table of contents - curio.ca

Table of Contents

CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYIntroduction ........................................................................................................42To Be, or Not To Be ............................................................................................43A Slippery Slope?..................................................................................................44Science, Bioethics, and Religion ..........................................................................49A Legal Perspective .............................................................................................. 52Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions.......................................................... 54

— 42 — News in ReviewMarch 2001

CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYIntroduction

In 1932 Aldous Huxley published his novelBrave New World. In the novel, science isused to create a society in which humanbeings are cloned and developed in bottles.They are then conditioned to live lives ofdocility and collectivism, serving the repres-sive state. While cloning humans seemed anunlikely sci-fi fantasy in 1932, as a result ofadvances in reproductive technology today, itmay soon be a reality.

It was only less than four years ago that thefirst successful cloning of an adult animal,Dolly the sheep, was announced. During thissame period the British Parliament enacted alaw permitting the cloning of human em-bryos for medical research. The law followedthe convergence of two types of scientificresearch. The first involves the cloning ofanimal embryos by fusing adult cells withunfertilized eggs. The fused cells are thentransplanted into the uteruses of femaleanimals until they are born naturally. Scien-tists around the world have successfullycloned sheep, goats, pigs, cows, and mice.The second type is human embryonic stem-cell research, in which stem or “parent” cells,which can ultimately develop into any formof cell, are removed from human embryos inlaboratories and grown into various tissuesfor therapeutic use. The new law in Britainlegalizes human embryonic stem-cell cloningtechniques but ensures that all such researchis regulated by a supervisory body.

The debate surrounding this legislation hasraised many fundamental ethical questionsand has divided religious leaders, scientists,and bioethicists. Contemporary social atti-tudes toward such research are central to thedebate. If the majority of people accepthuman embryonic cloning research, does this

mean—as some critics claim—that we as asociety have lost our respect for the basicsanctity of human life? Are we thereforetreating human life as a commodity to bemarketed? Does such scientific experimenta-tion make us less “human” as a society?

At a time when human reproductivecloning seems like a very real possibility,many Canadians are especially alarmedbecause there is no legislation in place in thiscountry to regulate the technology. A volun-tary moratorium on reproductive technologypractices for financial gain has not beenuniversally observed in Canada. Many fear a“brave new world” scenario if the cloningtechniques of embryonic stem cells arecombined with the now common techniquesof in vitro fertilization. With the desire tomove science ahead, this critical step canseem irresistible, and media reports haveconfirmed that there are serious effortsunderway to implant a cloned embryo in theuterus of a surrogate mother to produce thefirst cloned human. This is specificallyprohibited under the British law. Usingcloning techniques to produce human trans-plant organs such as hearts and livers, how-ever, is another matter, and this kind ofresearch has many supporters. The fields ofbiotechnology and bioethics are relativelynew in human society, and in terms of thecloning of human embryonic material fortherapeutic or reproductive reasons, scienceis considerably ahead of a full public discus-sion of the techniques. Unless society as awhole deals with these bioethical issues, wemay discover one day that, for the best or theworst of reasons, fait accompli decisions mayhave been made without our full awarenessor input.

March 2001News in Review — 43 —

CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYTo Be, or Not To Be

Recent breakthroughs in reproductive technology and genetic engineering make it increas-ingly likely, in theory, that we will eventually be able to engineer human life, reproducingwhat we value most in the human species and “improving” the process by eliminating geneticdefects and inherited diseases. This scientific possibility raises important ethical, legal, andphilosophical questions. Do we really have the right to intervene in the creation of humanlife? How should we as a society deal with this issue? Should we create laws to regulate suchtechnology? What might the use of this technology imply about how we perceive and valuehuman individuality and diversity? What does it mean if human reproduction occurs in waysother than through sexual intercourse between a woman and a man?

