|
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 With the possible exception of the birth of Louise Brown just 20 years ago, no advance in biological research has probably attracted the attention
of the world’s media and the general public as the publication, in The Observer (London) on 23 February 1997, of the successful cloning of a sheep by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The story of Dolly, and the very rapid response to it in the USA, is well recounted in Cloning Human Beings, the June 1997 report and recommendations of the National Bio-Ethics Advisory Commission, addressed to President Clinton.
1.2 Scholars at the University of Montreal (notably Le Bris and Hirtle) have prepared comparative reviews of international and national responses to
the event and the new possibilities it may open up for human reproductive cloning. In this paper, only international responses will be presented, following an essentially chronological structure for purposes of
convenience (see Annex 1), and it is hoped to demonstrate that these are less than monolithic. The Canadian report, dated 30 May 1997 (see para. 5.1), is superbly documented and the present paper (of which any
future published version will of course be referenced) seeks to present the situation as of early August 1998.
2. FEBRUARY-JUNE 1997
2.1 Statements by the Director-General of UNESCO on 24 and 28 February 1997, by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 25 February 1997, and
by the Director-General of WHO on 11 March 1997 no doubt constituted the first international reactions, and all firmly opposed human reproductive cloning. As early as 12 March 1997, the European Parliament adopted a
resolution on cloning; this contained nine preambular paragraphs and 16 operative paragraphs, one of which called for an ‘explicit worldwide ban on the cloning of human beings’. Another called on the European
Commission to block any appropriations for any European Community-financed research on human cloning that the Commission might identify, while yet another called for a voluntary moratorium on research in this area
pending the entry into force of a legal ban. Another entity within the European Union, of a very different nature, the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology, called for a prohibition on
human reproductive cloning in an Opinion issued on 28 May 1997. Meanwhile, just two weeks previously (14 May) the World Health Assembly, the supreme governing body of WHO, had expressed the view, in a resolution,
that cloning for the replication of human individuals is ethically unacceptable (This view was reaffirmed in a resolution adopted by the Executive Board of WHO on 27 January 1998 and endorsed by the World Health
Assembly in May 1998).
2.2 On 31 May 1997, the Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
(FIGO), meeting in Basel, unanimously agreed that "cloning to produce a human individual either by nuclear transfer or embryo splitting is unacceptable". It indicated that a further, detailed statement
regarding the social, ethical, legal, and medical implications of cloning will be issued later, after a subsequent meeting of the Committee.
2.3 The Heads of State and Government of the Seven Leading Industrial Countries and Russia, meeting in Denver on 20-22 June 1997, issued their Final
Communiqué on 22 June 1997. One paragraph (47) indicated the agreement of the ‘Denver Summit of the Eight’ on the need for "appropriate domestic measures and close international co-operation to prohibit the use
of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a child".
2.4 Other views were expressed by possibly the first non-governmental organisation to address the issue, the London-based European Alliance of Genetic
Support Groups. In a Briefing Paper on Cloning dated 7 March 1997 (prepared at the request of certain Members of the European Parliament), this body expressed the view that "the ethical option may well be to
permit this work to continue because of its beneficial impact on health and disease". It affirmed that "hasty legislation tends to be bad legislation".
2.5 On 14-17 June 1997, the Islamic Organisation of Medical Sciences, in conjunction with WHO’s Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, convened
the 9th Fiqh [Islamic Law] - Medical Seminar in Casablanca. This Seminar adopted five recommendations, including the following:
II. Ordinary human cloning, in which the nucleus of a living somatic cell from an individual is placed into the cytoplasm of an egg devoid of its
nucleus, is not to be permitted. If exceptional cases emerge in the future, they should be considered to verify compliance with the Shari’ah.
III. All Muslim countries are called upon to formulate the necessary legislation to prevent foreign research institutes, organisations and experts
from directly or indirectly using Muslim countries for experimentation on human cloning or promoting it.
IV. The Islamic Organisation for Medical Sciences and other similar bodies are called upon to monitor all scientific developments in the field of
cloning and define its terminology and organise seminars and meetings, as required, to determine and articulate the Islamic rulings and principles pertaining thereto.
It is clear from Recommendation II that the door is, as it were, left partially open, pending future developments.
2.6 A categorical rejection of cloning, on the other hand, is contained in Reflexions on Cloning, published by the Holy See’s Pro Vita
Pontifical Academy on 25 June 1997. This document discusses ethical and human rights issues raised by cloning, affirming (in the discussion of the latter) that "the possibility of human cloning represents a
violation of the two fundamental principles on which all human rights are based: the principle of equality among human beings and the principle of non-discrimination".
2.7 Meeting in Amsterdam on 16-17 June 1997, the highest entity within the European Union, the European Council, adopted a Declaration on Banning the
Cloning of Human Beings. Among other provisions, this Declaration indicated the determination of the European Council to "show increased vigilance as regards the dangers which may arise from an ethical
viewpoint" from developments in cloning. It stressed the "determination of the Member States, for their part, to take all measures necessary to prohibit human cloning". Reference was made to
discussions in several bodies, including UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (the writer is personally unaware of any such discussions within the framework of the latter
entity).
