Ad Hoc Committee on International Convention

against Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings

3^rd Meeting (AM)

IN OPENING DEBATE ON HUMAN CLONING BAN, SOME SPEAKERS URGE OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION,

OTHERS FAVOUR PARTIAL BAN TO ALLOW FOR MEDICAL ADVANCES

Like all other serious threats to human dignity -- such as torture, racial discrimination and terrorism -- the reproductive cloning of human beings required a binding universal norm to prevent it, the new United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings heard this morning, as it opened its first-ever general debate on the question.

The representative of Germany, speaking also on behalf of France, warned that human cloning experiments would have far-reaching effects on the preservation of human dignity.  It was critical to come to terms with that challenge, swiftly and without delay.  The legal and moral power of a binding global norm would prevent dishonest competition among researchers in the field.  Both delegations sought the conclusion of a treaty before the end of 2003. 

This is the first session of the Committee, established by the General Assembly last December in response to a request by France and Germany to evolve a convention banning human cloning.  In a day-long discussion yesterday, scientific and bioethical experts laid out the science and identified the key areas of the debate.  Today, 21 speakers expressed serious concern over the rapid pace of developments in the field, with many calling for a human rights-based approach to negotiating a convention.  The line appeared to demarcate those seeking a total ban from those favouring a partial one to allow for medical advances in the prevention and treatment of disease.

The Permanent Observer for the Holy See urged a worldwide and comprehensive ban on human cloning.  Its position was based on a biological analysis of the cloning process and anthropological, social, ethical and legal reflection on the negative implications on the life, dignity and rights of the human being.  In particular, the conceptual distinction between reproductive and therapeutic, or experimental, human cloning was devoid of any ethical and legal basis.

Any decision to ban human cloning should follow a painstaking and balanced analysis that followed a strict scientific assessment of the genetic and social implications, the delegate of the Russian Federation insisted.  His own country had recently adopted a temporary five-year ban on human cloning, prohibiting the import and export of human cloned embryos.  That was aimed at preserving Russia's national identity and "nipping in the bud" the commercialization and criminalization of human beings.  The ban did not extend to the use of cloning for stem-cell and other medical research, however.

The representative of Liechtenstein suggested that attempts to clone human beings would likely take place this year.  Yet, only very few States had adopted legislation prohibiting it.  An international convention would accelerate that national process and lend it moral weight.  While the Committee could not legislate the moral status of human embryos, failure to conclude a treaty would relegate the human cloning ban to national governments, where the outcome would be uncertain, uncoordinated and too slow to counter that urgent threat.

The World Health Organization (WHO) had addressed the cloning issue in various forums and had adopted texts declaring that its use for reproductive purposes was ethically unacceptable and harmful to the dignity of the human being. At the same time, the WHO had endorsed the view that such a ban should not lead to an indiscriminate prohibition on all cloning procedures and research; scientific research involving stem cells, including from embryonic tissue, could yield new treatments for disease.  A full and open debate would yield conclusions about the utility, safety and desirability of stem-cell research. 

Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Malaysia, China, United States, France, Brazil, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Republic of Korea, Croatia, Uganda, Israel, Spain, Portugal and Costa Rica. 

Representatives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the European Commission also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at a date and time to be announced.

Background

The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings met this morning to hold a general debate on the ethics and science of human cloning.  The first-ever session of the Ad Hoc Committee, due to conclude on Friday, 1 March, has as its purpose the elaboration of a negotiating strategy for a possible convention.  (For additional background, see Press Release SOC/4599 of 25 February.)

Statements

YOSHIYUKI MOTOMURA (Japan) said that reproductive cloning of human beings must never be pursued.  In November 2000, the Japanese Diet enacted “The Law Concerning Regulations Relating to Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques”, which went into force in June 2001.  The law made reproductive human cloning a punishable offence, and provided guidelines strictly regulating the creation of human embryos utilizing cloning.  For the time being, the guidelines did not permit the creation of human embryos through cloning.  In elaborating the law and the guidelines, the Government had carefully considered and thoroughly discussed every issue relevant to human cloning. 