Unlike Britain, where the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority oversees all re-search and practice in reproductive technology, Canada has no legislation establishing clearguidelines in such matters. Varying and diverse opinions exist as to whether or not suchlegislation is needed and whether such human cloning should occur at all. The issue is, inmany ways, a polarized one. The fundamental question—for many people an ethical di-lemma—is “Should we or shouldn’t we?”

SortingThis News in Review report presents an overview of this issue, in particular, the views of twosignificant participants in this debate: Dr. Patricia Baird, chair of the Royal Commission onReproductive Technology, and Dr. Perry Phillips, director of IVF Canada, a clinic that hasbeen responsible for 1400 births through in vitro fertilization.

Before watching the video, create four columns on a piece of paper: Arguments For HumanCloning, Arguments Against Human Cloning, Reasons To Legislate the Technique, ReasonsNot To Legislate the Technique. As you watch the video, jot down information relevant toany of the columns. Use the following general theme areas to focus your viewing.

• The potential for positive or negative effects of human cloning on society

• Self-regulation of reproductive technology organizations as opposed to regulationby way of a governmental agency and/or parliamentary legislation

Follow-up Discussion1. What general areas of agreement are there in the views of Baird and Phillips that

could form the basis of promised new legislation on reproductive technology?

2. Baird states that the current situation in Canada is one where, by not having anylegislation, the government is letting the market make the decisions on what isacceptable practice. React to and discuss her statement.

3. What is the meaning, importance, or implications of each of the following interms of this issue: limits, common sense, the Royal Commission on ReproductiveTechnology, the marketplace, predicting, evolving social standards and ethics,“engineering,” hubris, individuality, exploitation, criteria?


CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYA Slippery Slope?

“Society isn’t even close to thinking through the legal, ethical, regulatory, and religiousimplications, but, thanks to stem-cell research, cloning may arrive much sooner than anyoneexpects. — Gregg Easterbrook, The New Republic, March 1, 1999

The term a slippery slope refers to situations in which, once an ethically momentous action ordecision has been undertaken, there may be no turning back and succeeding events anddevelopments may occur without our being able to control them (like items sliding down aslippery slope). As you read the following material, consider why the scientific advances incloning technology may or may not be a slippery slope.

Animal CloningIn 1997, the world learned that Scottish scientists had succeeded in cloning a sheep namedDolly using a mammary cell from a female adult sheep. This breakthrough was seen asextremely important for agricultural scientists; animals that were particularly disease-resistantand productive could now be copied to produce entire herds.

The technique used, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves a number of steps. The firststep is to take cells from the donor animal, then grow them under special conditions in aculture. This increases the number of cells available with which to work. Any desirablegenetic modifications can be made at this time and only those cells in which the modificationhas actually occurred may be selected. Using an electrical current, each cell is then fused withan unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Using the techniques of in vitrofertilization, the eggs then develop into embryos, just as if they were fertilized. The embryo orembryos are then implanted into a female animal, and, if all goes well, a natural birth ensues.

The process, however, is neither simple nor foolproof. Before Dolly was born, at least 224embryos were created, and only 29 of these were implantable. Twenty-eight of these resultedin either defective pregnancies or malformed births. Dolly was the only embryo to survive.When the team that created Dolly tried to repeat the experiment, they discovered that only oneout of every 100 attempts resulted in a healthy birth. Half the fetuses aborted spontaneously,many were stillborn; most births were abnormal and the lambs soon died. The scientists arenow concentrating on determining what goes wrong when cloning occurs.

Other teams have also begun to work on animal cloning, and to date have cloned cows, mice,goats, and pigs, as well as sheep. Most have been cloned using the fusion technique, althoughsome researchers have developed another technique, called microinjection. In this case, anegg from which the nucleus has been removed has DNA from another cell injected into it. Atpresent, pigs are probably the most promising subjects for animal cloning for research pur-poses because they have organs that seem to be quite compatible with human organs, makingthem a possible source of organ transplants between the two species.

