem cells until they found the four genes that appeared to be necessary and sufficient to induce pluripotency in adult stem cells.

Senator Callanan said he received medical treatment because he has a condition. So have I, but I am not going to go on about it. I would never say to anybody else that he or she should do something. I have a number of letters, some of them very nasty and others which impugn the ethical position of scientists. That is wrong and it is destructive. I also have a letter from the mother of a quadriplegic, a woman who is paralysed for life. She does not take the same view as Senator Callanan and she is just as entitled to her view as anybody else.