Ana Lita

Some Questions

The sustained growth of biotechnology has reinforced bullish projections of its potential impact upon humanity. The diversity of biotechnological applications and the speed of their development are continually increasing the efficacy, range, and number of biomedical options. New possibilities for reshaping our lives, our procreative practices, and even our society are becoming less a question of "could we?" than "should we?"

The current intensity of religious-conservative politics has contributed to the upsurge in bioethical interest and debate. Matters are additionally complicated by the novel character of many bioethical issues, among them cloning, which raises doubts about the adequacy of both our traditional modes of ethical analysis and the very concepts upon which they are constructed. Considering the power of biotechnology, the myriad objectives that it can serve (or can be prevented from serving), it is imperative that Humanists reflect upon and engage in the philosophy and politics of bioethics. The humanist perspective includes several principles that are particularly fitting for bioethical reflection: defending free scientific inquiry, supporting ethical universalism or cosmopolitism, and providing a reasoned alternative to religious analysis.

What should be the proper response of the IHEU Centre to the following issues?

Is nuclear transfer technology, or cloning, morally objectionable at all times? For research purposes? For Reproduction? With sentient animals? For Humans?

Would extensive applications of projected biotechnological capabilities lead to unprecedented breakthroughs in human well-being? A "Brave New World" style dystopia?

Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning

The applications of cloning technology that are politically most relevant are reproductive cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) research, the latter is also referred to as "therapeutic cloning" or "research cloning." While there is vast international support for prohibiting reproductive cloning, this support has not translated into a legally binding United Nations prohibition. This is because bio-conservative countries have insisted on attaching a prohibition of SCNT research to any prohibition of reproductive cloning. Supporters of this approach include the United States, the Vatican, Costa Rica and sixty other countries. Supporters of a legally binding prohibition of reproductive cloning that would not prohibit SCNT research include: the U.K., China, India and at least thirty other countries. After reproductive cloning had been on the General Assembly agenda for several years, in late 2004, the two camps were still unable to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. As such, the General Assembly gave up trying to pass a legally binding prohibition of reproductive cloning, and in May 2005, settled for a non-binding declaration, which passed by an 87 to 34 vote (with 37 abstentions). Many pro-SCNT countries opposed the declaration because they found that its language could be easily interpreted as prohibiting SCNT; they stated that they did not consider themselves bound by the document and it would not impact their SCNT research. Some SCNT supporters charged that the intransigence of the bio-conservative countries prevented the passage of a much needed binding prohibition of reproductive cloning. Some supporters of the declaration explicitly stated that they considered it to be a step towards a binding prohibition of all cloning.

States Respond

On the international level, approximately thirty-five countries ban reproductive cloning and some also ban SCNT research, while others do not. Countries without any cloning prohibitions have generally not felt the need to pass such legislation, which should not be construed as support to cloning. No country favours or protects reproductive cloning. It should be noted that in many countries, cloning policy is currently in flux. There are some notable trends in national cloning policy. Countries in which the Catholic Church has substantial influence are more likely to have highly prohibitive policies. Communist countries (e.g. China) tend to have more liberal policies and many African nations favour total cloning prohibition. The countries with the most prohibitive policies include Italy, Ireland, Costa Rica, Austria, and Germany, which ban all cloning and embryonic research, including research upon embryos that are to be discarded by fertility clinics. The countries with the most liberal cloning policies include: the U.K., China, South Korea, and Singapore. Cloning legislation developments in the U.S. resemble those in the UN, in that Congress has been unable to pass a prohibition of reproductive cloning, despite overwhelming agreement, because social conservatives have insisted on attaching a prohibition of SCNT to any prohibition of reproductive cloning.

Opinion of SCNT research, even amongst general scientists, is often confused. Approximately 65% of Western scientists hold the contradictory positions of favouring therapeutic cloning (SCNT research) and at the same time considering the creation of human embryos for research unethical. However, most stem cell researchers consider the use of human embryos to be ethically reasonable.

Panel Discussion

Given the controversy over the issue of cloning, (therapeutic and reproductive), the IHEU-Appignani Centre for Bioethics held its first panel discussion: Bioethicists Reconsider the Terms of the Debate about Cloning at the UN, on Monday Sept. 26, 2005 Prominent speakers were invited by the Centre to debate the present and future of cloning. The purpose of the panel was to present a variety of views on the ethics of cloning since the topic is so timely and controversial, in the wake of the South Korean announcement that they have cloned a human embryo and extracted stem cells.

Professor Glenn McGee is Director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, at the Albany Medical Center (www.bioethics.net). He discussed possible answers to the questions above and the nature of the political and bioethics debate we can expect in the coming decade.

Professor Schuklenk is Chair in Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance, Glasgow Caledonian University and is also Co-Editor Bioethics and Developing World Bioethics. (http://www.udo- schuklenk.org/) He talked about some of the ethical issues involved in efforts to develop cloning techniques for reproductive (human) purposes.

Professor Stuart Newman is a specialist in Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, and has testified before Congressional committees on issues ranging from patenting of organisms to human stem cells and cloning. (http://www.nymc.edu/ sanewman/). His main point during the debate was that we should not focus on the scary Frankenstein (the cloned), but rather the introspective Frankenstein. We should be reluctant to create beings with a radically ambiguous nature and moral status. There is little pressing need for such beings and only fringe groups were advocating their creation.

Senator Liz Krueger was first elected to the New York State Senate in a Special Election in February 2002 and is currently the Chair of Minority Program Development. She talked about how to formulate public policy while balancing ethical, societal and medical considerations. She insisted that human embryo cloning is an important part of a research agenda and business model for producing cells customized for specific disease entities or individual patients. Public policy on stem cell research, the Senator stated, should be crafted to ensure that researchers have the tools necessary to fulfil the promise of stem cell research. New York state supports stem cell research as an avenue for the development of affordable and accessible treatments for these varied public health threats. New York state will regulate this important emerging technology to protect society from known risks. According to Senator Krueger, human reproductive cloning poses risks that far outweigh its benefits.

Our Approach

Our approach focuses solely upon a true dialogue, based on respect for universally shared values such as compassion and respect for the rights of patients. The key thrust of our strategy is to raise awareness of the benefits for humanity of science and biotechnology, which requires a critical consideration and ethical reflection on such developments and their benefits. It is therefore necessary for Humanists to be active on the issue of embryonic stem cell research in order to realize its potential to help so many.

The IHEU-Appignani Centre for Bioethics will pursue a cloning agenda that emphasizes rational analysis of the issues in the interest of human welfare. There is a considerable need for a humanist perspective given the substantial strength and resources of the religious conservative bioethics movement. The Centre's work in this area will consist primarily of policy development, outreach, and lobbying, and in April 2006, we will be hosting a joint conference, most likely at the United Nations, with the Genetics Policy Institute, a leader in defending SCNT research.

Ana Lita is Director of the IHEU-Appignani Center for Bioethics.