3. JULY-DECEMBER 1997
3.1 Following the adoption of an Opinion and an Order by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly on 23 September 1997, calling for a ban on the
cloning of human beings (and recommending, inter alia, that the United Nations General Assembly should draft an instrument prohibiting such cloning, based on what was at the time a draft Council of Europe
text), the Committee of Ministers did in fact proceed to adopt, on 6 November 1997, a ‘Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings’, the draft of which had
been prepared, at its request, by the Steering Committee on Bioethics (often referred to by its French acronym, CDI). In doing so, the Committee of Ministers had responded to the paragraph (4) in the Final
Declaration and Action Plan endorsed by the Second Summit of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997), under which the Heads of State and Government undertook to "prohibit all use of cloning
techniques aimed at creating genetically identical human beings" and, to this end, instructed the Committee of Ministers to adopt what was then the Draft Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and
Biomedicine as soon as possible.
In view of the fact that access to the text of the Protocol may not necessarily be easy in non-Member States of the Council of Europe, it may be
warranted to reproduce here the preambular paragraphs and Article 1 (the only substantive Article):
The member States of the Council of Europe, the other States and the European Community signatories to this additional Protocol to the Convention
for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine,
Noting scientific developments in the field of mammal cloning, particularly through embryo splitting and nuclear transfer;
Mindful of the progress that some cloning techniques themselves may bring to scientific knowledge and its medical application;
Considering that the cloning of human beings may become a technical possibility;
Having noted that embryo splitting may occur naturally and sometimes result in the birth of genetically identical twins;
Considering however that the instrumentalisation of human beings through the deliberate creation of genetically identical human beings is contrary
to human dignity and thus constitutes a misuse of biology and medicine;
Considering also the serious difficulties of a medical, psychological and social nature that such a deliberate biomedical practice might imply for
all the individuals involved;
Considering the purpose of the Convention on human rights and biomedicine, in particular the principle mentioned in Article 1 aiming to protect the
dignity and identity of all human beings,
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited.
For the purpose of this article, the term human being ‘genetically identical’ to another human being means a human being sharing with another the
same nuclear gene set.
The Protocol was opened for signature in Paris on 12 January 1998. As of 3 August 1998, it had been signed by 23 States (personal communication from a
staff member of the Council of Europe).
3.2 Over a period of approximately four years, the International Bio-Ethics Committee of UNESCO has been engaged in preparing what is now known as the
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. This text, adopted by the twenty-ninth session of the UNESCO General Conference in Paris on 11 November 1997, includes an Article 11 in Section C (Research
on the human genome) that addresses cloning. This Article reads as follows:
Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted. States and competent
international organisations are invited to co-operate in identifying such practices and in determining, nationally or internationally, appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the principles set out in this
Declaration are respected.
3.3 On 14 November 1997, the 49th World Medical Assembly, convened by the World Medical Association, endorsed a resolution on cloning that had been
adopted by the WMA Council in Paris in 1997. This resolution called on doctors engaged in research and other researchers to abstain voluntarily from participating in the cloning of human beings "until the
scientific, ethical and legal issues have been fully considered by doctors and scientists, and any necessary controls put into place".
4. JANUARY-JULY 1998
4.1 On 17 January 1998, the Brussels-based European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology declared a voluntary moratorium in cloning human
beings (a term which it, helpfully, defined in this context as the "duplication of an existing or previously existing human being by transferring the nucleus of a differentiated, somatic cell into an enucleated
human oocyte, and implanting the resulting product for intra-uterine gestation and subsequent birth"). This text begins with an overview and thereafter proceeds to discuss "basic science issues",
"human health and biotechnology applications", and "applications to cloning human beings". The actual resolution preceding the declaration of a voluntary moratorium notes that the Society
"would regard cloning a human being as an unethical and reprehensible act", and that such a moratorium has been shown by historical precedent to be "an effective means of preventing procedures that
are potentially harmful or unsafe for humans".
4.2 As mentioned above, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution on cloning on 16 May 1998 (WHA51.10, on "Ethical, scientific and social
implications of cloning in human health"). Among other provisions, this urges Member States to "take appropriate steps, including legal and juridical measures, to prohibit cloning for the purpose of
replicating human individuals". It likewise requests the Director-General of WHO to "continue to monitor, assess and clarify, in consultation with other international organisations, national governments
and professional and scientific bodies, the ethical, scientific, social, and legal implications of the use of cloning for human health".