He emphasized that the prohibition must be limited to practices directly related to the reproductive cloning of human beings, for three reasons.  First, as reflected in its own law, Japan prohibited reproductive human cloning because it ran counter to the principle of respect for human dignity, because asexual reproduction could lead to confusion in the social order, and because the low probability of success endangered human life, as well as the integrity of the human body. 

Second, it should be noted that biotechnology was contributing to major advances in medical treatment, he said.  The creation through cloning techniques of embryos for therapeutic purposes did not seem to involve the serious problems to which he had referred.  Therefore, while human dignity and human rights must be protected, it would be a mistake to close the door to future scientific and technological progress which could save lives.

Third and most important, he continued, it was imperative that international measures be established against reproductive human cloning immediately, before any attempts at that practice were made. Time was of the essence.  While he recognized the importance of discussing ethical issues in international forums, he believed there were more appropriate occasions on which to do so.

HASMY AGAM (Malaysia) said that while he appreciated the potential for medical revolution accompanying the advent of technology in the area of reproductive cloning of human beings, he agreed with France and Germany that reproductive cloning of human beings posed unknown and serious problems to the human race.  Potential abuse of technology related to reproductive cloning of human beings not only raised moral, religious and ethical concerns, but also posed risks such as developmental and bodily abnormalities to humans.  In addition, medical technology related to reproductive human cloning was at present too risky for consideration.  The convening of the Committee would enable the development of an internationally binding instrument to address the issues relating to reproductive human cloning, while serving as an effective and feasible deterrent to overzealous researchers. 

He hoped that the draft convention would also address specific concerns of multi-cultural and multi-religious countries, such as his own, in terms of its acceptance and adaptations to suit local values.  The pace at which the technology was progressing and the need to anticipate developments beyond those envisaged at the time the convention was to be adopted must be borne in mind.  While Malaysia did not have laws relating to reproductive cloning of human beings, it intended to legislate its prohibition, taking into consideration cultural, ethical, religious and social concerns.  While Malaysia agreed that the proposed initiative should focus on provisions regulating reproductive cloning of human beings, it had not, at the current stage, taken a position on the issue of therapeutic cloning. 

CHEN XU (China) said that with the rapid development of biotechnology, cloning was receiving increasing attention, especially as cloned calves and pigs came out one after the other -- leading to the possibility that human beings could be cloned.  There was an imperative need, therefore, to work out legal rules, and he appreciated the efforts made by France and Germany in that regard.  He, too, supported the formulation of an early convention banning human cloning.  The rapid growth in the field had opened up broad prospects for improving human health.  On the other hand, human cloning would lead to serious ethic, social, religious and legal problems.  Guided by international legislation, the positive impact of such technological progress could be enjoyed and a negative impact could be avoided.

He said that human cloning would threaten human dignity, and he firmly opposed it.  He had also rejected any experiments in human cloning.  Meanwhile, a distinction should be made between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.  Embryonic stem-cell research for the purpose of treating and preventing disease should be encouraged, but bioethics and universal norms should guide that process so that it developed in an orderly fashion and was strictly supervised.  His Government and the scientific community were following the progress of cloning technology and staying informed of the ethical concerns.  Preparations were being considered at the governmental level for relevant rules on cloning, and academic institutions were also evolving guidelines on stem-cell research.  Domestic and international legislation would ensure the orderly management and development of cloning technology.

The ultimate purpose of scientific and technological development was to bring benefits to mankind, he said.  Some practices that might harm human dignity must not be allowed, but those that could benefit mankind should not be banned.  Furthermore, domestic legislation in various countries should treat therapeutic cloning differently.  Whatever their choices in that regard, domestic policies should be respected, as should the various philosophical, cultural and religious circumstances that had led to the legislation.  While preparing the convention, the Committee should listen carefully to the overall appraisals of scientists and bioethicists on the positive impact of cloning technology on mankind, in order to make an informed decision.

CAROLYN L. WILLSON (United States) said that human cloning was an enormously troubling development in biotechnology.  It was unethical in itself and dangerous as a precedent.  The possible creation of a human being through cloning raised many ethical concerns.  It constituted unethical experimentation on a child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities.  It threatened human individuality, deliberately saddling the clone with the genetic makeup of a person who had already lived.  It risked making women's bodies a commodity, with women being paid to undergo risky drug treatment so they would produce the many eggs needed for cloning.  It was also a giant step towards a society in which life was created for convenience, human beings were grown for spare body parts, and children were engineered to fit eugenic specifications.

