Welcome to
GENETIC CROSSROADS #26
November
22, 2002
Supporting responsible uses of human genetic
technologies
Opposing the new techno-eugenics
I.
SUPPORT FOR BANS ON HUMAN CLONING
1.
United Nations human cloning treaty
2.
European Parliament supports full cloning ban
3.
Brazilian National Women’s Congress opposes reproductive
cloning
4.
California makes reproductive human cloning a crime
II.
SUPPORT FOR BANS ON HUMAN GENETIC MODIFICATION
1.
UNESCO report opposes “designer baby” technology
2.
International Olympics Committee bans human genetic
engineering
III.
CLONING FIRMS STUMBLE
1.
ACT human cloning expert resigns
2.
Confusion at ‘Missyplicity’ dog cloning project
IV.
CGS NEWS
1.
CGS presents at World Congress of Bioethics, Brasilia
2.
Z Magazine: "The New Eugenics"
I. SUPPORT FOR BANS ON HUMAN CLONING
1. United Nations human cloning treaty
The United Nations has decided to delay until September 2003 a decision about the scope of a treaty to ban human cloning. A proposal by France and Germany to begin negotiations on a treaty that would ban reproductive cloning, to be followed by consideration of a treaty addressing research cloning, was supported by at least 75 countries. However, it was opposed by at least 35 countries, led by the United States and Spain, that called for reproductive cloning and research cloning to be considered simultaneously.
Both Germany and France ban cloning for any purpose at the domestic level, but they proposed an international treaty that would address only reproductive cloning in order to allow quick action. Positions on research cloning vary widely among nations but countries are unanimous in their opposition to reproductive cloning.
Discussions concerning treaty language that might be able to command support from both camps are underway.
See: Edith M. Lederer, “U.N. Treaty on Human Cloning Stalled,”
Associated Press (November 19, 2002)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-un-human-cloning1120nov19,0,3080334.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
For background and other links on the UN and the proposed treaty, see http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/international/un.html
2. European Parliament supports full cloning ban
In a related development, the European Parliament has voted 271-154 to support the US-Spain position regarding an international cloning treaty, calling for a ban on both research and reproductive cloning. This vote is not binding on national governments but could be influential.
See “European Parliament Wants Total Ban on Human Cloning,”
ZENIT (November 21, 2002)
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=27981
3. Brazilian National Women’s Congress opposes reproductive cloning
The Brazilian National Feminist Platform, a document based on the input of thousands of activists in Brazil’s women’s movement, includes an article opposing human reproductive cloning. The statement of opposition is part of the Platform’s chapter titled On Sexual Freedom and Reproduction. The document, adopted at a June meeting in Brasilia of the National Women’s Conference, was prepared as part of the lead-up to the recent Brazilian elections that saw the victory of progressive labor leader Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva.
For text of the document, see: http://www.articulacaodemulheres.org.br/
4. California makes reproductive human cloning a crime
In September the state of California approved legislation making reproductive cloning a crime. The law defines human reproductive cloning as “the creation of a human fetus that is substantially genetically identical to a previously born human being.” Violators can be fined up to $1 million or double the amount of financial gain from cloning and will lose their professional licenses. At the same time, California approved embryo research legislation explicitly allowing the creation of clonal human embryos. An advisory committee is to be established to review this research, but the manner in which researchers seeking to create clonal human embryos will be held accountable is not clear.
For text of the California legislation see:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1230&sess=CUR&house=B&author=alpert
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_253&sess=CUR&house=B&author=ortiz
II. SUPPORT FOR BANS ON HUMAN GENETIC MODIFICATION
1. UNESCO report opposes “designer baby” technology
The United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) will be considering two important policy statements relevant to human genetic modification in Montreal, Canada on Nov. 26-28. One statement opposes the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for non-medical purposes such as selection for sex or cosmetic traits. It also affirms UNESCO’s earlier opposition to inheritable genetic modification. The second statement establishes a process for developing a “Universal Instrument on Bioethics.” The proposed bioethics instrument would address such topics as access to health care, assisted reproduction, end-of-life issues, intellectual property, human subjects research, human organ/tissue transplantation, and the use of embryonic stem cells for research.
