|
Dim Chance for Global
Cloning Ban
Special Report
By:
M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, - Deep
divisions within the international community, fed by religious views,
economic interests and U.S. domestic politics, are hampering efforts to
outlaw human reproductive cloning worldwide. Nearly all countries agree that
reproductive cloning, or the creation of an identical human being through
asexual reproductive methods, should be banned. But fewer than 30 of the 191
states recognized by the United Nations have outlawed researchers from
attempting the procedure,
according to UNESCO.
More than 150 countries have no
law on the books that bars reproductive cloning, including many—like the
United States—which have the scientific resources and facilities necessary
to produce a human clone. In the absence of either national laws or an
international agreement outlawing the procedure, researchers are developing
techniques around the world—in
South
America and
Asia—that
could be used for reproductive cloning. In
Europe,
several countries have adopted laws banning reproductive cloning, but
research continues, while in
Israel,
which has adopted a five year ban on the procedure, scientists work with
little oversight and can easily transport the products of their research
abroad.
Despite the ongoing scientific
advances, there has been little progress on adopting international
agreements outlawing the procedure, according to dozens of diplomats
contacted by the Center for Public Integrity. The global rift on the issue
was clearly evident when the U.N. General Assembly's Legal Committee voted
last November to delay any decision on the issue, after a contentious debate
that was marked by a flurry of lobbying.
The General Assembly's Legal
Committee is scheduled to take up the issue again on October 21, but
diplomats involved in past discussions and others who have closely followed
the U.N. effort say it is unlikely that a global convention, agreeable to
all nations, will be ratified, as countries remain divided over the scope
and breadth of such a treaty.
A group of nations, led by the
United States and Costa Rica, want a total ban on human cloning. Their view
is in sync with the Vatican, which has also called for a comprehensive ban.
Costa Rica is planning to submit
a revised proposal calling for a total ban on cloning research, including
research for therapeutic purposes.
That echoes an earlier proposal
the country filed with the U.N. that was tabled last year. "The cloning of
human beings, whether carried out on an experimental basis, in the context
of fertility treatments or pre-implantation diagnosis, for tissue
transplantation or for any other purpose whatsoever, is morally repugnant,
unethical and contrary to respect for the person and constitutes a grave
violation of fundamental human rights…," according to a draft resolution
filed by Bruno Stagno, permanent representative of Costa Rica to the United
Nations, with Secretary General Kofi Annan on April 2, 2003.
Another group of more than two
dozen countries, including Belgium, Germany, France and Britain, wants to
limit the ban to just reproductive cloning. These nations favor the
regulation of research cloning, which they think should be left for
individual countries. "The [United Kingdom] believes that all types of stem
cell research, including therapeutic cloning, should be encouraged," Adam
Thomson, deputy permanent representative to the U.K. mission to the United
Nations,
told the General Assembly last December. "Indeed we believe that it
would be indefensible to stop this research and deny millions of people –
and their families – the chance of new treatments which could save their
lives."
Diplomats, many of whom spoke to
the Center on the condition that their names not be used, do not see a
breaking of the impasse any time soon.
"[The stalemate] will continue,
even if there is a vote," a diplomat from a Western European country active
in the U.N. negotiations told the Center for Public Integrity. "The vote can
go either way, but whichever way it goes nothing will come out of it. If
they vote to defeat the beginning of negotiations, we won't have
negotiations. If the vote is to start negotiations on a total ban, then
nothing will come out of it either—except a convention ratified by a few
states. But [there will be] no universal convention. It will be a gimmick."
Several diplomats and sources
within the United Nations, who represent countries on all sides of the
issue, voiced similar opinions.
"It is highly possible that
we'll never have a treaty," a U.N. source said. "People are pushing their
agenda—it is part of a bigger game."
Currently, few countries have
enacted legislation in the area, a situation described by the Western
European diplomat as "anarchic." He added, "The most troubling thing right
now is only 20 countries out of 192 have legislation on the subject at all.