She said that a proposal had been made to ban only so-called "reproductive" cloning by prohibiting the transfer of a cloned embryo into a woman in hopes of creating a human baby.  That approach was unsound.  While upon initial consideration a ban on reproductive cloning might seem easily attainable and desirable, the issue was very complex and should be addressed comprehensively.  A ban that prohibited only "reproductive" cloning but ignored "therapeutic" or "experimental" cloning would essentially authorize the creation and destruction of human embryos explicitly and solely for research and experimentation.  It would turn nascent life into a natural resource to be mined and exploited.  That prospect was repugnant to many people, including those who did not believe that the embryo was a person.

She said that an effective ban on "reproductive" cloning required that all human cloning be banned.  Under a partial ban that permitted the creation of cloned embryos for research, human embryos would be widely cloned in laboratories and assisted-reproduction facilities.  Once cloned embryos were available, it would be virtually impossible to control what was done with them.  Stockpiles of embryonic clones could be produced, bought and sold without anyone knowing it.  Implantation of cloned embryos would take place out of sight, and even elaborate and intrusive regulations and policing could not detect or prevent the initiation of a "clonal pregnancy".  Once begun, an illicit "clonal pregnancy" would be virtually impossible to detect.  The United States supported a global and comprehensive ban on human cloning through somatic cell nuclear transfer, regardless of the purpose for which the human clone was produced. 

CHRISTIAN MUCH (Germany), speaking also on behalf of France, said that yesterday's expert discussion had made it clear that the Committee was dealing with one of the most challenging issues of the day.  It involved tremendous scientific complexities and touched upon fundamental ethical questions.  New developments in genetic engineering posed some of the greatest challenges that humanity would ever face.  Although many applications held promise in preventing and curing disease, others could have consequences beyond the worst nightmares.  The technology of most immediate concern was reproductive cloning of human beings.  The consequences of such experiments on the preservation of human dignity would be far-reaching.  It was critical to come to terms with that challenge swiftly and without any delay.

He said that although he supported the initiative by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the need to elaborate universal norms on bioethics, the French/German initiative followed a more focused approach, aiming at a universal ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes.  Only a focused approach would lead to an international agreement to face the challenge that lay ahead.  Binding universal norms were an effective tool to combat serious threats to human dignity, such as torture, racial discrimination and terrorism.  Reproductive cloning of human beings posed a threat to human dignity.  Only an international binding global norm, with its legal and moral power, was the appropriate answer.  That would prevent dishonest competition among researchers and research institutions in the field.

At this first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, he said, France and Germany were seeking to initiate a discussion leading to decisions on the appropriate form and content of an international legal regulation.  They had already submitted a list of legal issues that might be addressed in the convention.  The purpose of that exercise should be to identify, in a generic way, issues that the convention might wish to address, on the understanding that the precise wording would be taken up in future negotiations.  He also proposed a review of the Secretariat document containing a list of existing international norms.  In summary, he wished to lay the foundations now for productive work that would lead to the adoption of a negotiating mandate, and ultimately to negotiations on a convention, to be concluded before the end of 2003.

JEAN-LUC FLORENT (France) expressed support for the statement made by Germany.  The duty of collective responsibility was based on a number of factors.  Reproductive cloning clearly called into question the idea of sexual reproduction.  A child born of sexual and human procreation was the result of the regeneration of two genetic histories.  Therefore, the characteristics of that child were unpredictable.  Unlike sexual procreation, asexual reproduction paved the way for predetermining the characteristics of the child.  It made it possible to create human beings for purposes beyond their control.  That was an unacceptable denial of human dignity.  The international community must reaffirm the principle by which the birth of a child was the result only of sexual reproduction.  It was now time to firmly condemn the challenge posed by some in favour of reproductive cloning.

