AT FIRST-EVER MEETING, COMMITTEE ON CONVENTION TO BAN HUMAN CLONING HEARS EXPERT VIEWS ON SCIENCE, ETHICS INVOLVED

Ad Hoc Committee for International Convention

against Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings

1^st and 2^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

AT FIRST-EVER MEETING, COMMITTEE ON CONVENTION TO BAN HUMAN CLONING

HEARS EXPERT VIEWS ON SCIENCE, ETHICS INVOLVED

The clone next door posed no special threat, an American professor of philosophy and molecular and cellular engineering told the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings today.  Clones were just people made differently, like test-tube babies. The ethical issue was whether human embryos deserved the same respect as human adults.

The Committee met for the first time today to begin formulating a negotiating strategy for a possible convention banning human cloning.  The Committee was established by the General Assembly in response to a French/German initiative calling for a global ban.  Assembly resolution 56/93 (2001) described human cloning as an "attack on the human dignity of the individual" and expressed its determination to prevent it.  In a preview of the week-long session during two meetings this morning and afternoon, experts warned that few topics triggered such intense ethical debate.

During a segment set aside for their reservations, five experts, speaking in their individual capacities, laid out the science and identified some of the key areas of debate.  Arthur Caplan (United States), Professor of Philosophy and Trustee Professor of Molecular and Cellular Engineering at Pennsylvania University and Director of the Center for Bioethics, introduced the experts.  Despite the massive attention the subject had received, he said the ethical issues remained obscure and misunderstood.  That was due, in part, to the fact that human cloning occupied a pre-eminent place in the annals of science fiction and the popular media. 

Carmel Shalev (Israel), Director of the Unit of Health Rights and Ethics at the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, suggested that perhaps it was the "cloning" rather than the "clone" that was contrary to human dignity.  What jarred moral sensibility was the intention to treat a human being as a means to the ends of others.  But cloned individuals would be no different from identical twins; they would be born of woman and man and endowed with human reason and conscience.

The Professor of Pharmacy at the Complutense University and Head of the Special Chair in Genomics and Proteomics, Cesar Nombela (Spain), said that the recent development of the human genome would lead to a new understanding of the basis for disease, as well as new strategies for diagnosis and treatment.  Such

advances could hasten medical gains -- but he cautioned against ignoring the ethical implications.

Other expert presentations were made by Fernando Zegers-Hochschild (Chile) and Leonardo de Castro (Philippines).

In a question-and-answer session that followed, several delegations sought clarification on a definition of cloning, and asked whether embryo destruction was the only way to produce stem cells.  The Committee Chairman, Peter Tomka (Slovakia), said that a definition would be negotiated by the Committee.  Experts explained that, at present, embryo destruction was the only way to obtain stem cells. 

The United States delegate to the meeting emphasized that the production of embryonic stem cells required the destruction of the embryo.  "You're killing a growing human being", she said, and that should be taken into account.  Before any cloning was done with humans, much more work should be done with animals.  The implications of reproductive human cloning were "very dangerous and fraught with complications and side effects", she warned, both for the receiving mother and the cloned offspring.

Indeed, the Committee was embarking on a totally new challenge for the United Nations, said its newly elected Chairman, Mr. Tomka (Slovakia).  The Organization had responded to technological developments in other scientific areas, including outer space and the seabed.  Now, it faced another technological development, with possible dire consequences for humanity.  The time had come for a coordinated international response.

Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, conveyed the Secretary-General's best wishes for the Committee's success.  In addition to formulating a negotiating mandate for a convention, the Committee would elaborate a list of the existing international instruments to be taken into consideration, as well as a list of legal issues to be addressed in the convention. 

In addition to electing its Chairman, the Committee also elected Christian Much (Germany), Gaile Ramoutar (Trinidad and Tobago), and Rosette Myirinkindi Katungye (Uganda) as Vice-Chairpersons, and Mahmoud Hmoud (Jordan) as Rapporteur.  The Committee also adopted its programme of work for the week.

The Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 February, to convene a general debate.