[There's no law] in some countries that have the scientific potential to
[achieve] cloning, like the U.S., which does not have laws."
According to UNESCO, "21
countries have adopted legislation which explicitly prohibits human
reproductive cloning and eight other countries have interpreted their
existing legislation as implicitly prohibiting human reproductive cloning."
Legislative attempts in U.S. Congress
have stalled because of a similar divide on the issue of research cloning.
American overreach
Global efforts to prohibit human
cloning began in 1997 after British scientist Ian Wilmut announced the birth
of Dolly; the sheep was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.
UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, denounced human cloning in its Universal Declaration on Human
Genome and Human Rights, adopted that year. The declaration, which is not
binding, was endorsed by the General Assembly.
The United Nations took up the
issue in 2001, at the behest of France and Germany—the first time, according
to many U.N. observers, in its nearly six decades of existence that the
world body got involved in a bioethics issue. The two countries said a U.N.
convention, besides providing a set of moral guidelines, would lead member
states to enact national legislation, preventing those who have vowed to
clone human beings from taking advantage of the legal vacuum that exists in
most parts of the world.
The Vatican, which has an
observer status at the United Nations, was the first to propose that the
convention be expanded to include a ban on research cloning as well. The
Catholic Church considers embryos as human beings and is opposed to all
research on embryos.
Several scientists and diplomats
blamed the United States for the U.N. stalemate. They said the American
insistence on a comprehensive ban—and that of Costa Rica, its main ally on
the issue—makes any universally accepted treaty banning just reproductive
cloning unlikely, despite a strong consensus in favor of outlawing the
practice.
Yumiko Iuchi, an advisor to
Japan's U.N. mission, said "very strong opinions" of countries such as Costa
Rica and the U.S. was the problem. "The most regrettable point is that we
can all agree on the prohibition on the so-called reproductive cloning."
Also, faulting the United States
was Ian Wilmut, the scientist who created Dolly.
"It is very disappointing that
the United States has obstructed moves to prevent reproductive cloning," he
told the Center just after the U.N. vote last December. "Because they have
insisted on trying to block everything, they are missing the opportunity to
make reproductive cloning illegal all around the world. I think it's a great
shame that that is happening."
The strong push for a ban on
research cloning by the U.S. government surprised some at the U.N.,
especially because there is no domestic consensus on the issue.
"The United States is promoting
a convention at the UN level which [if passed] they would find difficult to
ratify themselves," a Middle Eastern diplomat involved in the negotiations
told the Center.
For U.N. treaties to become
binding on a country, it must ratify them. In the past, the U.S. Senate,
which has the constitutional power to ratify or reject treaties a president
signs, has voted down some conventions the United States helped advance. A
well publicized example is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a convention
that bans nuclear weapons tests, which has not been approved by the United
States.
U.N. diplomats said a treaty
banning research cloning would not be ratified by many Western nations, nor
by other countries, such as Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, India and
South Africa, which have advanced stem cell research infrastructure.
There are those that see U.S.
domestic politics as the driving force behind the administration's position
at the United Nations.
All the Bush administration
wanted was a convention for its "constituency," the Middle Eastern diplomat
said. A U.N. vote for banning all cloning research would have allowed the
White House to show religious conservatives, by far the most vocal opponents
of the embryonic cloning, some specific progress toward outlawing the
research.
A White House-backed bill
banning all cloning was passed by the House last year, but it remains
stalled in the Senate.
"Perhaps they can use [the U.N
convention] as a tool to force a vote within the U.S. at the federal level,"
said Jose Cibelli, a professor at the Michigan State University who is
engaged in cloning research. Recently, Cibelli addressed national delegates
at the U.N. on behalf of a group campaigning against prohibition of research
cloning. "They can go to the Senate and say the U.N. has just acted and we
have to do the same."
When reached for comments at the
U.S. mission, an official who declined to be identified rejected these
assertions. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Diplomats from nations
supporting research cloning also pointed out that many of the countries
pushing for a complete ban on cloning have themselves no laws or
regulations, while many countries that favor a limited ban do.