PEDRO DALCERO (Brazil) said that the French/German initiative had been timely and mirrored the widespread debate in the genetics field.  The Committee’s deliberations would most certainly lead to a better understanding of the scientific and moral issues posed by recent research on cloning.  Of equal importance was the outcome of the Committee's work, which would stimulate the development of specific national legislation.  In 1995, Brazil had adopted legislation on human embryos and, in view of the most recent breakthroughs in the field, its Congress was examining a national code of bioethics.  Institutional developments had included the establishment of the National Commission on Research Ethics, a peer-review mechanism on scientific experiments involving human beings, and of the Technical Commission on Biosafety, which advised the Government on public policy issues in that field.

He said that the farthest-reaching potential gains from cloning were in the human health field.  His country had done considerable research on adult stem cells, thereby acquiring extensive experience in that field.  As a result, its laboratories had the technical capabilities of working with human embryonic stem cells.  The issues posed complex technical challenges, however, which science was only beginning to address.  On the other hand, the enormous potential gains in terms of human health had been matched by a possible ethical fallout.  In light of that and the growing public debate, a judicious and balanced outcome that truly served the public's interests should be ensured.  He looked forward to hearing how other countries were dealing with the challenge of translating those complex issues.

Overall, he continued, human cloning was morally unacceptable, but no convention could be a watertight guarantee against its abuse.  The international community must send a clear message that such behaviour was intolerable and would be repressed.  Ultimately, the best way to foil that was to foster scientific freedom.  While stem-cell research offered scientific possibilities, it was unclear whether that would be a satisfactory alternative to human embryonic cloning.  The ethical concerns of all should be satisfied, but scientific research and knowledge should not be suppressed.  Another reason to restrict the scope of any convention on human cloning hinged on whether it would be considered by the Committee to be a human rights instrument.  If that was the case, the convention would enjoy constitutional status under Brazilian law. 

HARRIET WALLBERG-HENRIKSSON (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries -- Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden -- said the issue of reproductive cloning of human beings must be dealt with as a matter of priority.  Enlarged discussions on other, even though related, issues would not only risk delaying the work of the Committee, but might also make the Committee lose sight of its goal.  To achieve a global consensus on an international convention, a pragmatic approach was necessary, and it was essential to focus now on prohibiting the reproductive cloning of human beings. 

She said that reproductive cloning of human beings was prohibited by the respective national laws of the Nordic countries.  There was also a common understanding in Nordic societies that that should be the case.  All the Nordic countries had signed the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, as well as the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prohibition of Cloning of Human Beings.  Given the urgency and importance of the matter, the Nordic countries considered it a great responsibility for all to comply with the Committee’s mandate to prohibit reproductive cloning of human beings. 

KIM YOUNG-MOK (Republic of Korea) said the remarkable progress of life sciences was like a gift from Prometheus.  That fire, if properly controlled, had the potential to provide mankind with an invaluable and almost inexhaustible source of health and welfare.  On the other hand, if left unbridled, that fire could have detrimental effects, burning out the very essence of human dignity. 

In 1997, he said, a Korean research group had succeeded in cloning a cow by using the same technology that was used in the creation of Dolly -- namely, somatic cell nuclear transfer.  In 2000 and 2001, other research groups successfully established stem-cell lines from surplus embryos that were originally made for the purpose of in vitro fertilization.  With increasing scientific and technological advances in the field of life sciences, public awareness of cloning and its ethical and social implications had gradually grown, leading to heated debates within and among civic groups, religious circles, researchers and the industry concerned. 

He added that government legislation was under way to address the concerns relating to genetic testing, privacy regarding genetic information, gene therapy, as well as the issue of reproductive cloning of human beings and the scope of permissible research on embryos. 

DUBRAVKA SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said that media coverage of Dolly had offered insight into the social impact of science and technology, public fears about the possible misuses of the power of science and ethical concerns about biotechnology applications.  For that reason, legal consideration of the purpose of the convention against reproductive cloning should also include consideration of ethical and social issues connected with banning human cloning and protecting the human being.  Examples of a timely response to such challenges had been the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being, as well as its Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. 

She said that the Additional Protocol had been the first binding international treaty on human cloning, and it banned the practice of creating a human being genetically identical to another, whether living or dead.  As a national response to the challenges of biotechnology, her Government had signed the Council of Europe's Convention, as well as the Additional Protocol.  Last year, it had established a National Bioethics Committee with the task of monitoring ethical and legal issues in connection with the development and application of biomedical science on human beings.  It would also recommend new laws for adoption in such areas as the human genome, protection of the human embryo and cloning.  Both the Convention and UNESCO's Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights were placing reproductive human cloning in the human rights framework.  The Committee should adopt the same approach.