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 This paper has, on the grounds of space and other limitations, not presented the national context in which the international developments described
have occurred. For example, to mention only one recent development, a Consultation Document on "Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine" was released in London on 29 January 1998 jointly by
the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (see the former’s Website, http://www.dti.gov.uk/hgac/). Legislation on the subject is pending in the US Congress,
while in France the National Consultative Ethical Committee for the Life and Health Sciences released a major report on reproductive cloning (addressed to the President of France) in April 1997, at which time a
commissioned report on the biological principles and ethical/legal appraisal of cloning (by Albin Eser et al.) was released in Germany. Meanwhile, several countries, including at least one developing country
(Argentina), have issued legislation on the subject. Numerous international, national, and institutional meetings (including two major meetings organised by WHO) have been held, and the literature on the subject is
growing apace (see, for example, the Special Issue of The Sciences (Sep./Oct. 1997) devoted to "The Promise and Peril of Cloning"), the pre-Dolly Special Issue (on "Ethics and the Cloning of
Human Embryos") of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (Sep. 1994), and the vast number of sources referenced by Le Bris and Hirtle in their May 1997, French-language report to the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology, "Les Aspects Ethiques et Juridiques du Clonage Humain: Perspectives Comparatives" (not yet published, as far as the writer is aware).
5.2 The next year or two will perhaps demonstrate whether global consensus is, or is not, attainable, on the concluding point made in the Spring 1997
issue of Dispatches, a British newsletter devoted to medical law and ethics:
Only the idiosyncratic would argue that science is not worthwhile, both as an intellectual pursuit in itself and for what it can achieve in its
application for the good of humankind. But not all science isgood for humankind: cloning may be just such an instance.
5.3 Reference should also be made to the "Declaration in Defence of Cloning and the Integrity of Scientific Research" signed on a date still
to be determined by Humanist Laureates of the International Academy of Humanism. The final paragraph of this Declaration reads as follows:
Historically, the Luddite option, which seeks to turn back the clock and limit or prohibit the application of already existing technologies, has
never proven realistic or productive. The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of cloning. We call for
continued, responsible development of cloning technologies, and for a broad-based commitment to ensuring that traditionalist and obscurantist views do not irrelevantly obstruct beneficial scientific developments.
The signatories of this declaration include several distinguished philosophers, scientists, writers and other eminent personalities, many of whom will
be known to participants at this meeting. They include the following: the late Sir Isaiah Berlin; Sir Hermann Bondi; Professor Bernard Crick; Professor Francis Crick; Professor Richard Dawkins; Professor Johan
Galtung; Professor Sergei Kapitza; Taslima Nasrin; Simone Veil; Kurt Vonnegut and Professor Edward O. Wilson.
Acknowledgements: The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Ms Sonia Le Bris (Montreal), Ms Isabelle Arnal (Brussels), Dr Françoise
Shenfield (London), Dr Piotr Mierzewski (Strasbourg), Mr David Griffin (Geneva), Monsignor Giuseppe Bertello (Geneva), Professor G. Becker (Hong Kong), Mr David Shapiro (London), and Professor Henriettë Roscam
Abbing (Amsterdam) for their kind assistance in the provision of documents used in the preparation of this paper.
ANNEX 1
INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED ETHICAL
AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES RAISED BY HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING (1997-2004) (as of 20 July 1998)
|
24 & 28 Feb. 1997
|
UNESCO (Paris)
|
Declarations by Director- General
|
|
25 Feb. 1997
|
Council of Europe (Strasbourg)
|
Statement by Secretary General
|
|
7 Mar. 1997
|
European Alliance of Genetic Support Groups (London)
|
Briefing paper
|
|
11 Mar. 1997
|
WHO (Geneva)
|
Declaration by Director- General
|
|
12 Mar. 1997
|
European Parliament (Strasbourg)
|
Resolution
|
|
14 May 1997
|
World Health Assembly (Geneva)
|
Resolution
|
|
28 May 1997
|
Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology (Brussels)
|
Opinion (addressed to President of European Commission)
|
|
31 May 1997
|
FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction (Basle)
|
Statement
|
|
16-17 June 1997
|
European Council (Amsterdam)
|
Declaration
|
|
17 June 1997
|
9th Fiqh [Islamic Jurisprudence] - Medical Seminar, organized by Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences, WHO Regional Office for the
Eastern Mediterranean, etc. (Casablanca)
|
Recommendations
|
|
22 June 1997
|
Denver Summit of the Eight (Denver, CO, USA)
|
Final Communiqué
(para. 47)
|
|
25 June 1997
|
Pro Vita Pontifical Academy (Holy See) (Rome)
|
Reflections on cloning
|
|
6 Nov. 1997
|
Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers) (Strasbourg)
|
Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (opened for signature
in Paris on 12 Jan. 98)
|
|
11 Nov. 1997
|
UNESCO (Paris)
|
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (Article 11)
|
|
14 Nov. 1997
|
World Medical Association (Hamburg)
|
Resolution
|
|
17 Jan. 1998
|
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (Grimbergen, Belgium)
|
Declaration
|
|
27 Jan. 1998
|
WHO Executive Board (Geneva)
|
Resolution
|
|
16 May 1998
|
World Health Assembly (Geneva)
|
Resolution
|
top
|
