Human cloning

Human cloning and its ethical significance

There are at least three ways of performing human cloning, but each involves the creation of a genetic copy of a human person in the laboratory. The status, human dignity and the existence of such clones would be compromised by the technical processes and attitudes involved.

Clones may be created solely to produce tissue for research or treatment so that, for example, stem cells might be removed to be used for the development of medicines or the growing of spare body parts. In such cases, the cloned embryo is killed once the required material has been taken from him or her.

Cardinal Thomas Winning, the Archbishop of Glasgow and chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Joint Committee on Bioethical Issues, has said that "the clone would be produced, and treated, as if it were a chemical ingredient"1 and that "'Therapeutic cloning' is the ultimate misnomer, for it actually means killing."2

In fact, embryos' stem cells are probably not unique. Cells from adult brain tissue and bone-marrow appear to have similar properties.3 Umbilical cords can also yield useful material.

Cloning might also be used to produce new human beings who are allowed to survive. Such people will effectively be carbon-copies who would almost certainly be regarded as subject to the people who cloned them.

The British Government and human cloning

On 24 June 1999 the Government called for a moratorium on human cloning and established the Expert Medical Group on Human Cloning (known as the Donaldson committee) under Professor Liam Donaldson, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, who selected the other members. Lord Alton of Liverpool has criticised this and other similar bodies for the absence of people who uphold the sanctity of life. He also criticised the lack of balance on such committees, citing the inclusion in some cases of members of the Eugenics Society.4

On 16 August 2000 the Department of Health announced5 that it had accepted in full the recommendations contained in the Donaldson committee's report6.

The Government's main proposals are:

  1. to widen existing limits on the kinds of medical research for which embryos may be used, in order to include the kinds of research that scientists want to conduct on cloned embryos
  2. to allow a form of human cloning known as ovum cell nuclear replacement (CNR--the Dolly the sheep technique) for medical research, the extraction of embryonic stem cells, etc.;
  3. to enact new legislation to ban CNR for reproductive purposes (in which a cloned embryo is implanted in a womb and allowed to be born)7.
At present not all forms of human cloning are explicitly banned. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has said that it will not license transfer of cloned embryos into wombs. The HFEA is, however, in favour of human cloning for medical research, as well as embryo splitting, a type of human cloning which it already licenses for use in the pre-implantation diagnosis of congenital conditions. The HFEA includes strong representation from the test-tube baby industry, and its membership is open only to those who agree to sanction destructive experiments on embryos.

However, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not explicitly envisage cloning, as the Act only governs embryos created by fertilisation and says nothing about embryos created by CNR or any other means8. This suggests that the HFEA lacks the power to regulate CNR. The Department of Health has obtained Counsel's opinion on this matter, and claims that the HFEA does have power to regulate CNR, but the terms of the opinion have not been published. In the interest of transparency, this would be helpful.

Patents on cloning

The British government has issued a patent for the technology used to clone Dolly the sheep9 and the European Patent Office issued a patent to researchers at Edinburgh University which could be used for human cloning.10

Europe

The European Parliament has unambiguously rejected the cloning of human beings on several occasions11, calling for "each Member State to enact binding legislation prohibiting all research into any kind of human cloning within its territory and providing for criminal penalties for any breach"12 and insisting "that there should be a universal and specific ban at the level of the United Nations on the cloning of human beings at all stages of formation and development"13. Its resolutions reject any distinction between 'therapeutic' and 'reproductive' cloning14, follow an agreed definition of the human embryo as a human being15 and have received strong cross-party support. In response to the British Government's acceptance of the Donaldson report, it called upon the Government "to review its position on human embryo cloning" and "the United Kingdom Parliament to ... reject the proposal to permit research using embryos created by cell nuclear transfer"16.

The present draft of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, due to be finalised in December 2000, proposes a ban on 'reproductive' cloning. Pro-life MEPs have been working to have this extended to cover all forms of human cloning.

Some argue that the British biotechnology industry would lose out to European competition if research into human cloning were prohibited. However, Germany has the strongest rules in Europe for the protection of embryos in research, yet it has overtaken the United Kingdom in terms of the number of biotechnology firms locating there17.

The move towards 'reproductive' cloning

Proponents of cloning like to make out that there are two types of human cloning, namely 'reproductive' and 'therapeutic'. In fact, these are not types of cloning, but descriptions of the ways in which clones might be used. The apparently benign term 'therapeutic' conceals the fact that the cloned person is discarded once tissue has been taken from him or her18.

On 30 August 2000, the Independent newspaper conducted a survey of 32 "eminent medical scientists", such as Lord (Robert) Winston, the IVF promoter, and Professor Richard Dawkins, into the subject of 'reproductive' cloning. Most of the respondents admitted that allowing so-called therapeutic cloning meant that cloned babies would inevitably be born in the near future.

Once one form of human cloning gained acceptance, it would be impossible to stop other types of cloning19. Respect for human life would be further eroded and human procreation would increasingly become the province of technicians. Cloned people who were allowed to develop would have an insecure role in society.

Notes

  1. letter to Professor Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, 22 October 1999
  2. article, "Be warned, Mr. Blair, cloning is killing", Sunday Telegraph, 20 August 2000.
  3. research by the National Neurological Institute, Milan, and MCP Hahnemann University, Philadelphia
  4. Catholic Herald, 7 April 2000
  5. Government Response to the Recommendations Made in the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group Report "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility", Department of Health, August 2000.
  6. Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility, a report from the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group reviewing the potential of developments in stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement to benefit human health, Department of Health, June 2000.
  7. "...to ensure that research using the cell nuclear replacement technique to create embryos does not inadvertently lead to reproductive cloning, the Government will bring forward primary legislation to give added clarity to the ban on human reproductive cloning, when the Parliamentary timetable permits." (Government Response to the Recommendations Made in the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group Report "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility", Department of Health, August 2000).
  8. "Some have argued that, as fertilisation is not involved [in cloning], section 3(1) [of the HFE Act 1990) does not apply" (3.4, Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine: A Report from the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, December 1998).
  9. http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F612000/612247.stmblank, BBC web-site, 20 January 2000
  10. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000221/2/a0hxh.html, Reuters, 21 February 2000
  11. Resolution on cloning, 12 March 1997, Resolution on human cloning, 15 January 1998, Resolution on the decision by the European Patent Office on the cloning of human beings, 30 March 2000, Resolution on Human Cloning, 7 September 2000.
  12. Resolution on Human Cloning, 7 September 2000, Article 4; Resolution on Human Cloning, 15 January 1998, Article 3.
  13. Resolution on Human Cloning, 7 September 2000, Article 10.
  14. ibid, Recital H: "...there is no difference between cloning for therapeutic purposes and cloning for the purposes of reproduction".
  15. Memorandum of the Council of Ministers regarding the Common Position on the directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, 6 July 1998: "the term 'human being' means the human being beginning with the embryonic phase.".
  16. European Parliament resolution on Human Cloning, 7 September 2000, Article 3.
  17. press conference in the House of Lords, Dr Peter Liese, MEP, London, 19 May 2000
  18. European Parliament, Resolution on Human Cloning, 7 September 2000, Recital G: "...an attempt is being made to use linguistic sleight of hand to erode the moral significance of human cloning".
  19. ibid, Recital H: "...any relaxation on the present ban will lead to pressure for further developments in embryo production and usage".




© SPUC 2008