Human Cloning, the dilemma at the UN

Prof. Rohan JAYASEKARA M.B.B.S., Ph.D. [N'Cle. U.K.] C.Biol., M.I.Biol. [U.K.]

MEDICAL: The Dilemma behind the news, that on 23 February 1997, Dolly the sheep was created, which transfixed the world media and stunned the scientific community concerns us all. What medical science can do and what it ought to do - or ought not to do - impinge on our personal lives, our families and our society.

Although cloning using cells of embryos had been reported previously, the scientific community was surprised to say the least that it was possible using nuclear material from an adult cell.

Justifiably, commentators and ethicists seized on the possibility that the same procedure could be performed on humans.

It was certainly not a novel idea. Aldous Huxley in his much-digested novel Brave New World introduced the concept.

In 1970 Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock, predicted that 'one of the more fantastic possibilities is that man will be able to make biological copies of himself and that cloning would make it possible for people to see themselves anew, to fill the world with twins of themselves'.

Woody Allen in his movie Sleeper, very effectively parodied the idea where a surgeon transferred 200 years into the future was assigned the task of cloning the recently deceased leader from his nose, which had been kept alive for that sole purpose.

Ira Levin's Boys from Brazil was also based on the use of cloning in a conspiracy aimed at producing multiple copies of neo-Nazi thugs.

With these nightmarish possibilities fanning a troubled people living in an era of indecision, is it a surprise then that the response to Dolly was on the part of many was intense.

Following this, the era of speculation dawned. While some eminent scientists predicted there was no clinical reason why anyone would want to undertake cloning and that even if they did, finding professionals who would consent would be impossible.

Such anodyne statements were unlikely to be very reassuring. Over here in Sri Lanka, the equipment and facilities available in some laboratories and in the assisted reproductive clinics allows us no reason to doubt that the technology will be applicable with the availability of ample professionals who can acquire the necessary basic skills to launch off.

Cloning may be for reproductive or non-reproductive purposes. In reproductive cloning, a foetus is created which will grow into a separate individual.

In non-reproductive cloning a human embryo is produced which will grow into a separate individual which can then be manipulated to produce genetically identical stem cells for medical purposes.

In non-reproductive cloning the genetically matched stem cells produced, offer the prospect of new treatment for a wide range of medical diseases.

Blood, skin, muscle and brain tissues could be grown in the laboratory and implanted without being rejected as they have been genetically matched with that of the patient.

This would provide an unprecedented array of treatments for a wide assortment of inherited, degenerative and cancerous diseases. The simmering moral issue here would of course then be, the fact that we would then have to accept the generation, manipulation and destruction of human embryos.

Presently, the UK Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has granted limited authority to a group of scientists at Newcastle upon Tyne to continue with their work on embryo research.

Singapore, our farsighted neighbour with its government approving therapeutic cloning, has surged forward in this sprint to ease human suffering.

Across the pond in the United States inconsistent and opaque policies have placed the US scientists in straitjackets. The situation was worsened further when President Bush announced that federal money could support only the human embryonic cell lines that already existed at that point which practically would count to only nine cell lines.

Although reproductive cloning at ground level seems utterly unacceptable, the use of bone marrow for a transplant in a leukaemia patient from an identical matched clone who was created to provide the life saving marrow may be a useful spin off from the process.

In this situation, the second child would not only be loved like any other but would have additionally saved the life of the first child. Reproductive cloning can even be used to treat inherited mitochondrial disorders.

In another scenario, a mother who has given birth to a baby and subsequently received chemotherapy may become permanently sterile. If her baby was to then die, she could then use the cells from the baby just before or even after death and have another child who will be her very own. This will surely be the only way out for her from a very desperate and unfortunate situation.

It was in the light of this delicate spectrum of worldwide disagreement with regard to the approval of cloning that a press release on March 8. 2005, announced to the world that the 82nd Plenary sessions of the Fifty-Ninth General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, by which, Member States were called on to adopt all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.

Acting on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee (Legal), contained in its report A/59/516/Add.1, the Assembly adopted the text by a vote of 84 in favour to 34 against, with 37 abstentions.

Among those in favour were the United States, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Ecuador and Kenya.

Some of the countries that voted against included the United Kingdom, Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, Democratic Socialist Republic of Korea, Finland, France, India, Jamaica, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Thailand. Notably, Sri Lanka, Israel, Jordon, Egypt, South Africa, Turkey, Oman, Nepal, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Syria, Colombia and Maldives, Bahamas and Zimbabwe abstained.

Although Sri Lanka does not at present possess neither the financial provisions nor the expertise to attempt cloning which is way down in the pecking order of scientific priorities, it is certainly not premature to press our ears to the ground and be receptive to the possibility of such technologies reaching our shores.

Being a developing country with quite lax and liquid laws with regard to new technologies, it is our duty to keep the country and its people informed of this decision by the United Nations, which was certainly far from unanimous.

It is also appropriate to inform the public, that in April 2003 a report titled 'New Genetics and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Sri Lanka - A draft National Policy on Biomedical Ethics' was presented to the then Minister of Science and Technology.

This was the report of an Expert Study Group headed by the author of this article who was the Chairperson and Convener of this group appointed by the National Science and Technology Commission [NASTEC].

We then wished, that this document would form the basis for discussion and debate, and that it would blossom in to a document that is truly Sri Lankan. It has not to date.

It is also noteworthy that at this crucial session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, our delegate from Sri Lanka abstained from voting.

(The writer is the Director, Human Genetics Unit, Professor of Anatomy Fellow - Galton Institute, London and is a member of the National Bioethics Committee, National Science Foundation, Colombo.)

United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning

THE General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Recalling the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on 11 November 1997, and in particular article 11 thereof, which states that practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as the reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted,

Recalling also its resolution 53/153 of 9 December 1998, by which it endorsed the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights.

Aware of the ethical concerns that certain applications of rapidly developing life sciences may raise with regard to human dignity, human rights and the fundamental freedoms of individuals.

Reaffirming that the application of life sciences should seek to offer relief from suffering and improve the health of individuals, and humankind as a whole,

Emphasizing that the promotion of scientific and technical progress in life sciences should be sought in a manner that safeguards respect for human rights and the benefit of all,

Mindful of the serious medical, physical, psychological and social dangers that human cloning may imply for the individuals involved, and also conscious of the need to prevent the exploitation of women,

Convinced of the urgency of preventing the potential dangers of human cloning to human dignity.

Solemnly declares the following:

(a) Member States are called upon to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences;

(b) Member States are called upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life;

(c) Member States are further called upon to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity;

(d) Member States are also called upon to take measures to prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences;

(e) Member States are also called upon to adopt implement without delay national legislation to bring into effects paragraphs (a) to (d);

(f) Member States are further called upon, in their financing of medical research, including of life sciences, to take into account the global issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which affect in particular the developing countries.