Background

The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings met for the first time today.

Open to all Member States and members of specialized agencies of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Committee was created to elaborate a convention banning the cloning of human beings, which the General Assembly characterized as a potential “attack on the human dignity of the individual”.  Resolution 56/93 of 12 December expressed the Assembly's concern at recently disclosed information on the research being conducted with a view to the reproductive cloning of human beings, as well as its determination to prevent such an “attack".

Also by that text, the Assembly decided that the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, due to conclude on 1 March, should seek to define a negotiation mandate for such a convention.  It recommended that the work continue during the Assembly's fifty-seventh session, from 23 to 27 September, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee (Legal). 

The Assembly further recommended that, upon its adoption of a negotiation mandate, it may decide, taking into account the "acute" nature of the problem, to reconvene the Ad Hoc Committee in order to open negotiations on a treaty. 

Today’s session will open with an all-day exchange of information and technical assessments provided by experts on genetics and bioethics.  The following individuals have been selected to serve as experts on that day:  Arthur Kaplan (United States); Leonardo D. de Castro (Philippines); Cesar Nombela (Spain); Carmel Shalev (Israel); and Fernando Zegers-Hochschild (Chile).  Members are also expected to elect officers and adopt an agenda and organization of work.

The initiative for a legal instrument banning the reproductive cloning of human beings was first proposed by the Permanent Missions of France and Germany in a letter to the Secretary-General dated 7 August 2001.  The letter asserts that, while only a small number of researchers or scientific institutions presently have the technical capacity to perform those operations, there is no doubt that those operations would have an impact on the entire human family.

In response to that challenge, the French-German initiative proposed that a global treaty be elaborated, within the context of the United Nations.  They suggested that the Sixth Committee was the most suited to conduct such negotiations, which would undoubtedly pose complex legal and technical problems. Acting without a vote on 19 November 2001, the Sixth Committee approved the idea and forwarded it to the General Assembly for adoption.

Documentation

The Committee had before it the resolution of the General Assembly (document A/RES/56/93), as outlined above, as well as an information document prepared by the Secretariat (document A/AC.263/2002/INF/1) containing background information on United Nations involvement in the subject.  The paper also details the positions of selected international instruments concerning the reproductive cloning of human beings, such as the Charter of the European Union, and resolutions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization of African Unity (OAU).  It also contains chapters on definitions, reporting/monitoring mechanisms, international cooperation, prohibition/sanctions, research and intellectual property and commercialization aspects.

Also before the Committee was a proposal submitted by France and Germany, dated 13 February (document A/AC.263/2002/DP.1), containing a list of legal issues to be addressed in the convention, as follows:  consideration and purposes; definitions; prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings; national implementation, including sanctions; preventive measures; reporting and monitoring mechanism; assistance for implementation; and final clauses. 

Opening Remarks

HANS CORELL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, welcomed delegates to the first session of the Ad Hoc Committee.  He said that under the terms of operative paragraph one of resolution 56/93, the Committee was established for the purpose of considering the elaboration of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings.  The work programme for the session was set out in operative paragraph three, whereby the Committee would, in addition, elaborate a list of the existing international instruments to be taken into consideration and a list of legal issues to be addressed in the convention. 

Following his election as Committee Chairman, PETER TOMKA (Slovakia) said the Committee was embarking on a totally new challenge for the United Nations.  The Organization had responded to technological developments in other scientific areas, including outer space and the seabed.  It now had to face another technological development.  The work of the Committee was scheduled to continue from 23 to 27 September, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee.

The fact that the possibility of human reproductive cloning posed dire consequences for humanity was well understood, he continued.  The Committee was beginning its work knowing that the time had come for the international community to consider the feasibility of an international agreement providing a coordinated response to such medical and scientific advances. 

That would be no easy task, he said, and arriving at a comprehensive appreciation of the nuances of the issue would take time and effort.  But it would be necessary to do so in order to satisfy the mandate set out by the Assembly.  The Committee would open its session with an expert-level segment to assist it with its work. 