ROSSETTE NYIRINKINDI (Uganda) said that following yesterday’s presentations, she was left with the impression that reproductive cloning was an anathema to humanity and to the perpetuation of humanity as it was intended to be.  She was also disturbed by the fact that embryos used in embryonic stem-cell research were in effect killed.  She also understood that, even though they were not as viable as embryos, adult stem cells had been instrumental in therapeutic cloning. 

Her country could not condone the usurping of God’s sovereignty over creation, she said.  Human cloning for reproductive purposes also posed a chilling challenge to the fabric of family life, childhood and the entire society, given the psychosocial implications that were highlighted by the scientists.  For every Dolly or C.C., there had been hundreds of failed attempts, miscarriages, birth defects, and newborn deaths of uncertain cause in their wake.  The deformed were destroyed.  It was reasonable to expect that human cloning experiments would also have their own failure rates.  Would the human beings conceived from similar failures also be destroyed on the basis of their imperfections or inadequacies?

Human cloning, she said, reduced mankind to the status of a laboratory rat to be experimented and improved on.  Despite what the experts said, it might also lead to genetic manipulation of humans for “purified future generations”.  It was important to produce a convention that was broad and inclusive, to encompass not only the legal but moral, scientific and social dimensions.  It should set a minimum standard of bioethics with rigorous regulations, and mechanisms to govern the research and actual cloning of embryos as a whole. 

SERGEI SHESTAKOV (Russian Federation) said he was concerned about the ongoing research focusing on reproductive human cloning.  The issue involved a number of legal, political, social and technological factors.  The correct approach required a strict scientific assessment of the genetic and social implications of the process, as well as the consideration of the views of philosophers, sociologists, clergy and others.  Any decision to ban human cloning should follow a painstaking and balanced analysis.  The Committee's work was timely.  He supported the work of a broad spectrum of authoritative international organizations in the field, and attached great significance to consolidating efforts in combating human reproductive cloning.

He said his country was actively researching a legal framework for genetic engineering and biotechnology.  On 20 December 2001, the State Duma had adopted a first draft federal law on a temporary ban on human cloning. The draft legislation established a legal barrier to creating a human being through cloning, and sought to maintain the underpinning of Russian society, the family.  That ban did not extend to the use of cloning for stem-cell and other research, thereby making it possible to conduct future research in that field.  The draft called for a ban on the import and export of human cloned embryos, and was aimed at preserving Russia's national identity and "nipping in the bud" the commercialization and criminalization of human beings.  It would also make liable those who violated those norms. 

A temporary five-year ban on human cloning would enable his country to make a balanced decision on the question, he went on.  That was enough time to acquire new knowledge and undertake a risk assessment of the genetic implications of cloning.  The main purpose of the bill was to eliminate work on uncontrolled human cloning, while not depriving scientists of developing new processes, essential for human and veterinary medicine.  He favoured a comprehensive approach to crafting the convention, taking into account new scientific data, technologies, and bioethical standards.  Any mandate for talks on a convention must provide for the consideration of all aspects of the problem.  The convention itself should contain elements enabling scientific research in the field of developing and regulating human cloning, as well as the prospects for stem-cell research. 

TAL BECKER (Israel) said that his country was one of the first countries to adopt legislation imposing a general moratorium on genetic intervention for the purpose of human cloning, including the creation of a person by use of reproductive cells that had undergone germ-line gene therapy.  That moratorium was in force for an initial period of five years, during which the moral, legal, social and scientific aspects of the issue, and their implications for human dignity, were to be examined by an advisory committee.

The cautious approach adopted in Israeli legislation reflected an understanding that the world was only at the beginning of examining the far-reaching implications of scientific developments in genetic engineering and related fields, he said.  To some extent, Israeli law on human cloning derived its inspiration from Jewish sources.  The imperative in Jewish tradition of healing and of saving human life suggested that scientific techniques which could cure serious diseases, ease suffering and improve the human condition should generally be embraced, though not without reservations.  The possible benefits to scientific and medical research must always be weighed against the likely detrimental effects of such techniques.

