‘The machine runs itself’: law is technology and Australian embryo and human cloning law

References

• Secondary Sources
   Google Scholar
• Rachel Ankeny and Susan Dodds (2008) ‘Hearing Community Voices: Public Engagement in Australian: Human Embryo Research Policy, 2005–2007’ 27(3) New Genetics and Society 217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffrey Barnes (2018) ‘On the Ground and on Tap—Law Reform, Australian Style’ 6 The Theory and Practice of Legislation 193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laura Barnett (2011) ‘The Process of Law Reform: Conditions for Success’ 39 Federal Law Review 161.
   Google Scholar
• Lyria Bennett Moses (2007a) ‘The Legal Landscape Following Technological Change: Paths to Adaption’ 27 Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 408.
   Google Scholar
• Lyria Bennett Moses (2007b) ‘Recurring Dilemmas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up with Technological Change’ 7 Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 239.
   Google Scholar
• Lyria Bennett Moses (2007c) ‘Why Have a Theory of Law and Technological Change?’ 8 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 589.
   Google Scholar
• Lyria Bennett Moses (2011) ‘Agents of Change: How the Law ‘Copes’ with Technological Change’ 20 Griffith Law Review 763.
   Google Scholar
• Lyria Bennett Moses, et al (2015) ‘The Productivity Commission: A Different Engine for Law Reform?’ 24 Griffith Law Review 657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chris Berg (2017) ‘Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham in the Australian Colonies’ 68 Journal of History of Economics Review 2.
   Google Scholar
• Mario Biagioli and Marius Buning (2019) ‘Technologies of the Law/Law as a Technology’ 57 History of Science 3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwin Bikundo and Kieran Tranter (2019) ‘The Buribunks: Carl Schmitt on Diaries, Modernity and Future’ 28 Griffith Law Review doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2019.1674442.
   Google Scholar
• Andrea L Bonnicksen (2002) Crafting A Cloning Policy: From Dolly To Stem Cells, Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mark Brady (2019) ‘Is Australian Law Adaptable to Automated Vehicles?’ 6 Griffith Journal of Law Human Dignity 35.
   Google Scholar
• Meg Brodie (2015) ‘Uncomfortable Truths: Protecting the Independence of National Human Rights Institutions to Inquire’ 38 University of New South Wales Law Journal 1215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roger Brownsword (2019) Law, Technology and Society: Re-Imagining the Regulatory Environment, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hugh Collins (1985) ‘Political Ideology in Australia: The Distinctiveness of a Benthamite Society’ 114 Daedalus 147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donna Cooper (2006) ‘The Lochart Review: Where Now for Australia?’ 14 Journal of Law and Medicine 27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rebecca Crootof and BJ Ard (forthcoming 2021) ‘Structuring Techlaw’ 34 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Susan Dodds and Rachel Ankeny (2006) ‘Regulation of hESC Research in Australia: Promises and Pitfalls for Deliberative Democratic Approaches’ 3 Bioethical Inquiry 95.
   Google Scholar
• Joshua AT Fairfield (forthcoming 2021) Runaway Technology: Can Law Keep Up? Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• John H Farrar (1974) Law Reform and the Law Commission, Sweet and Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick Foong (2019) ‘Regulating Human Genome Editing in Australia: Overdue Legislative Review’ 28 Biotechnology Law Review 376.
   Google Scholar
• Gerald Gardiner and Andrew Martin (eds) (1963) Law Reform Now, Gollancz.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrike Goldenblatt (2016) ‘Facing Your Dolly: Cloning as an Aid or Obstacle to Discussions of Ethics in Science Fiction’ in Shawn Edrei and Danielle Gurevitch (eds) Science Fiction Beyond Borders, Cambridge Scholars Press 85.
   Google Scholar
• HLA Hart (1983) Essays on Bentham’s Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• HLA Hart (1994) The Concept of Law, 2nd edn, Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Olivia Harvey (2005) ‘Regulating Stem-cell Research and Human Cloning in an Australian Context: An Exercise in Protecting the Status of the Human Subject’ 24(2) New Genetics and Society 125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olivia Harvey (2008) ‘Regulating Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning in an Australian Context: the Lockhart Review’ 27(1) New Genetics and Society 33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin Heidegger (1977) ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper and Row 3.
   Google Scholar
• Jef Huysmans (2008) ‘The Jargon of Exception—on Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society’ 2 International Political Sociology 165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ken Hyland (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing, University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ian Kerridge and Aric Bendorf (2011) ‘Progress in Stem Cell Research and the Role of Law’ 194 Medical Journal of Australia 156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles Lawson et al (2019) ‘The Perils of Parliamentarism: The World Intellectual Property Organisation and Indigenous Peoples’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy040.
   Google Scholar
• Kim Little (2002) ‘Human Reproductive Cloning: An Analysis of the Andrews Report’ 21 Monash Bioethics Review 79.
   Google Scholar
• David G Llewellyn (2019) ‘Bentham and Australia’ 14 Journal of Comparative Law 174.