MOHAMED HAJ IBRAHIM (Syria) felt there was a lack of equitable geographical representation on the panel of experts, particularly with regard to the Arab Group and the Islamic faith.  He asked the Secretariat to clarify the manner in which the experts were selected.

VACLAV MIKULKA, of the Office of Legal Affairs, replied that the Secretariat selected the experts on the basis of consultations with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).  Both organizations had been asked to provide names of experts, who were working in close contacts with those organizations.  The Secretariat had not been provided with names of experts from the groups mentioned by Syria.  Also, the Secretariat had checked the availability of experts, many of whom were not available because of their busy schedules.  Thus, it was left with a limited number of experts.  The experts were not supposed to make presentations of a personal, religious or philosophical nature, but only present scientific facts.

ABDUL MUNIM AL-KADHE (Iraq) supported the remarks made by Syria.  He noted that the Secretariat had stressed how important equitable geographic representation was.  He felt the selection did not take that principle into account.  The Arab Group and the entire Islamic world had not been allowed to send an expert to the discussion of such an important issue.  He expressed his reservations on the participation of the Israeli expert, whose selection was not based on regional considerations.  He encouraged the Secretariat to include experts from the Arab world to make the panel more representative.

Mr. MIKULKA said that the Secretariat had only two months to prepare for the Committee, since the resolution was adopted in December 2001.  All the experts were present in their individual capacity, not representing States or institutions, and were limited to addressing the technical and scientific nature of the issue.  Member States were free to include experts from their own countries in their delegation, who could present their views in the general debate. 

Expert-level Segment

ARTHUR CAPLAN (United States), Professor of Philosophy and Trustee Professor of Molecular and Cellular Engineering at Pennsylvania University and Director of the Center for Bioethics, said that the issue had been timely ever since the appearance of the first cloned animal.  Many nations and groups had been trying to grapple with the issue.  The panel, hopefully, would lay out the science and identify some of the key areas of the debate. 

CESAR NOMBELA (Spain), Professor of Pharmacy at the Complutense University and Head of the Special Chair in Genomics and Proteomics, provided a power-point presentation.  He defined cloning as reproducing an identical copy of an organism. Cloning was also used to refer to incomplete organisms, or to part of their genetic material.  Today, he would use the word to refer to whole organisms, which gave rise to an adult, given the proper gestation.  The results of such work had led to non-definitive conclusions, but also to scientific hypotheses and exploration.  Indeed, specific areas of cloning could lead to important benefits in medicine.  At the same time, however, the ethical implications of such experiments could not be ignored.

He said that it was important, therefore, to focus on scientific problems while considering the criteria to be applied to rights and values.  In general, the possibility of obtaining cloned organisms was of particular importance, as it led to greater understanding of the chemical make-up of human beings.  Thanks to such technological advances, it was possible to clone genes and analyse their biochemical characteristics and reintroduce them in cells and complete organisms.  The possibilities for DNA recombinant technology had led not only to the cloning of organisms, but to their development with a modified genetic composition. 

It was also important to focus on what was meant by cloning in the context of genomics, leading to the sequencing of all genes of living beings, he said.  Over the past five years, the world had witnessed the development of research in genomes and the first draft of the human genome had been developed.  That had opened up the possibility of analysing each genome in each person, which, in turn, allowed for a new understanding of the basis for disease, as well as new strategies for diagnosis and treatment.  The specific situation in each individual had not allowed for a full prediction of all details of development behaviour.  A person's genetic make-up was important, but the modulation of his or her environment in the broadest sense was also key.

He recalled that attempts to obtain cloned animals dated back to the 1960s when experiments were carried out to clone amphibians.  More recently, strategies had been used to clone mammals, placing the studies on the front lines.  The primary studies had focused on complete organisms based on a single cell, the applications for pharmaceutical biotechnology, and the potential transfer to human species.  Yes, he said, it was possible to obtain cloned, or genetically identical, organisms, but the conditions had to be established under which that happened.  Natural animal or human introduction could lead to true clones, but individualization could occur during development.