Many observers believe that the cloning of animals has been especially useful in preparingsociety for a next step: cloning human genetic material. The use of animals reduces what


many call the “yuck factor,” the discomfort that this kind of science can cause in the generalpopulation. Even more effective in reducing this level of discomfort will be the cloning ofcompanion animals and pets. Scientists at Texas A&M are currently at work on what they callthe Missyplicity Project. A wealthy Californian has given them $2.5-million to finance anattempt to clone his pet dog, Missy.

Discussion1. Why might animal cloning be (a) a radical and innovative procedure; (b) construc-

tive, beneficial, or harmful; (c) socially acceptable or unacceptable; (d) scientifi-cally valuable and valid, or not; (e) a logical or predictable extension of otherscientific procedures?

2. Reflecting on animal cloning, Fred Edwords, the editor of the magazine TheHumanist, wrote, “As nonhuman animals come to be regarded as mere bundles ofgenetic information to be switched, traded, and modified at will—the resultstherefrom being mass produced and harvested—they will lose much of their statusas distinct species, each with a special integrity worth preserving and protecting.This will effectively ‘desacralize’ animals in ways that will influence how peoplein the future will view them.” Do you agree with Edwords that such a new attitudeis likely to develop? What rights, if any, do the subject animals have in this re-search? What responsibilities does society, as a whole, have in this kind of animalresearch?

Human Therapeutic CloningMedical research scientists were quick to see the possibilities for human cloning as soon asthe successful birth of Dolly was announced. Especially interested were scientists involved instem-cell research. Stem cells are actually parent cells for all kinds of tissue and are mostreadily found in human embryos. They can develop into any type of cell—blood, muscle,neural—and researchers have been fascinated by them for some time. Sources of embryonictissue, however, have been in limited supply, available only as a result of miscarriage orabortion.

Cloning, however, could produce large numbers of embryos for research. Using somatic cellnuclear transfer, an egg from a female human donor would be fused with an adult cell of anykind from either male or female to create an embryo in vitro. From this embryo the desiredstem cells could be harvested for further research. All kinds of cells could, in theory, be massproduced for medical therapeutic purposes: nerve cells for brain disorders, liver cells forcirrhosis, muscle cells for heart disease, neural cells for damaged spinal cords. Experimentswith animals seem to indicate that implanted embryonic stem cells do diversify to replacemissing ones in organs in which they are implanted. Through cloning, the cells could also becompletely matched to an individual patient, and transplanted without fear of rejection.

The promise of stem-cell research was what prompted the British government to approve thecloning of human embryos for medical therapeutic research. The expectation is that research-ers will be able to cull the stem cells from five- or six-day-old embryos and grow the cells intotissues for transplantation into specific organs. An independent commission identified at least19 different diseases and conditions that could be treated by such therapy. British scientists


hope to begin human trials of stem-cell treatments within three years, but expect that suchtreatments will be in extremely limited use for the next 10.

Discussion1. How have these medical therapeutic procedures resulted from animal cloning

research?

2. In your opinion, how big a scientific leap is this? What new ethical considerationsare now involved?

Human Reproductive CloningCloning human embryos for medical therapeutic purposes raises ethical questions that may bedifficult to resolve; one of which of course is, what’s the next possible step? And the nextscientifically possible step is human reproductive cloning—in other words, cloning humanbeings. Roger Highfield, the science editor of The (London) Daily Telegraph, has pointed outthat “any research on therapeutic cloning will, either directly or indirectly, generate a mass ofinformation that could aid scientists who want to go further and clone a human being.” Clon-ing for reproductive purposes is specifically forbidden by the new British law; but this pro-scription does not apply in other countries, many of whom, like Canada, have no legislationgoverning human cloning.

In the cover article for the February 19, 2001, issue of Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs wrote,“The consensus among biotechnology specialists is that within a few years—some scientistsbelieve a few months—the news will break of the birth of the first human clone.” Manycommentators believe that much of the work to clone a human being is being done veryquietly, and they speculate that it may be months or years after a successful cloning before theworld learns of it.

