SYDNEY—Australia's recent support for a total cloning ban at the United Nations (UN) has left researchers in the country surprised and concerned, particularly in light of an upcoming parliamentary review of embryo research legislation.

The UN has been attempting to formulate a resolution on cloning for years, with member nations divided between a proposal that would ban all forms of cloning and an alternative that would not forbid cell nuclear replacement for stem cell generation.

In previous debates, Australia had supported the second option, put forward by Belgium and supported by the United Kingdom and others, but at the latest General Assembly in New York, it offered its support to the stricter draft, proposed by Costa Rica and supported by the United States and about 60 other countries.

By the end of this year's meeting, the UN committee considering the declaration had moved beyond either proposal—deciding to shift its efforts toward writing a non-binding political declaration. Nevertheless, for Australia's researchers, the government's support for the Costa Rican draft has potential domestic implications.

"No one I've spoken to knew Australia had supported that view," Robert Saint, director of the Centre for the Molecular Genetics of Development at the Australian National University in Canberra, told The Scientist.

Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, spokesperson on science for one of Australia's opposition parties, the Australian Democrats, told a stem cell conference in Sydney last week that Australia had "done a backflip in the international arena, in relation to our views on cloning legislation, particularly therapeutic cloning."

"Now this has happened without consultation, without review. In fact, it preempts a review of Australia's legislation, and we'd like to know who is driving this agenda," Stott-Despoja said.

Stott-Despoja was referring to a parliamentary review that will examine a 3-year-old law that prohibits the use of human cloning for research. The review will be led by health minister Tony Abbott, who is on record as opposing therapeutic cloning.

Michelle Singe, director of public affairs at the Australian Stem Cell Centre, told The Scientist that the center was looking closely at how that review is influenced by the UN debate.

"It is the result of this review and accompanying debate that will impact most significantly on the embryonic stem cell research undertaken in Australian laboratories," Singe said. "The UN is scheduled to make an announcement regarding reproductive and therapeutic nuclear transfer in mid February next year, which will coincide with the legislative review in Australia. It will be interesting to watch how the UN's position, if they can come to a conclusion in this time frame, will influence the Australian review."

The government's stance also left other parliamentarians and researchers concerned. Opposition health spokeswoman Julia Gillard said decisions about Australia's position on therapeutic cloning "should be made by the parliament following community debate rather than by the existing government in the course of a treaty process."

Alan Trounson, head of the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, who led a scientific delegation that spoke in New York earlier this year against the Costa Rica proposal, told The Australian that he feared the government's "unfortunate" stance might hinder a "genuine and open discussion" on therapeutic cloning.

The furor erupted less than 2 months after the ruling Liberal-National Coalition government was returned to power with an increased majority. That election victory had been helped by voting preferences from a new party, Family First, whose leaders are closely linked with the Christian fundamentalist movement in Australia.

However, foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer told reporters that Australia's position on cloning in the UN vote was "just upholding Australian law. This sort of conspiracy theory that somebody's lurched in from the far right of some church or something and told us that we should change our position and we decided to respond to that, is just complete nonsense."