There were many other applications, not only in livestock farming, he said, but also in the development of animals which produced proteins for the treatment of disease.  It was also possible to clone embryos through nuclear transfer, and various other types of cloning had been done, including for sheep, pigs, cows and monkeys.  The controversy came to the fore in 1997 with a well-known experiment leading to the birth of a sheep called "Dolly".  That case had demonstrated the possibility of creating a new organism.  Microsurgery was used to transplant the nucleus of a mammary cell into the uterus of a surrogate mother.  Through nucleus replacement, a true embryo was obtained leading to an adult organism. 

Indeed, he went on, "Dolly" was a genetic copy of the animal from which the psomatic cell was derived, yet there was no genetic relationship with the surrogate mother.  That technique, despite its notably low level of efficiency, had led to reproductive cloning.  With Dolly and other parallel experiments, the development of several embryos was needed to obtain a cloned animal, since many died or presented serious anomalies during gestation.  In the best cases, there had been only a 3 to 8 per cent rate of success.   Nevertheless, with Dolly, a new procedure had emerged leading to valuable science.  Experts asserted that, despite the low level of efficiency in most cases involving calves, pigs, primates, and now a cat, the technique could be perfected.  Stem-cell replacement also presented extraordinary medical possibilities.  The Committee had the important task of discussing the legitimacy and ethical implications of all of that science. 

FERNANDO ZEGERS-HOCHSCHILD, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Chile, and Director of the Unit of Reproductive Medicine at Clinica Las Condes, Santiago, spoke on human reproductive cloning, specifically teachings from assisted reproductive technology.  He said that since the birth of the first baby using in vitro fertilization almost 20 years ago, the process had generated considerable controversy.  Much had been learned with regard to gamete interaction and embryo development.  The psychosocial research had been slower than the biomedical research.

Beginning with assisted reproductive technology, he said that if a woman’s tubes were blocked, it was necessary to give the egg and the sperm a place to meet.  That was the whole extent of in vitro fertilization -- a place for both to meet.  In 1993, the first baby was born using intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection.  In that process, it was possible to inject the sperm inside the cytoplasm, with fertilization taking place with almost the same efficiency as in vitro fertilization.  The fact that genetic defects could be passed on had to be discussed with parents. 

Turning to embryonic development, he said that in the eight-cell stage, the embryo could be transplanted into the uterus in order to continue with the pregnancy.  It could also be split into two and result in identical twins (two per 1,000 births).  In the blastocyst stage, it was possible to identify the inner cell mass, which represented not more than 7 per cent of total cells and gave rise to the individual.  Unfortunately, stem-cell research was more efficient when the inner cell mass was removed, resulting in the elimination of the embryo.  The fate of the embryo depended on its progenitors.  In those communities where embryos could not be eliminated, research could be done with a biopsy of the polar body, which contained a mirror image of the chromosomes in the oocyte.  Most countries conducted genetic analysis in the embryo. 

On the safety of embryo genetic diagnosis, he said that such diagnosis could prevent the transmission of single-gene defects, such as cystic fibrosis, as well as chromosomal abnormalities in offspring, such as Down’s syndrome.  Knowledge from the genome project would assist in the understanding and characterization of more genes and increase the speed of gene analysis.  There was a significantly higher rate of neurological problems in children born through in vitro fertilization, which was probably a result of multiple gestation.  Therefore, it was necessary to examine more deeply the long-term consequences of such treatments.

With regard to access to technology, he said that it was six years from the first in vitro baby born in England to the first in vitro baby born in Latin America.  Today, there were more than 1 million babies born through in vitro fertilization.  While transfer was now more rapid, it only benefited a few.  That issue should be on the agenda of an international forum. 

Turning to reproductive cloning as an alternative treatment for infertility, he said that infertility treatment was a medical, technical and psychosocial intervention, which made it possible for a man to become a father and for a woman to become a mother.  By that definition, reproductive cloning was not an infertility treatment.  There were three conditions for suggesting reproductive cloning as an infertility treatment.  First, one or both partners with no gametes.  Second, couples at risk of passing serious genetic diseases on to their offspring.  Third, recurrent abortions due to chromosomal abnormalities.  Those conditions could also be solved using donor gametes, as well as adoption.  Yearly,

14,000 babies were born from donated gametes. 