At least two separate groups, however, are not hesitant to let the world know what they areattempting. The first of these is a team of researchers in Italy led by Dr. Severino Antinori.They are believed to be making their attempt in an unnamed Mediterranean country. Antinoribecame famous as a researcher working with in vitro fertilization techniques. He implanted anembryo in the womb of a 62-year-old woman who subsequently gave birth to a healthy baby.Working with a group of scientists from the United States and Japan, he expects to success-fully clone the first human by the end of 2001.

Antinori has publicly stated that he will restrict the technique to cases in which a would-befather is unable to produce sperm. This would give women who wish to produce children anoption other than artificial insemination with the sperm of a stranger. The team expects to usea skin cell from the man to fuse with an egg cell from the woman’s ovaries; the egg cell willhave been treated to remove its nucleus. Antinori’s group has already experimented withmice, rabbits, and oxen, with a success rate of about five per cent. At least 10 couples havecurrently volunteered to participate, but the team would accept up to 50 more. (In an interest-ing aside, Japanese researchers at the Mitsubishi Kasei Institute have recently announced thatthey are now able to grow sperm from stem cells in their laboratory, which would make itpossible for men who are sterile to father children.)


Discussion1. In your opinion what, if any, is the essential scientific difference between human

therapeutic cloning and human reproductive cloning? What is the ethical difference?

2. Why is this a global issue as well as a national issue?

The Marketing Implications of Human Reproductive CloningOne other effort at human cloning has been even more newsworthy than that of Antinori’s. Acult called the Raëlians, based in rural Quebec at Centre UFOland, about an hour fromMontreal, has declared that it, too, is intent on producing a human clone. The founder of thegroup, Claude “Raël” Vorilhon, claims to have encountered an alien being in 1973, beentaken to its space ship, cloned; and then his clone was returned to earth. According to Raël,the human race was created in a laboratory by advanced beings from another planet who weremasters of genetics and cell biology. The ultimate purpose of humankind, according to theRaëlians, is to copy the aliens’ techniques and to develop everlasting life by cloning adulthuman beings and transferring memory and personality into the clones. Raëlians even usecloning to explain religious mysteries. According to Raël, Christ’s Resurrection was the resultof his body being removed from the tomb by aliens, cloned, and the clone returned to earth,just as Raël’s was later to be. The cult claims to have 55 000 members worldwide; SusanPalmer, a sociologist who has studied the group, says that the numbers are more likely closerto 25 000.

The Raëlians have set up a company called Valiant Venture Ltd. and are offering a variety ofservices under its auspices. On their Web site (www.clonaid.com) the group describes itsservices. The main service, called Clonaid, “[will] charge as low as $200 000 U.S. for itscloning services.” The procedure used would be similar to that used to produce Dolly.Clonaid® also offers “Insuraclone®, which, for a $50,000 fee, will provide the sampling andsafe storage of cells from a living child or from a beloved person in order to create a clone ifthe child dies of an incurable disease or through an accident.” There is reportedly a thirdservice in the works, called Clonapet®.

According to the Raëlians their first attempt is to be on behalf of an anonymous Americancouple who lost their 10-month-old son after minor surgery. The parents received a largeamount of cash as part of a malpractice settlement and are using this money to finance theRaëlian attempt. Although the parents are in their thirties and could have other children, theyhave decided that what they really want is another child just like their late son.

Is the attempt a serious one? Some critics say that Raël is using the whole issue of cloningonly to raise the profile of his organization, but many scientists and commentators take theeffort very seriously. Brigitte Boisselier, the French chemist who is in charge of the project,says that the lab is already up and running somewhere in the United States (where cloningexperimentation is legal), and that she has recruited a team of three specialists—a geneticist, abiochemist, and an obstetrician-gynecologist—to complete the cloning. Even more important,given the likelihood of many failures before a successful birth, the Raëlians claim to have atleast 50 female volunteers to serve as egg donors and surrogate mothers (Boisselier’s daughteris one of the volunteers). The volunteers are prepared to abort if ultrasound or amniocentesisdetects any abnormality.