Britain was among the first
countries to prohibit reproductive cloning; other nations such as Germany,
France, Belgium, Japan, Singapore and China, which favor regulation of
research cloning, have outlawed reproductive cloning.
"The countries that supported
the Belgian position have laws," a diplomat from a European country that
supports research cloning said, referring to a proposal submitted by Belgium
favoring research cloning. "It is a fairly big disconnect in the case of the
other group."
Economic interests
Restrictions on research cloning
are resisted by a number of groups, which claim that they will shut down a
research area that holds promise for curing disease.
Some nations that opposed a
complete ban on the research have already made heavy investments on research
cloning and stem cell experiments. In fact, a growing number of countries
see—besides therapeutic promises—great economic potential in embryonic
cloning, stem cell research and other related biotechnology research. Great
Britain leads this pack that also includes China, South Korea, Singapore,
Australia and India.
Britain has said it will opt out
of any treaty that bans research cloning. "[T]he United Kingdom would never
be party to any convention which aimed to introduce a global ban on
therapeutic cloning, neither will the UK participate in the drafting of such
a convention nor apply it in its national law," British envoy Thompson said
in his December address. "Therapeutic cloning research will continue to be
permitted in the U.K."
"Britain clearly has edge on
this field and they don't want to give up this for nothing," said a
diplomat, referring to British opposition to a complete ban on cloning
research. However, the envoy pointed out that, to its credit, Britain has
enacted laws on the subject as early as 1990. Currently, Britain has clearly
delineated laws on stem cell research, prohibiting research on embryos
without a license from a regulatory authority and restricting other stem
cell experiments.
Last week, Britain opened a £4.6
million "Stem Cell Bank," the world's first national stem cell repository,
to help medical researchers obtain stem cell lines.
The United Kingdom has the
world's second largest biotechnology industry after the United States,
comprising nearly 400 biotechnology companies, according to the British
government. In 2001, it employed 19,000 workers and generated $2.6 billion
in revenue.
A British official at the
country's permanent mission in New York said that economic interests had no
role in his country's stand on the issue.
"They are starting to lose
enthusiasm on [the idea of a UN convention]," a U.N. source said of the
British. "It [the way some countries are trying to ban all cloning] is wrong
in their eyes."
Asian countries that favor
research cloning, including Singapore, China, South Korea and Japan, have
also made investments in biotechnology.
Singapore, which suffered an
economic slump during the Asian financial crises of the mid-1990s, is in the
process of revamping itself as a biotech nation. Last October, the city
state unveiled an ambitious biotechnology corridor/complex called Biopolis,
which has a capacity to host some 2,000 scientists and is expected to
further expand the country's US$5 billion biotech business.
The island nation hosted a stem
cell research conference last year, attended by scores of prominent
scientists from across the world. The country has chalked up plans to
attract reputed scientists from the West and it scored an early victory in
this regard by luring British scientist Alan Colman, former research
director at PPL Therapeutics, a prominent biotechnology company that
collaborated in the creation of Dolly, as well as Polly, Holly, Molly & Olly,
the first transgenic, cloned mammals.
Singapore has an eye on the U.S.
market as well. The country's economic development board had a presence at
the 2003 annual convention of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the
industry trade group and lobbying arm that boasts a membership of more than
1,000 biotech firms.
South Korea is a leading country
in research cloning. The government funded the work of the two South Korean
scientists who stunned the world in February, announcing they had cloned
human embryos and extracted stem cells from them.
"We are not thinking about
compromising our position," said Eunju Ahn, a second secretary at the South
Korean mission at the United Nations. The progress of science and the
benefits of medical research are the important things, she stressed.
Singapore, South Korea, Japan
and China, all have legislation prohibiting reproductive cloning and
regulating research cloning.
"The government of Japan has
already enacted a regulatory law on human reproductive cloning in 2000," a
Japanese diplomat told the Center.