   Google Scholar
• Tamra Lysaght and Ian Kerridge (2012) ‘Rhetoric, Power and Legitimacy: A Critical Analysis of the Public Policy Disputes Surrounding Stem Cell Research in Australia (2005–06)’ 21 Public Understanding of Science 195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John McCormick (1994) ‘Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany’ 22 Political Theory 619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John P McCormick (1997) Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greg Melleuish and Stephen A Chavura (2016) ‘Utilitarianism contra Sectarianism’ in William O Coleman (ed) Only in Australia: The History, Politics, Economics of Australian Exceptionalism, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jan-Werner Müller (2003) A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought, Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Irene Nemes (2008) ‘Therapeutic Cloning in Australia: One Small Stem from Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind’ 16 Journal of Law and Medicine 139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• John Orr (1974) ‘German Social Theory and the Hidden Face of Technology’ 15 European Journal of Sociology 312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm Parker (2009) ‘Naked Regulators: Moral Pluralism, Deliberative Democracy and Authoritative Regulation of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research’ 16 Journal of Law and Medicine 580.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gerardo Patriotta (2017) ‘Crafting Papers for Publication: Novelty and Convention in Academic Writing’ 54 Journal of Management Studies 747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alan Petersen (2002) ‘Replicating Our Bodies, Losing Our Selves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly’ 8 Body and Society 71.
   Google Scholar
• Steve Pincus (1995) ‘“Coffee Politicians Does Create”: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture’ 67 The Journal of Modern History 807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diego H Rossello (2017) ‘“To be Human, Nonetheless, Remains a Decision”: Humanism as Decisionism in Contemporary Critical Political Theory’ 16 Contemporary Political Theory 439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael Shamblott et al (1998) ‘Derivation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Cultured Human Primordial Germ Cells’ 95 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 13726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1985) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1988a) The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1988b) The Idea of Representation, Plutarch Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1990) ‘The Plight of European Jurisprudence’ 83 Telos 35.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1993) ‘The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticiazations’ 96 Telos 130.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (1996) The Leviathan in State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol, Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (2008) Constitutional Theory, Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carl Schmitt (2018) ‘Tyranny of Values’ in Samuel Garrett Zeitlin and Russell A Berman (eds) The Tyranny of Values and Other Texts, Telos Press Publishing 21.
   Google Scholar
• Sidra Shafique (2020) ‘Scientific and Ethical Implications of Human and Animal Cloning’ 8 International Journal of Science, Technology Society 9.
   Google Scholar
• William E Scheuerman (2002) ‘Motorized Legislation? Statutes in an Age of Speed’ 88 ARSP: Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie/Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 379.
   Google Scholar
• Loane Skene et al (2008) ‘The Lockhart Committee: Developing Policy Through Commitment to Moral Values, Community and Democratic Processes’ 16 Journal of Law and Medicine 132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joshua Smeltzer (2018) ‘“Germany’s Salvation”: Carl Schmitt’s Teleological History of the Second Reich’ 44 History of European Ideas 590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ville Suuronen (2020) ‘The Rise of the Homme Machine: Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Biotechnology and Utopias’ 48 Political Theory 615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James Thomson et al (1998) ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts’ 282 Science 1145.
   Google Scholar
• James Thomson and Vivienne Marshall (1998) ‘Primate Embryonic Stem Cells’ 38 Current Topics in Developmental Biology 133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margaret Thornton (2002) ‘Law and Popular Culture: Engendering Legal Vertigo: An Unacknowledged Liaison’ in Margarret Thornton (ed) Romancing The Tomes Popular Culture Law and Feminism, Cavendish-Routedge 3.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Tilbury (2005) ‘A History of Law Reform in Australia’ in Brian Opeskin and David Weisbrot (eds) The Promise of Law Reform, The Federation Press 3.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2010) ‘Biotechnology, Media and Law-making: Lessons from the Cloning and Stem Cell Controversy in Australia 1997–2002’ 2 Law, Innovation and Technology 51.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2011a) ‘The Law and Technology Enterprise: Uncovering the Template to Legal Scholarship on Technology’ 3 Law, Innovation and Technology 31.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2011b) ‘The Speculative Jurisdiction: The Science Fictionality of Law and Technology’ 20 Griffith Law Review 817.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2015) ‘Citation Practices of the Australian Law Reform Commission in Final Reports 1992–2012’ 38 University of New South Wales Law Journal 318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2017) ‘Disrupting Technology Disrupting Law’ Law, Culture and the Humanities forthcoming, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872117704925
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter (2018) Living in Technical Legality: Science Fiction and Law as Technology, University of Edinburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran Tranter and Bronwyn Statham (2007) ‘Echo and Mirror: Clone Hysteria, Genetic Determinism and Star Trek Nemesis’ 3 Law, Culture and the Humanities 361.
   Google Scholar
• David Weisbrot (2005) ‘The Future of Institutional Law Reform’ in Brian Opeskin and David Weisbrot (eds) The Promise of Law Reform, The Federation Press 18.