So it does seem that there is a real likelihood that, despite scientists advising caution andpublic opinion condemning it (a recent Time/CNN poll indicated that 90 per cent of Ameri-cans think it is a bad idea to clone human beings), serious research is taking place into humanreproductive cloning. And there certainly are people who would be eager participants in anyexperiments, and who would pay considerable sums of money for the opportunity. Many ofthese, like the American couple who turned to the Raëlians, are people in mourning who justwant their beloved back, their dead child “replaced.” Others are infertile couples, peopledisappointed with the currently available technologies, who want a genetic connection withtheir offspring (even if it is a connection with only one parent).

Many bioethicists see cloning as an extension of technology intended to help the infertile, butfew would publicly declare that the time for cloning has arrived. Indeed, in its November2000 report, the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine statedthat, as a treatment for infertility, cloning does not meet current “standards of ethical accept-ability.”

Summary Discussion1. Why is the issue of marketing in regard to human reproductive cloning an ethical

question?

2. Referring to the “yuck factor” in human cloning, some commentators caution thata public uproar occurred when the birth of Louise Brown on July 25, 1978, wasannounced. She was the first child conceived and born as a result of in vitrofertilization. This technique is now in common use for helping couples overcomefertility problems. Is human reproductive cloning (a) an extension of in vitrofertilization, (b) a similar but essentially and ethically different issue, or (c) atotally different issue that raises other major but different concerns?

3. In your opinion, where does the notion of the slippery slope apply to this newsstory?

4. Some might say that the Raëlians are an insignificant fringe group that too easilycaptures media attention, and that to include them in this debate or to draw atten-tion to them is to trivialize the issue. In your opinion, how much attention shouldwe pay to this group?

5. Write a one-page editorial titled “Cloning: An Ethical Debate,” in which youexpress your perceptions of this issue.


CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYScience, Bioethics, and Religion

“Thus we gain a capability to change that which we don’t yet understand and run the risk ofdoing what we have mistakenly done in the past: upset the balance of nature, suffer the conse-quences, then scramble to fix our errors.” — Fred Edwords, The Humanist, September 1, 1999

As you read the following information think about whether terms such as ethical, social, andmedical are distinct and separate, are interrelated, overlap, or are perhaps even one and thesame. How does language complicate this very contentious issue?

The Human Therapeutic Cloning DebateThe British government’s willingness to permit cloning of human embryos for stem-cellresearch touched off a major ethical debate in Britain, one that seems destined to continue forsome time there as well as in other countries. First to object were the Roman Catholic Churchand other religious denominations, which argue that life begins at the moment of conception.Eleven religious leaders from Anglican, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist andEvangelical, Jewish, and Sikh organizations—were united for the first time in British historyin their objection to what they saw as a morally dubious policy. Their position is well stated ina letter from several Catholic bishops: “It [human therapeutic cloning] strips an individualhuman life, in its earliest form, of all dignity, reducing it to no more than a commodity, asupply of disposable organic matter.”

This argument has been echoed by some secular bioethicists, even those who do not viewearly embryos as persons. Dr. Tom Shakespeare, director of the Policy, Ethics and LifeSciences Research Institute at Newcastle University, declared that “just because an earlyembryo isn’t a person, it doesn’t mean that we can do whatever we like to these cells. Theembryo has a moral status.” Margaret Somerville of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethicsand Law echoes the objection of religious leaders: “I have grave reservations about howhardened we might become, to what we’re prepared to do to human life, if we start usinghuman embryos as just another thing, another product, as . . . a human organ manufacturingplant.” And shortly before the passing of the legislation, The Daily Telegraph statedunequivocably, “Human cloning may be a small step for some forms of scientific inquiry, butit could be a giant leap toward the dehumanizing of mankind.”

