Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Oct 2000

Vol. 523 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Genetic Engineering.

Mr. Creed

We have all looked with a mixture of amazement, admiration and, I am sure, apprehension at the stunning recent advances in genetic engineering, biotechnology and related sciences. To the ordinary man in the street it is almost impossible to keep abreast of the developments, not to mention the associated scientific vocabulary.

With the hype surrounding the cloning of Dolly the sheep, followed swiftly by the birth of Millie, Christa, Alexis, Carrel and Dotcom – the five cloned banbhs born this year, four of which were named after pioneering surgeons in the transplant technology area – it is easy to forget this technology has been around for many years, albeit not in quite as advanced a form. The first animal to be cloned was a frog in the 1960s in Oxford University.

Allied to cloning technology, we have cracked the code of the human genome. What does this mean? Who, other than those scientists at the coalface of innovation and the large multinationals financing research in the area, is capable of telling us, in layman's language, where this is leading? More importantly, what are the legal, moral and ethical parameters within which this industry and research should operate? It appears to me that there are no such parameters. There is certainly no effective legal framework, which is surely unacceptable.

In this regard, I bring to the attention of the House the comments of Asim Sheikh, a lecturer in legal medicine at University College Dublin and a practising barrister, who was quoted in an article in The Irish Times last week as saying there is no legislation to guide us. That is why we need a public debate and, subsequently, to gain approval for the direction in which this industry is taking us and a legal framework.

The birth on 29 September last of Adam Nash in Colorado, USA, is undeniably a source of great pride and relief to his parents. Apart from the gift of a son, it appears that this child has also saved his sister's life. Serious questions arise from Adam Nash's birth. It is obviously difficult in the circumstances to argue from the particular to the general, but nonetheless the following and other questions arise. How large a leap of science, public demand or public opinion is the issue of designer babies who are tall, blond, blue eyed and who have a high IQ? Is conception acceptable when solely for the purpose of harvesting spare parts, human genes, organs or cells? What are the psychological, emotional and other consequences for these children later in life? I am sure none of us can answer these questions.

It is high time the Legislature caught up with the laboratory. Voluntary codes of ethics are no longer acceptable. Public debate on all these issues is necessary, followed by legislation at national, EU and global levels. Raising this issue should not be seen in any quarter as an attack on knowledge, research or science – far from it. I am calling for a clear legal framework for the industry and for broad public approval for the future direction it takes.

Mr. D. Wallace

I again apologise for the absence of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. I thank Deputy Creed for raising this important issue. The Minister shares his concern about the need to ensure that the bioengineering industry is regulated in an appropriate manner. There is no doubt that we are living in an era characterised by an ever-increasing pace of scientific and technological developments. In particular, we are witnessing ongoing and major advances in the capacity of science to intervene in the process of human reproduction. The birth of Adam Nash and the circumstances surrounding his birth comprise just one example of such intervention. The potential of science to control or even alter the natural process of the creation of human life raises basic and fundamental ethical questions for the medical profession, Government and society.

The Minister is aware that many countries have introduced legislation in recent years to set down parameters and establish frameworks of control within which such interventions and procedures can take place, while acknowledging that scientific development can often outpace the legislative controls. The position in Ireland is that this activity is not subject to statutory control. Medical practice is governed by Medical Council guidelines. These apply only in the case of registered medical practitioners and would be ineffective in the case of any service operated by other persons. The pace of new developments and the possibility of the entry of less scrupulous interests into this field raises questions about how best it should be regulated.

The Minister is well aware of the growing concern among the public about the practice of complex and controversial procedures in this country in the absence of any legislative controls. He acknowledges the concerns expressed by the Deputy in this regard and I assure him that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the concerns are addressed. In addressing the concerns, he is anxious to ensure that our approach is one which is informed and takes into account the wide range of sensitive and complex issues which surround the area of assisted human reproduction which have legal, ethical, social and medical implications.

For this reason the Government agreed to the establishment of a Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction earlier this year. The terms of reference of the commission are:

. . . to prepare a report on the possible approaches to the regulation of all aspects of assisted human reproduction and the social, ethical and legal factors to be taken into account in determining public policy in this area.

The establishment of the commission represents the essential first step of a process aimed at bringing forward policy proposals for this area. The commission, which is chaired by Professor Dervilla Donnelly, comprises the medical. scientific and legal expertise necessary for a detailed and informed examination of the possible approaches to regulation of the area. The commission will be required to seek submissions from the public and to consult appropriately to establish the views of service providers and consumers as well as establishing adoption issues involved. The commission will also be required to consult with philosophical and theological experts to ensure that their perspectives are considered and reflected as appropriate.

Among the core issues which the commission will need to examine are whether regulation is best achieved by legislation or reliance on medical ethics or a combination of the two; the replacement, freezing and subsequent usage or disposal of embryos; the freezing and subsequent usage or disposal of sperm; the regulation of who may use the services, for example, the age and marital status of couples; the regulation of donor programmes, surrogacy, legal parentage. succession rights, registration of births, etc.; possible screening of embryos for genetic conditions; research on embryos; and cloning. Issues such as licensing of facilities, qualifications of staff, conditions of storage of embryos and other human reproductive material, optimum number of treatments in an individual case, testing for infectious diseases, record keeping and data collection will also need to be considered. The publication of the commission's report will provide the basis for informed public debate before the finalisation of any policy proposals. I again thank the Deputy for raising this important matter.