The medical arguments against reproductive cloning in humans included high risks of abortion and malformations and high likelihood of developmental abnormalities.  Research in different mammals, especially in subhuman primates, was necessary before it was considered an alternative for human reproduction.

Question-and-Answer Session

To a number of requests for clarification on the definition of cloning,

Dr. Zegers-Hochschild said there were different definitions, but it was generally understood that reproductive cloning was a process involving the transfer of a clone to a host uterus to allow it to be born. 

The Committee Chairman added that a definition would be negotiated in the full Committee, although the experts could provide a sense of the way in which they were using the term. 

Responding to a series of questions about the ideal source for obtaining stem cells, Professor Nombela said that the concept of stem cell work was basically biological, in the sense of its capacity to multiply itself and differentiate towards various cell types.  Nonetheless, the research had focused on where they could be obtained and on what possibilities had existed for obtaining their in vitro fertilization and activating their differentiation along the desired lines. 

The potential of those cells was great and their capacity to multiply was infinite, he said.  That capacity had also existed in other types of cells, including from foetal tissue or aborted embryos.  But he had focused mainly on the capacity of some of the adult cells.

The United States representative emphasized that in order to produce embryonic stem cells, one must destroy the embryo. "You're killing a growing human being" and that should be taken into account, she asserted.  Before any cloning was done with humans, much work should be done in animals.  The implications of reproductive cloning in humans were "very dangerous and fraught with complications and side effects", both for the receiving mother and the cloned offspring. 

Professor Nombela said that reproductive cloning was applicable solely to the development of a genetic copy of an organism using a nuclear transfer process from an adult cell.  The use of embryos, however, should be mentioned, but that had not necessarily referred to reproductive cloning.  When talking about clones as genetic replicas, some nuances should be added, because the clones obtained by nuclear transfer were almost identical copies, but there was a small difference that should be included in any definition contained in a convention.

Asked if cloning always meant a process of nuclearization and nuclear transfer, and whether it was possible to access regenerative cloning from tissues and organs without destroying human embryos, Professor Nombela said that obtaining embryonic stem cells at present involved the destruction of the embryo.  There were adult stem cells with other characteristics and possibilities, but he was not aware of any technique that did not involve the destruction of the embryo.

Dr. Zegers-Hochschild added that when in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, started in 1978, fewer than 10 per cent of the embryos generated were implanted in the uterus.  So, 90 per cent of the embryos died.  There had been progress, but it was very difficult to say what would happen tomorrow.  It was likely that, in the future, many fewer would be required to make stem cells, and it might be possible to remove cells without destroying the embryo.  But today, the need was to destroy it.

Mr. CAPLAN, speaking on the rights and wrongs of human cloning, said that few topics triggered comparable ethical debate.  It had become the object of legislative, administrative and regulatory concern in the United States and many other nations.  Despite the massive attention the subject had received, the ethical issues raised by human cloning remained somewhat obscure and misunderstood.  That was a result, in part, of the fact that human cloning occupied a pre-eminent place in the annals of science fiction and popular media.  Human cloning did raise important ethical concerns, but they were not always the ones that had dominated the headlines, legislative initiatives or the content of movies and television.

He said the science of cloning was still, relatively speaking, in its infancy.  Cloning referred to the creation of a cell or organism, which contained identical genomes.  Researchers had been cloning cells in culture for many decades.  Naturally occurring clones appeared in animals and human beings in the form of twins and triplets as the result of the division of an embryo into two or more clones, through developmental processes that were still poorly understood.  There were two ways to make clones.  One was to divide an embryo in half, which had been done for many years in animals.  The second way, the “Dolly technique”, was to take cells from adult tissue and transfer them into eggs.  That had been done in many animals such as mice, goats, sheep and most recently a cat.