Commenting on recent successes in research with stem cells taken from adult subjects, somescientists feel that the use of stem cells from adult humans (as opposed to from embryonicmaterial) is a much more ethically acceptable route to take in stem-cell research. This is alsothe approach recommended by most religious leaders and the governments of many countries.

Supporters of cloning to produce embryos for stem-cell research argue that embryos are nothuman beings. Baroness Warnock, chair of the inquiry that led to Britain’s HumanFertilisation and Embryology Act (1990), which permits experimentation with embryos up to14 days old, has stated categorically, “The very early embryo has not yet developed into aperson, nor is it even very easily connected with a person who may be born. Until it is im-planted in the womb, it doesn’t seem to me to be a human being, but a collection of cells.”


Bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania argues that “an embryo cannot initself be considered a human life because as many as half of all embryos never become ba-bies.” And Daily Telegraph commentator Boris Johnson added, “. . . a blastocyst is not ahuman being, whatever emotions you can produce in yourself by staring at its image. It feelsnothing at all. It has no special place in our culture.”

Many supporters of human therapeutic cloning refuse to concede any ethical argument toreligious groups. Dr. Evan Harris is an MP and cloning supporter, and he argues, “Opponentsof embryo research cannot say they have a monopoly on the religious arguments. Many of usfeel that it would be morally wrong not to allow embryo research to find new treatments forterrible diseases.” Agreeing with Harris are many people suffering from those diseases andwho might benefit from stem-cell research. Andrew Blake, a 37-year-old who hasFriedreich’s Ataxia, an inherited condition that slowly destroys nerve endings, matches hisrights as a “born child” with those of the unborn. “This research,” he says, “offers me a greathope that my disease can be stopped and even reversed. It is not just for me that I fight, for Iam long past the point of recovery. All my efforts are for today’s children and future genera-tions.” Actors Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, and Christopher Reeve, who isparalyzed from the neck down because of a spinal injury, also have spoken publicly in supportof this kind of research.

The Human Reproductive Cloning DebateThe opponents of human reproductive cloning present ethical arguments that oppose thera-peutic cloning as well; and their opposition to reproductive cloning is reinforced by specificarguments. Many of its opponents see any current attempts to clone humans as, in the wordsof Sir Colin Campbell, Chair of Britain’s Human Genetics Advisory Committee, “inefficient,unsafe, and morally repugnant.” Even Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly, saysthat the risks in cloning are so high that human experimentation at this time is “criminallyirresponsible.” He points out that 98 per cent of the embryos used never implant, or die offduring gestation, or die shortly after birth. Referring to attempts like those of the Raëlians toclone a copy of a dead child, he finds it especially repugnant that “in trying to make a copy ofa child who has died tragically, one of the most likely outcomes is another dead child.” Addedto this are the experiences of other animal researchers who have seen births of animals withsevere abnormalities.

Many bioethicists find the idea that anyone would choose to try to duplicate another personespecially repugnant. Leon Kass, a bioethicist at the University of Chicago, feels that “every-one thinks about cloning from the point of view of the parents. No one looks at it from thepoint of view of the clone.” Parents will be expecting a child with the same interests and traitsas the donor, but the clone will be an individual with different development in the womb anddifferent experiences as it grows to adulthood. “People should be valued for themselves andnot as replacements for others,” says Dr. John Polkinghorne, a member of the Human Genet-ics Advisory Committee.

As well, there are strong social (as opposed to ethical) arguments against human reproductivetechnology. Writing in the magazine Science, researcher Ann McLaren finds social argumentsto be even more persuasive than the ethical ones. “It runs counter to our present culture. It


would wreak havoc with family law, and, at least in Europe, public consultations have pro-duced an overwhelming negative response: People don’t want it.”