The first step, he said, should be an honest and realistic assessment of the dangers, both scientific and ethical, and the possible benefits of scientific and medical research in the field of reproductive human cloning.  It was also necessary to consider the different ways in which cloning could be prohibited, monitored and adequately regulated through national and international regulation.  The Committee might wish to consider an international convention which imposed a moratorium on reproductive cloning, to be reviewed periodically and to be closely and carefully monitored, as opposed to one which imposed a sweeping and permanent ban.

RENATO R. MARTINO, Observer for the Holy See, supported a global and comprehensive ban on human cloning, no matter what techniques were used and what aims were pursued.  His position was based on biological analysis of the cloning process, as well as anthropological, social, ethical and legal reflection on the negative implications that human cloning had on the life, dignity and rights of the human being.  Based on the biological and anthropological status of the human embryo and on the fundamental moral and civil rule against killing an innocent even to bring about a good for society, the Holy See regarded the conceptual distinction between reproductive and therapeutic (or experimental) human cloning as devoid of any ethical and legal ground.

He said the proposed ban on cloning was not intended to prohibit the use of cloning techniques to:  obtain a number of biological entities (molecules, cells and tissues) other than human embryos; generate plants; and produce non-human embryos and non-chimaeric (human-animal) embryos.  Every process involving human cloning was in itself a reproductive process, in that it generated a human being at the very beginning of his or her development.  He supported research on stem cells of post-natal origin, since that approach was a sound, promising and ethical way to achieve tissue transplantation and cell therapy.

JONATHAN HUSTON (Liechtenstein) said that a convention banning human cloning would give concrete expression to an international consensus.  The need to clearly communicate that consensus was great:  there was an increasing likelihood that attempts to clone human beings would be undertaken even in the present year, and only a very small number of States had thus far adopted legislation prohibiting it.  The elaboration of a convention would streamline and accelerate the process of prohibiting reproductive cloning on the national level and it would lend added moral weight to the process.  In Liechtenstein, for example, there was currently a legal vacuum in the area of cloning.  A global convention would greatly help to fill it.

He said that, given the urgency of the Committee's task, it was vital the mandate for negotiating a convention remain focused.  It should be kept in mind, however, that the Committee could not legislate the moral status of human embryos, nor could it engage in a balancing test between the rights of parents, the rights of born and unborn children, and the interests of society.  There were intense policy and legal debates that were fought at the national level; very few States had reached consensus on those issues even within their own borders.  The international community could not hope to do so.  At the same time, however, failure at the international level would relegate the ban on human cloning to national governments, where the outcome would be uncertain, uncoordinated and too slow to counter the urgent threat.

A convention focused solely on reproductive cloning could not permit cloning for other purposes, he continued.  There was no international convention against abortion, but that had not meant that abortion was permitted or authorized at the level of individual States.  Unlike in the case of human cloning, most States had legislation on abortion.  In Liechtenstein, abortion was criminalized in all but a narrow set of circumstances, thereby acknowledging the moral standing of embryos.  Its national debate on therapeutic cloning would likely also lead to a restrictive regime nationally.  Despite its national views on the subject, however, it would not force that perspective on other States, and it did not want to endanger the success of a future convention.  He would be open to the inclusion of a review process in the convention, allowing for a reconsideration of human cloning issues, after deeper medical understanding and more mature ethical debate.

ANTONIO CAMPOS (Spain) said it was necessary to reach agreement on a universal prohibition on the reproductive cloning of human beings, to cover both reproductive and therapeutic purposes.  The reproductive cloning of human beings by nuclear transfer raised serious issues of both a technical and ethical nature.  Therapeutic cloning raised additional problems, including experiments that would end in the destruction of embryos.  It also created identical clones of sick human beings, which could then be transplanted.  That implied the creation of humans for reasons other than existence.  Cloning that used human embryos and by which embryos were destroyed was contrary to human dignity.  Embryos in all stages of development deserved a minimum of respect that ruled out their destruction for utilitarian purposes.  The use and destruction of embryos for research purposes meant the objectification of human embryos. 

