PRIME Minister John Howard's embryo research Bill will please no-one. As the debate over embryo research heats up, he could find the only person in Australia to support his solution to the fate of spare IVF embryos is himself. Back in April he brokered a "responsible" and "balanced" deal with the states which would allow research on the 70,000 embryos frozen in IVF clinics. Relying on the advice of Australia's leading lobbyist for embryo research, Monash University Professor Alan Trounson, Howard argued that scientists would be able to use stem cells extracted from the embryos for "life-saving and life-enhancing therapies" for diabetes and Parkinson's and other diseases.

He went even further and announced funding of $43.5 million to the new Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair, headed by Trounson even though much of the centre's proposed research is illegal under current legislation. But last week this carefully crafted compromise began to fall apart.

Trounson blasted Catholics as "irrational hypocrites" for opposing embryo research on the one hand and neglecting to baptise dying embryos on the other. It was one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of Australian theology.

Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson (a non-Catholic) was quick to defend Catholics and attack Trounson. "We are in Western society drifting into utilitarianism which ought to frighten the living daylights out of people but obviously doesn't with Mr Trounson," he said.

Frontbenchers Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and Kevin Andrews have already split with Howard on this issue. But more troubling than rumblings in the Government is confusion over the facts. Trounson, who not long ago said he "absolutely, unreservedly" supported therapeutic cloning has changed his mind. He has broken with his colleagues and is arguing that scientific literature does not support the need for therapeutic cloning. This is not his first major flip-flop in the debate. Last year he changed his mind about the need for new embryonic stem-cell lines. Advice from the scientist who has been the greatest influence on Howard's position on embryos seems more and more eccentric.

And there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of Howard's Bill. To his credit, he seems genuinely opposed to both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. But in fact, IVF researchers need to do therapeutic cloning if they are going to deliver those miracle cures. Trounson's about face appears to be based more on hunches than on peer-reviewed research.

The problem is that patients' immune systems will probably reject stem cells from IVF embryos because they will not have the same genes. To overcome this, the next move must logically be cloning embryos. Where does this leave Howard? Having succumbed once to the argument that cures are more important than the embryos' dignity, how will he resist pleas for therapeutic cloning? The unravelling doesn't stop there. If therapeutic cloning is allowed, does Howard seriously think he can ban reproductive cloning? After all, there's no essential difference. A therapeutic clone is a viable human embryo in a Petri dish with a life expectancy of 14 days or so. If this same embryo is placed in a womb, it has a life expectancy of 70-plus years.

Reproductive cloning will never become popular, but there will certainly be a demand to replace deceased children, to act as organ donors, or to create a disease-free copy of an adult. It already has the blessing of respected scientists; the British researcher responsible for the birth of the world's first IVF baby, Robert Edwards, and, only a few days ago, Baroness Warnock, architect of Britain's IVF legislation.

The right to reproductive freedom could also be invoked to support a woman's (or a man's) right to have a cloned baby. These are uncharted waters, but if a single mother has a right to access IVF services, couldn't lawyers mount a plausible argument on similar grounds?

Howard's Bill is a mare's nest of contradictions. There is only one way to avoid creating embryos for research don't use them. There will be no turning back.