Obviously, however, some people do want it. Dr. Peter Zavos, a researcher working withSeverino Antinori of Italy on his attempts to clone children for infertile couples, is an outspo-ken defender of human reproductive cloning research. “Ethics is a wonderful word, but weneed to look beyond the ethical issues here. It’s not an ethical issue. It’s a medical issue. Wehave a duty here. Some people need this [technology] to complete the life cycle, to repro-duce.” For most researchers, this is the key: the opportunity for infertile people to have geneti-cally related children. Nor do they see their research as especially “wasteful” of embryonichuman life, pointing out that in vitro fertilization, which is relatively common, also fails tosucceed in many attempts.

Finally, proponents of human reproductive cloning also reject the duplication argument. TimCaulfield of the University of Alberta’s Health Law Institute says, “Those who argue thatcloning is offensive to human dignity are in effect adopting a view that humans are no morethan the sum of their genes.” Only in a physical sense can clones be thought of as facsimiles;those things that make them individuals—their thoughts, personalities and experiences—remain their own.

Discussion1. The arguments of religious leaders and various groups against therapeutic cloning

failed to prevent its approval by the British Parliament. How might this Britishprecedent influence the debate in Canada?

2. Taking the position that cloning cannot really duplicate a human being, MargaretTalbot wrote in The New York Times Magazine, “What matters is the insidiousidea that if someone can be replaced, then he is no longer singular, which is to saypriceless.” Express in your own words what she is saying. How would you re-spond to her?


CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYA Legal Perspective

As of February 2001, Canada remains without a law controlling practices and experimenta-tion in reproductive technology, including cloning. This has happened despite extensiverecommendations in 1993 from the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technology andlong-promised federal legislation, including a bill introduced in 1995 that failed to pass beforethe 1997 election was called. Canada is not the only country without such laws; many juris-dictions are re-examining their policies in the light of Britain’s recent decision to allow thecloning of human embryos for research purposes. Compare the situation in each of the follow-ing countries. How are they similar? How do they differ?

Britain• The British have, since 1990, permitted experimentation with embryos for up to

two weeks for fertility research. What the new law permits is creation in thelaboratory of genetically identical embryos from which stem cells may be takenfor medical research involving such diseases as Parkinson’s and diabetes. Shouldtechniques develop, the law would also permit the use of therapeutic cloning inthe actual treatment of disease.

• A national body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, will ap-prove and supervise all experimentation with embryonic stem cells.

• The government, in securing passage of the bill, promised to introduce legislationbanning all human reproductive cloning.

The United States• In the United States, the National Institutes of Health is responsible for public

funding of much medical research. It has created ethical guidelines for the use ofembryonic and fetal stem-cell research, requiring careful review of the methodsused to derive them. A Human Plenipotent Stem Cell Review Group approves theresearch. Current guidelines allow public funding for stem-cell research when theembryos used come from couples using in vitro clinics, and the embryos wouldotherwise be destroyed.

• Only four states—California, Rhode Island, Louisiana and Michigan—havepassed laws banning cloning for reproductive purposes.

Japan• Japan has recently passed legislation banning the implanting into a womb (human

or animal) of any embryo created by cloning. It also forbids the creation of em-bryos that are interspecies hybrids.

• A national review board has been created to supervise all embryonic research.

Germany• In Germany, embryonic stem-cell research is currently banned, and research is

encouraged with stem cells from adult tissue.


• An ethics committee advising the European Community has also recommendedthat member states concentrate on adult stem-cell research, and recommendsrestricting embryonic stem-cell research to embryos destined to be discarded fromfertility clinics.

Canada• While Canada awaits legislation, a voluntary moratorium has been in effect with

which most physicians and scientists are complying, although some are not.

