Human Cloning - Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association

Ban cloning. Do you copy? Page 1 of 2
Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada), July 3, 2002
Title: Ban cloning. Do you copy? A proposed law on reproductive technology is right to criminally ban
human cloning, say medical ethicists Francoise Batlis and Jocelyn Downie.
Authors: Francoise Baylis and Jocelyn Downie
Source: Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada), p1
Date: July 3, 2002
Early critics of the government's
proposed legislation on assisted
human reproduction have
objected to the criminal ban on
human cloning. They believe
that cloning for research
purposes should not be
prohibited, and they particularly
object to using the criminal law
as the mechanism for the
prohibition. Some media have
endorsed these objections — too
bad, because they're misguided
and exaggerate the medical and
economic benefits of human
cloning.
The Assisted Human
Reproduction Act introduced in
Parliament on May 9 includes a
number of prohibitions. First on
this list is a prohibition against
knowingly creating a human
clone or transplanting a human
clone into a human being.
Anyone so doing could be fined
as much as $500,000, or
imprisoned for as many as 10
years, or both.
Several different technologies
can be used to make a human
clone, including embryo
splitting, parthenogenesis and
nuclear transfer technology. For
now, attention is focused on
nuclear transplantation: With
this technology, scientists take
any cell from the body other
than the egg and sperm and
remove its nucleus. The nucleus
contains the bulk of the DNA
that makes each of us
genetically unique. This nucleus
is then used to replace the
nucleus of an unfertilized egg,
which is activated to develop
into an embryo that will have
the same DNA as the person
who donated the original body
cell. If this embryo is used for
stem-cell research, it will be
dissected and used to create an
embryonic stem-cell line. Stemcell
research has the potential to
transform the treatment of
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
disease, heart disease, muscular
dystrophy, stroke and diabetes.
However, what the public needs
to understand is that stem-cell
research and cloning research
are separate. It's possible to
support stem-cell research using
"spare" embryos created by in
vitro fertilization without, at the
same time, supporting the
creation of research embryos
using cloning technology.
So why the fuss about human
cloning? Stem-cell scientists
want to use cloned embryos
instead of IVF embryos because
if the transplanted stem cells
have the same DNA as the
patient, they hope it may be
possible to prevent potential
immune rejection.
However, there may not be any
immune rejection problem with
transplanted IVF embryonic
stem cells. Besides, we're still
years away from clinical trials
of stem-cell therapies involving
humans. Canadian scientists
first have to learn how to
develop and expand embryonic
stem-cell lines; years of study in
testing potential stem-cell
therapies in animals will follow
before research involving
humans is contemplated. At that
point, the potential immunity
benefits of deriving human stem
cells from cloned embryos may
become relevant. Until then,
these potential benefits are not
relevant, because the cells aren't
being transplanted into humans.
Creating cloned human embryos
for research is a step of
enormous moral consequence.
It's still not clear that it's a
necessary step. So why take it?
For now, cloning human
embryos should be prohibited.
Even those proponents of
unrestricted research who accept
the prohibition object to the
proposed mechanism: criminal
law. They say it's too inflexible
to deal with a scientifically and
socially dynamic issue. But with
political will, legislation can be
changed in as little as 24 days;
surely this isn't too much time to
reflect on a step as serious as
changing the legal status of
human cloning.
Those who object to the
criminal ban on cloning argue
that we need a regulatory
scheme that encourages public
discussion about the potential
harms and benefits of human
cloning. However, law
encourages public deliberation
more than regulation does,
because regulations aren't
debated in the House, and
therefore don't come to media
attention and public scrutiny.
Finally, critics of the proposed
legislation suggest that criminal
law is too "severe" a tool. To
that objection, we say: If
Canadians think prohibiting
human cloning is a serious