Cloning: A Policy Analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal, 2002
Although reports of Dolly ("the world's most famous sheep"), Dr. Seed and Clonaid's announcements of plans to clone humans, and more recently, the cloning of Cc the cat, have brought the issue of human cloning to the public consciousness, legislatures-both state and federal-are either silent or just beginning to grapple with the technical, legal, and moral issues raised by human cloning.' While in 1997 an executive order barred federal funding of cloning research, and various states have enacted legislation banning human cloning, both scholars and legislatures continue to debate the appropriate form .of action. 2
Bioethics and Cloning, Part II
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2002
The Committee recommends a complete ban on cloning human embryos for the purposes of reproduction, but would permit therapeutic cloning under strict regulation by a statutory body to be established for that purpose. Bonnicksen, Andrea L. Crafting a Cloning Policy: From Dolly to Stem Cells. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2002. 220 p. In the last chapter, "Toward Responsible Policymaking," Bonnicksen distinguishes four policy approaches (broad or narrow legislation, existing regulation or adjustments to it) to cloning. Mindful of change in both politics and science, she favors adjusting existing regulation as the best way to promote future discussion, debate, and deliberation. Brannigan, Michael C. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001. 244 p. Drawing together essays from the perspectives of science, religion, philosophy, and law, Brannigan provides a useful anthology of resources for classroom use or personal study.
The pros and cons of human therapeutic cloning in the public debate
2002
Few issues linked to genetic research have raised as much controversial debate as the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to create embryos specifically for stem cell research. Whereas European countries unanimously agree that reproductive cloning should be prohibited there is no agreement to be found on whether or not research into therapeutic cloning should be permitted. Since the UK took the lead and voted in favour of regulations allowing therapeutic cloning the public debate has intensified on the Continent. This debate reflects the wide spectrum of diverse religious and secular moralities that are prevalent in modern multicultural European democratic societies. Arguments range from putting forward strictly utilitarian views that weight the moral issues involved against the potential benefits that embryonic stem cell research may harbour to considering the embryo as a human being, endowed with human dignity and human rights from the moment of its creation, concluding that its use for research is unethical and should be strictly prohibited. Given the current state of dissension among the various European states, it is difficult to predict whether 'non-harmonisation' will prevail or whether in the long run 'harmonisation' of legislation that will allow stem cell research will evolve in the EU.
Oxford University Press eBooks, 2000
clone that person. People recalled such science-fiction tales as the 1978 movie The Boys from Brazil, in which Nazis living in South America cloned Adolf Hitler from preserved tissue, and believed that a nightmare was about to come true. What if an individual with the means to do so decided to produce dozens of copies of himself or herself? What if parents desired a "designer child"-a clone, perhaps, of supermodel Cindy Crawford, basketball star Michael Jordan, or chess champion Garry Kasparov? What if parents stopped giving birth to babies and, instead, reproduced themselves from skin cells? Would human cloning lead to people produced solely to serve as donors for organ transplants? Would babies that were products of cloning grow up to be normal, or would they be defective in some way? Reaction to Dolly Polls taken in February 1997 revealed the public's concern. A Gallup Poll indicated that 88 percent of people in the United States thought that the cloning of a human being would be "morally wrong," and a TIME/CNN poll indicated that 74 percent of Americans thought that human cloning was "against God's will." Among the religious organizations that spoke out against human cloning was the Roman Catholic Church, which, four days after Dolly's announcement, called for a global ban on human cloning. Politicians generally reacted negatively to the news of Dolly's birth. In March 1997, the British government announced that it planned to stop providing funds for cloning research at the Scottish institute where Dolly was produced. Also in March, U.S. President Bill Clinton warned scientists against the temptation "to play God," and he issued a 90-day moratorium on the use of U.S. government funds for research into the cloning of humans. Clinton also asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC)-a panel of 18 experts in science, law, and ethicsto develop recommendations for a national policy on human cloning. (The NBAC had been created by Clinton in 1995 to explore the ethical issues concerning the biotechnology industry.) The U.S. Congress introduced two bills that, if passed, would permanently ban federal funding for research into human cloning. A third bill would mandate a $5,000 fine on anyone conducting such research. Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri, the sponsor of one of the bills, said, "There are aspects of human life that should be off limits to science." 74 percent of Americans thought that human cloning was "against God's will." The Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee held a hearing in March 1997 during which several scientists and ethicists presented their opinions on cloning. Among those testifying before the subcommittee was Ian Wilmut, the scientist who led the team that produced Dolly. Wilmut surprised many when he announced that he too supported a ban on human cloning. He said that he had never heard of an ethically acceptable reason for cloning 10 At Issue
What Justifies the Ban on Federal Funding for Nonreproductive Cloning
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 2013
This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I challenge the latter premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy.
Being human": cloning and the challenges for public policy
Hofstra law review, 1999
scientists, lawyers, theologians, and journalists responded with colorful scenarios when Dr. Ian Wilmut announced that he successfully cloned an adult mammal. In an effort to ethically fathom Dolly's significance, they imagined cloning as (1) a foreign despot's technique for creating a master race; (2) a greedy entrepreneur's technique for producing "celebrity" embryos for sale; (3) a bereft parent's technique for replacing a dying child; (4) a desperate patient's technique for creating organs or tissue to harvest; and (5) a narcissist's technique for ensuring his immortality. 1