• The technologies deemed unacceptable and therefore included in the voluntarymoratorium are:

° sex selection for non-medical reasons

° commercial surrogate motherhood arrangements

° the sale of eggs, sperm, embryos

° egg donations in payment for in vitro services

° genetic changes to eggs, sperm, or embryos to pass on to the next generation

° the creation of artificial wombs

° the cloning of human embryos

° the formation of animal-human hybrids

° the retrieval of sperm or eggs from cadavers

• Most, if not all, of these restrictions will likely be part of the new bill to be intro-duced by the Minister of Health, Allan Rock.

• Dr. Jeff Nisker, co-chair of Health Canada’s advisory committee on reproductiveand genetic technologies, has said, “Society should direct science; not science, byits availability, direct society.” Perhaps the most significant feature of the legisla-tion will be the creation of a new national regulatory agency to oversee fertilitytreatments and embryo research, which will issue licenses to the doctors andscientists involved. The new agency would be able to set standards, both physicaland ethical, for clinics and laboratories, and refuse licenses to those that fail tocomply.

Discussion1. In 1995, when Health Minister Diane Marleau called for her voluntary morato-

rium, she said that the unacceptable practices and technologies (listed above)“threaten human dignity, present serious social, ethical, and health risks, and treatreproduction, women and children as commodities.” From the “unacceptable” list,which practices, in your opinion, might be seen as either (a) a threat to humandignity, (b) a health risk, or (c) as treating women and children as commodities?

2. Not all physicians and researchers have been willing to observe the moratorium.Which items in the list do you think would most likely be subject to non-compli-ance?

3. Should the British government’s approval of human therapeutic cloning play anyrole in the Canadian debate on the cloning of human embryos?


CLONING HUMAN EMBRYOS: ETHICAL QUANDARYDiscussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. The number of breakthroughs in scientific research and the pace at which theyseem to be happening make many people nervous. Writing in The New YorkTimes Magazine, Margaret Talbot said, “A common response to the disquietingfeeling that science is accelerating beyond our capacity to comprehend it—letalone control it—is to declare oneself fervently, if confusedly, on its side.” She issuggesting that many people tend to accept scientific advances or procedureswithout questioning them because they are possible, even though they may notreally understand what is involved. Is Talbot correct in her assessment that peopleblindly put their faith in science?

2. Much attention has recently been paid in the press to the role of the Raëlians in theattempt to develop the first human clone. How is this attention likely to affectpublic perceptions of the cloning effort? To what extent do you think the Raëlianstruly represent what this issue is all about?

3. Writing in The New Republic, Gregg Easterbrook said, “It may be that the knowl-edge of cloning is unstoppable, in the sense that no force has ever incarceratedknowledge.” Explain how his point of view applies to the issue of cloning humanembryos.

4. Even before there has been a real public discussion of cloning for therapeutic use,reproductive cloning is already being discussed in the popular press in NorthAmerica (Time and The New York Times Magazine, for example). Has the cartbeen put before the horse? Has a crucial step been skipped? On the other hand, isit important to start with the ultimate possible human cloning scenario in order tounderstand exactly where we are at the current time? Discuss whether this is alinear issue or a comprehensive issue that knows no timeline.

5. What other situations currently or throughout human history also exemplify thedilemma of “Just because science can, should it?” What controls, regulations, orlegislation (if any) should apply to scientific research in general?

6. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago has stated that our current public exami-nation of human reproductive cloning is “a sign of our growing despotism overthe next generation.” He has suggested that society’s current focus on this issue is,ironically, one more attempt to control what our children will be like and the livesthey will live, to not allow them to develop their own individuality and unique-ness. Is this a fair observation? Do we expect children to be clones of ourselves?

7. Some critics see cloning and the other new reproductive technologies as thebeginning of the end of sex as the way in which humans reproduce. In youropinion, is this a logical and legitimate prediction or is it an overstatement of thecase? Are we indeed on the threshold of a “brave new world”?

table of contents - curio.ca

Documents