   Google Scholar
• Primary sources
   Google Scholar
• Acts and Bills
   Google Scholar
• Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 (WA)
   Google Scholar
• Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic)
   Google Scholar
• Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth)
   Google Scholar
• Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006 (Cth)
   Google Scholar
• Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth)
   Google Scholar
• Reproductive Technology Act 1988 (SA)
   Google Scholar
• Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth)
   Google Scholar
• Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 (Cth)
   Google Scholar
• Reports
   Google Scholar
• Australian Health Ethics Committee (1998) Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings, National Health and Medical Research Council – Australian Health Ethics Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission (2014) The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, Australian Human Rights Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Law Reform Commission (2019) Annual Report 2018–2019, Australian Law Reform Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Legislation Review Committee (2005) Legislation Review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, Legislation Review Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Legislation Review Committee (2011) Legislation Review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, Legislation Review Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission (2019) Annual Report 2018–2019, Productivity Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2001) Human Cloning: Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Digests and explanatory memorandums
   Google Scholar
• Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Research Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth), Bills Digest no. 59 2006-07.
   Google Scholar
• Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth), Revised Explanatory Memorandum.
   Google Scholar
• Media
   Google Scholar
• ‘Cloning of Sheep Stuns Scientists’, The Age, 24 February 1997, p 1.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Embryo Work Banned’, The Courier Mail, 26 February 2002, p 1.
   Google Scholar
• Tim Dean (2011) ‘Australian Stem Cell Researchers Call for Less Regulatory Red Tape’, Australian Biotechnology News, 2 March. https://www.labonline.com.au/content/life-scientist/news/australian-stem-cell-researchers-call-for-less-regulatory-red-tape-1132184227.
   Google Scholar
• Steve Dow (1997) ‘Ethicists Predict Human Cloning’, The Age, 25 February 1997, p 7.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew Elefanty, et al (2011) ‘Striking the Balance in Laws for Stem Cell Research’, The Conversation, 24 April. https://theconversation.com/striking-the-balance-in-laws-for-stem-cell-research-309.
   Google Scholar
• Michelle Grattan and Deborah Smith (2002) ‘Howard to Study Stem Cell Research’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 February 2002, p 7.
   Google Scholar
• Simon Grose (2006) ‘Government Pays Lip Service to Stem Cell Debate’, Australian Science, August 2006, p 31.
   Google Scholar
• Dean Jaensch (2002) ‘More Conscience Voting to Shake Security Blankets’, The Advertiser, 11 April 2002, p 18.
   Google Scholar
• Ronald Kotulak (1997) ‘Scientists Clone Lamb from Cell to Make History’, The Courier Mail, 24 February 1997, p 1.
   Google Scholar
• Graeme Leech (1997) ‘The Genetic Gene’, The Australian, 1 March 1997, p 22.
   Google Scholar
• Sean Parnell (2002) ‘Go-Ahead on Embryos – PM Supports Cell Research’, The Courier Mail, 5 April 2002, p 1.
   Google Scholar
• Stathi Paxinos (2001) ‘Italian Scientist Prepares to Clone Humans’, The Age, 6 August 2001, p 7.
   Google Scholar
• George Pell (2002) ‘Decision a Pyrrhic Victory for Pragmatism’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2002, p 13.
   Google Scholar
• Loane Skene (2011) ‘It’s a vision thing: the case for a far-sighted approach to stem cell research’, The Conversation, 14 June. https://theconversation.com/its-a-vision-thing-the-case-for-a-far-sighted-approach-to-stem-cell-research-1790.
   Google Scholar
• David van Gend (2011) ‘Cloning: The Blighted Science’, Quadrant Online, 1 November. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/11/cloning-the-blighted-science/.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Yallop (2002) ‘No Ban, Urges Stem Pioneer’, The Australian, 14 August 2002, p 5.
   Google Scholar
• Hansard
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 20 August 2002, p 5242 (Simon Crean, Leader of the Opposition).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 20 August 2002, p 5255 (Nicola Roxon).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 20 August 2002, p 5249 (Stephen Smith).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 20 August 2002, p 5259 (Bruce Billson).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 21 August 2002, p 5410 (Duncan Kerr).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 22 August 2002, p 5455 (Julie Bishop).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 22 August 2002, p 5465 (John Murphy).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 August 2002, p 5864 (Lawrence Ferguson).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 August 2002, p 6055 (Petro Georgiou).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 August 2002, p 6065 (Barry Wakelin).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 August 2002, p 6104 (Kevin Andrews, Minister for Ageing).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 30 November 2006, p 13 (Julie Gillard).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 4 December 2006, p 123 (John Murphy).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 4 December 2006, p 134 (John Anderson, Deputy Prime Minister).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 December 2006, p 70 (Patrick Secker).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 December 2006, p 116 (Steven Ciobo).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 10 (Laurence Ferguson).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 17 (Margaret May).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 33 (Bruce Billson, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 44 (Kay Elson).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 56 (Joe Hockey, Minister for Human Services).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 58 (Julie Bishop, Minister for Education, Science and Training).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, p 63 (Michael Keenan).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 December 2006, 118 (John Howard, Prime Minister).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 6 November 2006, p 5 (Natasha Stott Despoja).
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 6 November 2006, p 157 (Eric Abetz).
   Google Scholar