On cloning animals, he said the failure to create a human embryo clone had proved that it might be harder than the animal experience had led us to believe.  It was difficult to make a healthy animal clone using the “Dolly technique”.  The major lesson was that it was difficult to clone any animal, especially a healthy animal.  Every species had proven that to be the case.  Most companies were not interested in cloning human beings but rather in cloning pets, because most pet owners would do anything to have their deceased pets back.

However, he continued, cloning was not about copying or creating exact duplicates but in creating an organism with similar traits.  Cloning did have a future in commercial applications such as producing milk, wool and meat.  It must be remembered though that the failure rate of animal cloning was very high.  A related issue was devaluing animals by mass-producing them. 

Turning to cloning human beings, he said that people were afraid that human cloning, by producing an exact duplicate, would run counter to the will of God.  Just as with animals, cloning was not copying.  Also, they were afraid that human cloning would be used to create armies.  In addition, cloning did not pose a threat to other people, which was a further worry.  Human cloning was never going to be the most popular way to reproduce.  The primary concern was the danger to the clone of adverse health events.  At present, it was dangerous to do human cloning. 

The ethical question, he said, was whether human embryos should be given the same standing as human adults.  It would not be the first time that human embryos were destroyed for medical purposes, such as in in vitro fertilization.  Also, many human embryos did not develop into adults.  It must be considered whether all embryos were equal.  Would those that did not develop be acceptable for research?  In addition, human embryos came from different places, such as clinics.  In the United States, there were 100,000 frozen embryos which would never be used to make a child.  Should those embryos be available for research?

In closing, he said there were essentially three things to keep in mind.  First, clones did not threaten anyone.  Secondly, clones were not copies of other people.  Lastly, should all embryos that were created be treated equally? 

LEONARDO DE CASTRO, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Philippines, said there were many controversial ethical issues surrounding human cloning.  With regard to the uses of reproductive cloning, one should consider not only its possible uses but also the circumstances under which those uses might be employed, and the persons who might be interested in pursuing them.  Examples included unmarried parents, homosexual couples, a virgin mother, parents who had lost an earlier child, and married infertile parents who had tried other means of having a child. 

Speaking about freedom of research, he said that proponents of reproductive cloning felt that by invoking that freedom, they had a strong reason to be allowed to conduct unhampered scientific investigation.  Scientific research had been essential for human survival and development.  Freedom was a requirement for scientific research to achieve its full potential for providing benefits to society.

Turning to questions of dignity and humanity, he said the idea of losing a sense of uniqueness could be explained by comparing the possible experiences of homozygous twins with those of a clone, insofar as those experiences arose from their having genetic twins.  On the one hand, homozygous twins developed contemporaneously.  They begin and end their lives at the same time.  As a result, each twin was privileged to be ignorant of how the other would live life and make choices. 

On the other hand, he continued, a clone began life later than its genetic twin, which might result in developing a sense of having a life that had already been lived.  In the case of homozygous twins, ignorance allowed the free and spontaneous construction of a unique life.  It also enabled each twin to exercise what had been called the “right to an open future”. 

Reproductive cloning, he said, was regarded as a threat to the family by those who viewed asexual reproduction as a challenge to the family paradigm consisting of a male parent, a female parent and a child.  The asexual form of reproduction also endangered social and traditional values tied to that family paradigm.  Critics had cited other possible harms to social values.  For example, there was the view that reproductive cloning constituted a temptation for people to seek immortality.  Another charge was that cloning research involved an inappropriate use of scarce resources and diverted valuable financing, as well as skills and time.  He added that “playing God” was a charge levelled against those who dared to pry into the fundamental mysteries of life.  People were said to usurp divine sovereignty by deciding when to begin life. 

Some of the discussions concerning the moral status of the human embryo had arisen within the context of religious debate.  For example, the view that human life started at the moment of fertilization claimed extensive religious patronage.  The idea was that fertilization marked the union of the sperm and egg and, therefore, the point when a new complete genetic identity emerged.  However, there were those who held that fertilization constituted a highly questionable milestone.  They argued that fertilized eggs came and went without being noticed  -- and, therefore, without being missed or regretted -- in the natural course of sexual relationships and menstrual periods. 

