Dolly the Sheep, pictured with her own triplets, could teach politicians plenty about history as a reminder of how to work with and for the community to manage the ethics and impact of technology.
On 5 July 1996, scientists at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute cloned the first mammal using an adult cell.
Dolly became the most important sheep in the world.
Using the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) method, involving removing the nucleus of an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor adult cell, they produced a sheep that shared almost exactly the same DNA as the original donor cell.
The science of cloning is not the topic here, however fascinating; it’s how Australian decision makers responded to the technology of cloning. It’s insightful and relevant to how we manage and control AI.
The template for confronting the dangers from AI comes from the government of John Howard, and the passing of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 in August 2002.
As an advisor in Parliament House at the time, I watched this debate unfold from the front row. Decades later, re-reading hundreds of pages of Hansard and inquiry reports, it’s instructive to review how Members of Parliament debated a threatening technology with knowledge and foresight.
In short, the Howard government recognised the dangers of human cloning, commissioned reports and inquires, including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, initiated comprehensive public consultation processes, then introduced legislation into Parliament.
Coalition members were allowed a “free vote” to respect their religious views; yet passionate debates ensued, and bipartisan laws enacted to protect the public.
Reading through reams of Hansard debates, I mentally substituted cloning for AI, as both are potentially dangerous and threatening to humanity, if misused.
Leaving aside the House and Senate arguments over splitting this legislation into separate bills, Senators and Members speeches were littered with useful insights into today’s AI discourse.
Reading the speeches, many MPs talked about the necessity of ensuring “uniform national laws” and the dangers of states and territories not complying.
They spoke about the “considerable uncertainty surrounding the long-term wellbeing” from unregulated technology.
The “unacceptable dangers” from “unregulated” science was a common theme; as were the “implications for public safety” and the “threat [posed] to notions of identity and individual autonomy, notions so fundamental to our society”.
AI fakes and digital impersonations are not that dissimilar to cloning.
In words articulated almost 25 years ago yet relevant today, Democrat senator Natasha Stott Despoja warned: “I believe that Australia has long lagged behind many other developed nations in establishing sound, consistent regulations on these issues”.
Perhaps unintentionally predicting the rapid expansion of data centres, Senator Stott Despoja raised the power of “vested interests”, saying “we should take science out of the realm of simply the experts, that the community has to be involved in any legislative debate on science policy and science matters”.
“I want us to include the community and I want it to be a much more well thought out process than what we have here,” adding her view that, “the public are much more concerned about the regulation … I am sure that anyone in this chamber who has looked at their emails over the past couple of days would know that.”
Related
Given this was a debate about embryos and cloning, unsurprisingly religion was raised many times.
This quote used in the Senate remains apt: “As the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, said recently: ‘We must not become scientific wizards and ethical cowboys.’”
Seeing both Labor and Coalition call for a “strict regulatory regime” brings us back to a time when Parliamentarians worked together to safeguard Australian citizens and residents from serious technological and scientific dangers.
Then Opposition MP Tanya Plibersek noted that MPs were “called upon in this place to make difficult decisions all the time”.
“When those difficult decisions are placed before us, we think about them, talk to people, take expert advice, read material and then think about them some more. At the end of that process, normally what we come up with is a compromise; it is not a solution that suits every person involved in the decision.
“It is always a compromise … we do not want two, three, four or five different regimes covering this important area.”
Labor Senator Chris Evans told the Senate there were “substantive arguments against unregulated scientific practices” and warned about “significant consequence of rejecting legislation that left “untouched the current fragmented and inconsistent regulatory approach”.
Liberal minister Amanda Vanstone highlighted the way the Howard government had “enacted legislation at the Commonwealth level, and is encouraging states and territories to also do so”. They wanted uniform laws, no doubt recognising that some states used anti-Canberra policies as a political advantage, as we now see with data centres.
John Howard, not necessarily regarded as a Prime Minister of vision or foresight, nonetheless did understand the dangers of unregulated science and technology.
On 27 June, 2002, Mr Howard told the House of his “desire … for a nationally consistent approach to regulate” the technology of human cloning.
His tactic was to propose a “regulatory system [that] is a responsible approach that strikes the right balance between ethical considerations and embracing the possibilities” that technology offered to benefit humanity.
Through legislation, the Howard government established a national licensing body within the National Health and Medical Research Council – the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee – created in consultation with states and territories, and comprised of experts across multiple fields.
Mr Howard said:
“I recognise that this is a rapidly developing area of research and that we have to keep pace with both the potential therapeutic applications of research and changes in community attitudes and standards. a comprehensive national regulatory system that does strike an appropriate balance.
“This bill, in my view, successfully balances respect for human dignity, ensures that community standards and ethical values are upheld and enables the enormous potential of … research to be explored for the ultimate betterment of mankind within legislated parameters and subject to close scrutiny.”
We can thank Dolly the Sheep for the establishment of legislation that allowed science and technology to flourish while safeguarding humanity from inherent dangers of misuse.
Parliamentarians should look back at these debates as a reminder of how to work with and for the community to manage the ethics and impact of technology.
Simon Tatz was director of communications for Mental Health Australia, director of policy for Mental Health Victoria and co-author of The Sealed Box of Suicide: The Contexts of Self-Death. Most recently he was the AIDH’s general manager of policy, advocacy and workforce advancement.
