Since Dolly's creation, a legal framework regarding the regulatory issues and patentability of human cloning has created an oddly patched quilt. Within the United States, federal laws and regulations focus on addressing funding and only indirectly relate to cloning. On the state level, several states passed various laws regarding cloning. World-wide many countries banned human cloning altogether [8].
Within the United States, the first efforts to ban human cloning were introduced shortly after Dolly's creation [9]. Several bills were presented before the United States Congress. For instance, within the th Congress, a bill to ban human cloning was introduced [10]. The bill stated that it would be unlawful for any public or private entity to perform human cloning and included fines up to 1,, dollars.
However, despite numerous attempts, there have been no bills passed banning human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics ; 33 2 : 87— Morales NM Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: The identity and uniqueness of human beings.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online ; 19 s2 : 43— European Journal of International Law ; 25 3 : — Rietig K Reinforcement of multilevel governance dynamics: Creating momentum for increasing ambitions in international climate negotiations. Robertson J Liberty, identity, and human cloning. Texas Law Review ; 76 6 : — Global Governance ; 20 1 : 5— Schmidt H Whose dignity? Journal of Medical Ethics ; 33 10 : — Shapsay S Procreative liberty, enhancement and commodification in the human cloning debate.
Health Care Analysis ; 20 4 : — Tachibana M et al. Cell ; 6 : — Tannert C Thou shalt not clone. EMBO reports ; 7 3 : — Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal ; 16 4 : — Fertility and Sterility ; 98 4 : — Pariss, France. What does it do? Paris, France. United Nations. United Nations: New York. Global Governance ; 20 1 : 19— Wilmut I The limits of cloning. New Perspectives ; 31 1 : 38— Norton: New York, pp 21— World Health Organization.
WHO: Geneva, Switzerland. Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4. Reprints and Permissions. Langlois, A. Palgrave Commun 3, Download citation. Received : 13 October Accepted : 23 February Published : 21 March Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports Nature Advanced search. Skip to main content Thank you for visiting nature. Download PDF. Subjects Politics and international relations Science, technology and society. Abstract Since Dolly the Sheep was cloned in , the question of whether human reproductive cloning should be banned or pursued has been the subject of international debate.
Human cloning and its current international regulation Although the idea of human cloning excites strong views, there is much confusion about what it would actually entail. Conclusion When intergovernmental organizations are unable to agree on a form of binding international law such as a convention, they sometimes settle for a declaration, which is less demanding of states.
Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Notes 1. Google Scholar Council of Europe. Google Scholar European Union. Google Scholar Hofferberth M Mapping the meanings of global governance: A conceptual reconstruction of a floating signifier.
In Asia, the picture is very different. India is embracing human embryonic stem cell research, as realised recently at an Indo-UK meeting organised by the Royal Society and aimed at spawning international collaborations in the field. But so far it still has a ban on therapeutic and reproductive cloning. South America is as divided as Europe. Ecuador bans embryonic stem cell research and both types of cloning; Brazil bans cloning, but a new law allows and funds embryonic stem cell research; Argentina, Chile, Peru and Uruguay ban both types of cloning, and legislation either allows or does not cover embryonic stem cells, and only Colombia permits therapeutic cloning as well as human embryonic stem cell research.
In the Middle East, only Israel and Turkey have any relevant legislation. Israel permits therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research while banning reproductive cloning. Turkey has effectively the same--although stem cell research is not explicitly permitted, it is just not mentioned. On the continent of Africa, only South Africa embryonic stem cell research--yes; both types of cloning--no and Tunisia embryonic not specifically prohibited; both types of cloning--banned have enacted laws.
For the countries that do not have national legislation we can gain an idea of their attitudes from the ill-fated attempts to gain consensus at the European and international levels. It is not clear whether it bans therapeutic cloning. Thirty-one of the 45 member states have signed, of which 15 have also ratified. In response to the debate in the UK, which preceded the introduction of its legislation on cloning, an additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings was drafted to try to influence the outcome.
Unsurprisingly, the UK has not signed either, but as neither the convention nor the protocol gives any sanctions for violation it is unlikely to have any major effect. Portugal, though, has signed and ratified the convention, despite no national legislation, which is a likely indication of its views.
At the United Nations we see a similarly confused picture. A committee was formed in to consider "the elaboration of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings". Four years of stop-start debate and negotiations saw member states unable to get anywhere near a consensus on whether therapeutic cloning should be included in the ban. It is suspected that part of the reason that those seeking a ban on all forms of cloning, such as the US and Costa Rica, did not push for a convention was because of a last-minute indication that the OIC would support an alternative proposal.
It certainly need not do so. To ban it on this suggested ground seems whimsical and irrational. Whose human dignity would be protected by such a ban? The human dignity of people who want and permit their bodies to be cloned? The human dignity of people who would not be born was it not for cloning? People should be respected as people regardless of the biological derivation history of their embryos.
We should repeal the UK legislation against human cloning and think very carefully about whether, how and why we should replace it.
0コメント