Religious intervention
During last fall's U.N.
negotiations, the preference of a group of mainly Islamic states for
inaction prevailed. The proposal to postpone the U.N. action was initiated
by Iran and other Islamic nations. The Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC), a coalition of 40 odd Muslim nations, was at the forefront
of the move.
Few Muslim nations conduct any
research related to cloning and, last fall, most members of OIC had not
formulated a policy on cloning. And prior to the U.N. discussions, prominent
Islamic theologians had not ruled on the morality of the issue of research
cloning, a legal adviser at the Iranian mission at the U.N., Mostafa
Dolatyar, said.
Dolatyar added that Muslim
nations have a better understanding of the issue since last fall.
Also, expressing reservations
about the U.N. discussions were some African nations. Other than South
Africa, no African country is known to be conducting any research in the
field.
A European diplomat said some
African nations opposed what they thought were unreasonably large amounts of
time and resource spent on the issue at the U.N. level. From their
perspective, it's understandable, he said. "For them the more immediate
problems are poverty and diseases such as AIDS."
The diplomat said some African
nations were concerned about potential problems that could arise if research
cloning becomes a standard medical practice. "Many of them have concerns
about a danger of trafficking in embryos of which women from developing
countries could be victims," he said.
The Costa Rican draft also
mentioned the issue of the potential exploitation of women.
Successful nuclear transfer
currently requires availability of a large number of female eggs. The South
Korean scientists who extracted stem cells from cloned embryos reportedly
had access to more than 200 eggs.
The research lobby
According to diplomats, a
feature of the U.N. debate was the relentless lobbying by non-governmental
and other independent groups on different sides of the issue. Opposing the
move to allow research cloning were mainly religious and pro-life groups.
Patients' rights groups, such as Parkinson's Action Network and Coalition
for the Advancement of Medical Research, campaign for legalization of
research cloning.
Also joining the fray were
scientists who formed a global coalition last fall to lobby against the
U.S.-Costa Rica proposal. The group, which has the support of some 50 Nobel
laureates, called on the United Nations to allow stem cell research to
proceed with strict regulations.
The scientific community's
involvement at the U.N. level has been unprecedented for any issue, said a
diplomat from a Western European country that supports research cloning.
Such intense international lobbying efforts brought to the fore issues such
as "scientific freedom" and "politicization of science."
"Science always had political
implications, and there's nothing bad in itself," the diplomat said. "But
the research interests of the scientists should not dictate the laws. I
think it should be the other way around. Laws should govern the scientific
research to make sure that science should not go beyond what's ethically
relevant."
Franco Furger, the executive
director of the Human Biotechnology Governance Forum, which favors
government regulation of cloning and other types of human genetic
engineering, agreed.
"Scientists tend to assume that
they can answer [ethical] questions themselves," he said. "In a democratic
society, they cannot impose their will on [what is] a moral issue."
Forcing the issue
Advocates of a total ban are
hoping to impose their will on states that favor some research into
therapeutic cloning, and are unperturbed by questions over the a potential
international treaty's lack of legitimacy, should majority of nations opt
out.
Responding to suggestions that a
convention banning all types of cloning will lack legitimacy in the absence
of a consensus, a diplomat from a nation that supports a complete ban said,
"That's not how international treaties work." He pointed out that, at the
time they were adopted, there was no unanimous consensus on such
groundbreaking treaties such as the "International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights" and "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
Those opposing a total ban are
not prepared to back off. "The problem is that if we end up in a deadlock
again, who is it a big problem for? Is it a big problem for our camp or a
big problem for their camp?" Heinrich Hahn, counselor at Denmark's U.N.
mission told the Center. "Time is on our side. If we go forward five years
on this there will be significant research."
Some contend that delaying a
treaty is not a sound option either.
"If we have to postpone the
discussion for another year, that would be a disaster," South Korean
diplomat Ahn said.
Alexander Cohen contributed
to this report.
|