He said the possibility of reproductive cloning offered a test case for considering the extent to which public control of biotechnology was possible, desirable and economical.  It should serve as a test case not only for individual governments, but also for the international community as a whole.  As technology and innovation continued to extend beyond national boundaries, national sovereignty would inevitably have a shrinking domain.  If nations failed to harmonize their responses to emerging science and technology, the world might find itself having to deal with cloning havens in the same way that the global economic community had to deal with tax havens.  If there was to be any regulation at all, it had to be global.

CARMEL SHALEV (Israel), Director of the Unit of Health Rights and Ethics at the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, said she would discuss reproductive cloning in a human rights framework and in a global context.  The preamble of the 1997 European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine sought to protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone their rights and freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine.  Its purpose was to protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee respect for their integrity and other human rights with regard to the application of biology and medicine.  In 1998, the Council of Europe signed an additional protocol to the Convention, noting that the cloning of human beings might become a technical possibility. (Ms. Shalev's statement was accompanied by a visual presentation of excerpts from relevant texts).

Also in 1997, she said, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which recognized that human genome research could open up vast prospects for progress in improving the health of individuals and of humankind as a whole, but emphasized that such research should fully respect human dignity, freedom and human rights.  Reproductive cloning did not involve genetic modification.  Cloned individuals would be no different from identical twins.  They would surely be no less human beings than others, since they would be born of woman and man and endowed with human reason and conscience.  The prohibition of any form of discrimination against persons because of the circumstances of their birth or genetic heritage was a foundation of the human rights regime.

Given that, perhaps it was the "cloning" rather than the "clone" that was contrary to human dignity, she said. In other words, what jarred moral sensibility was the intention to treat a human being as a means to the ends of others.  But if one believed that human embryos were human beings, then their use in research or in in vitro fertilization was also a form of instrumentalization.  In that respect, the concern of some of the major religions of the world with the status of the human embryo could well justify an international ban on other reproductive technologies or embryo research methods.  The protocol did not suggest that in any way, however, despite the fact that the moral status of the embryo had been greatly debated for many years.

She said that many of the arguments against cloning were reminiscent of those raised 30 years ago against test-tube babies.  “Playing god” was a prominent theme.  Human beings were afraid of playing god and concerned about the welfare of the child, but certain aspects of assisted reproduction had not been foreseen

30 years ago.  Also, the physical and emotional health costs to women who underwent fertility treatment had not been predicted, nor had women understood that they would have invasive fertility treatments because their husbands were infertile. 

The question of freedom was really about whether broad moral repugnance justified a legal prohibition of certain behaviours or relations between consenting adults, she said.   The well-known conclusion of an Oxford scholar in the 1960s was that the moral beliefs of the man or woman in the street were not sufficient to outlaw an activity.  Reproductive autonomy was also pertinent to women's equality and to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Freedom of science was another factor, she said.  The right to sharing in scientific progress was embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the right to participate in culture.  So there must be very compelling reasons to justify limiting the right to research. 

The best-case scenarios for stem-cell research envisaged lines of cloned cells with properties that could produce banks of tissues and organs, she continued.  So there might be banks of bone marrow or kidneys for transplantation, as a result of stem-cell research using embryonic stem cells.  It had been suggested that if one wanted stem-cell benefits to go ahead, perhaps therapeutic cloning could be distinguished from reproductive cloning.  At the same time, various instruments prohibited the use of scientific experiments without the consent of the individual.  That international norm had resulted from the experience of the Second World War, when so-called "medical experiments" were carried out.

Concerning the protection of the egg donor, she said that women's interests must be considered.  Unlike embryo splitting, research through cloning on both embryonic and adult stem cells required eggs.  The great potential of stem-cell research for human health might be an important enough objective, but women should be exposed to a minimal risk and burden.  Egg donation could hardly be considered a minimal risk.  On the question of paying healthy volunteers, she warned of the possible exploitation of poor women. 