His Government considered all human cloning, including therapeutic, as contrary to human dignity, and had criminalized it as an offence in its criminal code.  Limiting a United Nations convention to reproductive cloning meant losing an historic opportunity.  The United Nations should not follow that approach.  While he supported the French/German proposal, a more complete and effective convention was needed.  If the scope was limited to reproductive cloning, it would mean that the United Nations condoned human cloning for other purposes.

Mr. VILHENA DE CARVALHO (Portugal) said his country had undertaken an explicit international commitment against human cloning by its ratification of the Additional Protocol to the relevant Council of Europe Convention.  He also fully supported the French/German initiative, as well as the adoption of the General Assembly resolution on the subject last December.  The issue was an urgent one, requiring the consensus of the international community as a whole.  Everyone was aware of the social and scientific risks of the non-existence of a global stand on the issue.  There could be no delay in finding a result acceptable to all.  Clearly, there was not yet common ground with respect to a sufficiently stable scientific response.  So, the focus should be on the main goal of establishing a binding international instrument that would ban any attempt to clone human beings for reproductive purposes. 

CARLOS FERNANDO DÍAZ PANIAGUA (Costa Rica) said his country supported a ban on human cloning insofar as it included all types of biotechnical research that violated human dignity.  The main question before the Committee had been well stated by one of the experts yesterday:  were human beings merely a group of cells or something more vulnerable?  Costa Rica's constitutional court felt that human life began at the moment of conception and, therefore, that every embryo should enjoy the full range of human rights instruments.  Last year, the court accepted technically assisted fertility treatments for infertile couples, with the proviso of satisfying the notion that such assistance was compatible with the protection of human life.  The ethnical criteria that inspired human rights treaties should prevail.

ORIO IKEBE, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that nearly 10 years ago UNESCO had established a Bioethics Committee to examine the ethical and legal issues raised by the life sciences and to recommend appropriate action.  The General Conference of UNESCO had also established an Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee, which in 1995 and 1996 had examined issues related to human cloning.  Article 11 of the Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights stated that practices that were contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, were not permitted.  The Intergovernmental Committee, at its second session in May 2001, had reaffirmed that human reproductive cloning was contrary to human dignity and had encouraged Member States to take appropriate measures to prohibit human reproductive cloning.

The question was also examined in a recent round table held in Paris in October 2001, with ministers of science from more than 100 delegations, she continued, whose Final Communiqué reaffirmed that human reproductive cloning was a practice contrary to human dignity.  She was pleased to see that the principle of Article 11 was now being discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee with a view to the elaboration of a possible convention against human reproductive cloning.  The UNESCO would be prepared to carry out scientific and technical studies in that regard to assist the Committee in its work.

NICOLE BIROS, World Health Organization (WHO), said she supported the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the eventual drafting of the convention. For 50 years, the WHO had set technical and ethical standards in virtually all areas of health.  Standard-setting had been one major way in which the WHO had acted as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.  By providing countries with such standards, it had supported their efforts to assess and apply health standards and technology.  The WHO also relied on the active participation of its six regional offices, through which diverse social, cultural and economic environments were reflected.

She said that the WHO had addressed the issue of cloning in various forums, and it had adopted resolutions declaring that the use of cloning for reproductive purposes was ethically unacceptable and harmful to the dignity of the human being. At the same time, the WHO had endorsed the view that such a ban should not lead to an indiscriminate ban on all cloning procedures and research.  It had recognized the need to respect freedom of scientific advances and ensure access to their applications.  Her organization would continue to monitor the situation and, where appropriate, develop guidelines for human cloning for health and non-reproductive purposes.  For example, scientific research involving stem cells, including from

embryonic tissue, could yield new treatments for disease.  A full and open debate was needed, leading to conclusions on the utility, safety and desirability of stem-cell research. 

BARBARA RHODE, European Commission, drew attention to several documents before the Committee, including the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.  National regulations concerning ethical values varied within the European Union countries.  From the beginning, the Commission had welcomed the French/German initiative to elaborate a convention banning the reproductive cloning of human beings.  She hoped to add such a United Nations convention to the European Commission’s regulations soon.  The European Parliament had worked for a year on a report on human genetics.  However, the attempt failed since too many topics were covered at the same time.  A viable approach could only be to concentrate on basic shared principles.  The control of such regulations was also important.

* *** *