Is It Legal to Clone a Person

Hofferberth (2015: 616) criticizes the assumption that “global problems are manageable and solutions achievable if actors do not unite and work together to solve them.” As noted above, some members of the IBC and IGBC felt that the reason why they had not been able to reach consensus during the first 4 years of the debate on human cloning (2008-2011) was the inherently intractable nature of the problem itself. However, other controversial areas, such as business and human rights, have not proved immune to recent efforts to converge policies and standards (Ruggie, 2014: 6). Thus, another possible explanation for the failure is that the legal and organizational structures that guided the boards were not adapted to consensual decisions. In the early 2000s, the United Nations General Assembly found that the old model of negotiating state treaties for human cloning did not work when it could not agree on a convention and instead chose a non-binding declaration. UNESCO`s experience is similar, although it was not the negotiations on the content of the treaty that failed, but the previous phase of deciding whether or not to attempt to draft a treaty. When UNESCO raised the possibility of a convention in 2008, it resisted the emerging trend within global governance towards voluntary rather than binding regulation combined with capacity building. Germany, for example, which in 2001 was among the states that initially endorsed the idea of a convention on human cloning at the United Nations, is now looking for other, less rigid ways to achieve the objectives of a proposed treaty (Pauwelyn et al., 2014: 739). Within UNESCO, as in other intergovernmental organizations, it is the States that make the final decisions, so even if the IBC (composed of independent experts) had continued to insist on the desirability of a convention in 2011, it would only have had the power to recommend to Member States to move the idea forward. Cibelli: They`re going to hurt the baby, or they`re going to hurt the person carrying the cloned fetus. On the other hand, non-human cloning has become the norm to some extent. Several companies offer cloning services for pets – especially dogs – or for livestock. Indeed, the world polo champion team has been using cloned ponies for several years. The markets for these companies are not huge, but the companies survive.

And they say the safety and effectiveness of their methods continue to improve. It is now clear that many countries would treat human cloning as illegal in one way or another. But others, with greater things to fear, would not. And the perceived desire for cloned humans has not completely dissipated. Couples bereaved by the loss of a beloved child (a popular example of potential clones) have unfortunately not gone away. In 2004 and 2005, Hwang Woo-suk, a professor at Seoul National University, published two separate papers in the journal Science claiming to have successfully harvested pluripotent embryonic stem cells from a cloned human blastocyst using SCNT techniques. Hwang claimed to have created eleven different stem cell lines specific to the patient. This would have been the first major breakthrough in human cloning. [7] However, in 2006, Science withdrew both of his papers because there was clear evidence that most of his data from the experiments was wrong. [8] Cells made with SCNT or iPS cells could eventually be used in stem cell therapy,[28] or to make organs for transplantation, known as regenerative medicine.

Stem cell therapy is the use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition. Bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy. [29] Currently, no other form of stem cell therapy is used clinically. Research is underway to potentially use stem cell therapy to treat heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury. [30] [31] Regenerative medicine is not in clinical practice, but is the subject of intensive research for its potential applications. This type of drug would allow an autologous transplant, thus eliminating the risk of organ transplant rejection by the recipient. [32] For example, a person with liver disease could potentially develop a new liver with the same genetic material and be transplanted to remove the damaged liver. [33] Current research has promised that human pluripotent stem cells will be a reliable source for human neuron generation, demonstrating the potential of regenerative medicine in brain and nerve damage. [34] Abby Tang: So, while researching for this video, I came across a very interesting piece of information, and that was the announcement of the cloned human baby Eve, born on December 26, 2002. And the source of this ad is a company called Clonaid, founded in 1997 by the cult of Rael. And it is a cult that believes that humans have been cloned by aliens and that the only way for us to achieve immortality is to clone ourselves.

It`s been 18 years, and we`ve gotten no proof that Baby Eve exists or ever existed, but the company is still very much alive. So if evidence comes in, we`ll keep you posted. The report deals with several issues relating to the human genome and human rights, not just cloning. Nevertheless, cloning is important. The summary contains an “open list” of recommendations for action by States and governments. The first point is “the creation of a legally binding international instrument banning human reproductive cloning”. It is also recommended that scientists and regulators “refrain from spectacular experiments that do not respect fundamental human rights” (UNESCO, 2015c:3-4). The main text extends this provision to the fact that such experiments should be discouraged (e.g. by not allocating public funds) and, in some cases, should be prohibited if there is no medical justification and a security risk.

The fact that it is cloning is explicit as follows: “Research on the possibility of cloning human beings for reproductive purposes remains the most striking example of what should remain banned in the world” (UNESCO, 2015c:26). In general, the report advocates a conservative approach to decision-making and legislation, which may be particularly relevant to human embryonic stem cell research or `therapeutic cloning`. It encourages the adoption of legislation at the international and national levels that is “as uncontroversial as possible, including with regard to the issue of human genome editing and the creation and destruction of human embryos” in order to respect different sensitivities and cultures (UNESCO, 2015c: 3 and 6). Footnote 2 For developing countries, the report acknowledges that they may not have better access to new genomic technologies in the near future, but recommends that governments in LMICs (low- and middle-income countries) develop national genomics strategies “in the context of their national economic and socio-cultural uniqueness” (UNESCO, 2015c: 29). The report also includes recommendations for “all civil society actors,” including the media, educators and businesses. The former are supposed to “avoid sensationalism”, while the latter are not supposed to chase profit by operating in countries with weak regulation (UNESCO, 2015c:3-4). For nearly seven years, the scientific community has had strong evidence that human embryos can be cloned. And we`ve known for two years that cloned monkey embryos can result in cloned baby monkeys.

So why hasn`t anyone announced an attempt to make human babies cloned? Laws haven`t changed much over the past two decades: some countries have banned human reproductive cloning – some before Dolly, others after, but usually before the cloning efforts announced in the early 2000s. Nevertheless, many countries have never banned it. (Interestingly, a recent ruling suggests that some cloned animals may also not be patentable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 2014 that “Dolly`s genetic identity for her donor parents does not make her patentable” because the cloned sheep is not “significantly” different from sheep found in the wild. [88] However, Dolly`s cloning process was legally patented. [89] In general, the legality of biological patents is governed by an evolving policy issued by the USPTO in response to several court decisions – a complex issue that is beyond the scope of this report.) Canadian law prohibits human cloning, cloning of stem cells, culturing of human embryos for research purposes, and buying or selling human embryos, sperm, ova or other reproductive materials. [52] It also prohibits changes to human DNA passed from one generation to the next,[53] including the use of animal DNA in humans. Surrogate mothers are allowed by law, as is sperm or egg donation for reproductive purposes. Human embryos and stem cells may also be donated for research purposes. [54] And then there`s CRISPR, the new kid in the neighborhood.