Cloning was just one component of a large profit-making enterprise that concerned the health of individuals and entire population groups.  If cloning was viewed in the context of the larger picture of genomic research, the interplay of public and private actors, and the enormous finances involved globally -- one realized that the world was facing a major global health issue.  The goal of genetic research was to relieve suffering and improve health, and the challenge was to guarantee equitable access for all people to such health services. 

Question-and-Answer Session

Asked whether having identical genes implied more than just having similarities, Mr. CAPLAN replied that there was consensus among scientists that using the “Dolly technique” would not result in carbon copies.  Such clones would not be identical in all respects, and that was particularly true for human beings.  Many other factors along with genes determined things such as appearance, feelings and behaviour.

He stressed that whatever message the Committee sent with regard to human reproductive cloning, it must be clear.

In response to a question on the interests of the potential child,

Ms. SHALEV said that the welfare of the child had also come up with regard to in vitro fertilization.  It was difficult to imagine a couple that had no alternative other than cloning to have a child of their own.  The discussion about the interests of the potential child, the unborn child, sometimes obscured the fact that there were women involved in those processes.  One lesson learned in the past 30 years was that women were not protected enough.  The welfare of the child was a concern, but not more so in the context of cloning than in other contexts. 

On the issue of the effects of using adult DNA as opposed to embryonic DNA, Mr. CAPLAN said that adult DNA was old genetic material, which meant that it was more likely to be damaged than embryonic DNA.  As people aged, DNA got “beaten up”.  Also, no one had a clear answer as to how old a clone was when it was created from adult DNA.

Mr. NOMBELA added that, based on present scientific information, it was not clear whether adult or embryonic stem cells were best.  Adult stem cells had a limited scope for growth and differentiation.  They solved problems of immunological rejection.  The option to reprogramme adult stem cells did not mean that they had to be reverted to that embryonic state.  Embryonic stem cells had greater growth potential.

Elaborating on who would benefit from cloning, Ms. SHALEV said it was possible that, without vigilance, cloning would benefit only a minority.  As to exploitation of poor women, there was a tendency to forget about the needs of the women involved.  There were already institutions which transported women from one area to another for the purpose of donating eggs for payment.

To a question on whether human dignity was linked to the fact that each individual, even a twin, was partially the result of chance, Mr. DE CASTRO said that, in the case of twins, neither had the opportunity to observe how genetic determination, if a factor at all, played a role in the growth of the other.  Thus, each was free to arrange his or her own future, without knowing in advance how the other would have reacted.  In the case of cloning, because there was a gap in time between the birth of the clone and its genetic twin, there was a sense of having a life that had already been lived.

Asked to what extent human cloning would compromise the unique nature of family lineage, Mr. De Castro said that reproductive cloning could ensure continuance of family lineage, if a so-called parent could have a child under those circumstances when there were no other means of ensuring reproduction.

Mr. CAPLAN was asked what he would think of reproductive cloning of human beings if the dangerous aspects were eliminated.  He said that if the safety issue was removed -- which was a big "if" -- it became an issue of whether it was in the best interests of the clone from the psychosocial point of view.  Also, would it be carried out in a way that was respectful, or would it tend towards the

manufacture and treatment of humans as commodities?  His other question was whether the prospective parents could be relied on to do a good job with the extraordinary phenomenon of asexual reproduction.  That was troubling to him in terms of protecting the interests of the clone, but that was a close call.  He leaned towards thinking that those were still significant reasons for a prohibition. 

Mr. DE CASTRO added that the simple answer was that, considering the risks involved, he could not identify a reason in favour of reproductive cloning that matched the concerns against it.

If reproductive cloning was a "luxury item" of the affluent world, how

could developing countries benefit from such technology? another delegate asked.  Mr. ZEGERS-HOCHSCHILD agreed that the incorporation of technology in the developing world had been difficult.

[Interpretation for the meeting concluded shortly after 6 p.m., but an informal discussion between delegates and experts continued.]

* *** *