In recent years policy on these matters has often been influenced by professional bioethicists who espouse utilitarian rather than social justice values. UNESCO has historically emphasized social justice values, and has been a progressive political force in international affairs. If it remains true to its political roots, it is in a position to play an important role on the world stage concerning the new human genetic technologies.
For copies of the UNESCO reports see http://www.unesco.org/ibc
For background and other links on UNESCO and the new human genetic technologies, see http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/international/unesco.html
2. International Olympics Committee bans human genetic modification
The International Olympics Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have decided to add human genetic modification to their list of banned practices. Effective January 1, 2003, “Gene or cell doping is defined as the non-therapeutic use of genes, genetic elements, and/or cells that have the capacity to enhance athletic performance.” In the past, WADA has been forced to react as new drugs have been developed and used. The new ruling preemptively bans an anticipated category of unacceptable technologies. WADA president Dick Pound said, “By introducing the notion of genetic doping into the list at this time, we are taking into account the important changes occurring in doping techniques.”
See Adrian Warner, “IOC Bans Human Genetic Engineering From Sports,” Reuters (October 1, 2002) http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/sports/4188493.htm
1. ACT human cloning expert resigns
The lead scientist on the project that claimed to have created the first cloned human embryos is resigning. Jose Cibelli, vice-president for research at Advanced Cell Technology (Worcester, MA, USA), has accepted an appointment as professor of animal biotechnology at Michigan State University (Lansing, MI, USA). ACT, which like many other biotechnology firms has been financially struggling, could not match an offer from MSU. Michigan state law bans all human cloning procedures, whether for research or reproductive purposes. ACT says that its human cloning project will resume after it raises $10 million and finds a replacement for Cibelli.
For more information, see Antonio Regalado, “Cloning Pioneer Abandons Project,” The Wall Street Journal (November 11, 2002)
For more on ACT and the biotechnology industry, see http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/biotech.html
2. Confusion at ‘Missyplicity’ dog cloning project
The primary source of funding for a major university-based project to clone pet animals has been withdrawn. Arizona businessman John Sperling ended his $3.7 million support of the animal cloning project at Texas A&M’s College of Veterinary Medicine. Instead, Sperling will invest $9 million in Genetics Savings and Clone, a company he founded as a for-profit pet cloning operation. Although the so-called ‘Missyplicity project' at A&M – named for Sperling’s dog Missy – produced the world's first cloned cat earlier this year, it failed to successfully clone a dog. Sperling and Genetic Savings and Clone will reportedly redirect their financial support of pet cloning to researchers in California. Meanwhile, the A&M lab will focus on livestock cloning and seek other funding sources.
For report, see: Kerry Fehr-Snyder, “Millionaire Transfers
Dog-Cloning Grant,” The Arizona Republic (November 15,
2002)
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/1115missyplicity.html
For more on pet cloning, see http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/promodeveloping/pet.html
1. CGS presents at World Congress of Bioethics, Brasilia
CGS organized a special session on the need for a global ban on human reproductive cloning at the Sixth World Congress of Bioethics. Held in Brasilia, Brazil earlier this month, the Congress brought together over 1300 bioethicists from dozens of countries. The session, titled “Towards an International Ethical, Social and Political Accord on Human Cloning and Human Species - Alteration,” including presentations by CGS Executive Director Richard Hayes; Rosario Isasi of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics; Joachim Schemel of the German Foreign Office Taskforce on Environmental and Biopolitical Issues; Evelyne Shuster of the University of Pennsylvania Human Rights and Medical Ethics Program ; and Alejandra Rotania, Executive Coordinator of Ser Mulher in Brazil.
For the abstracts from the session, see http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/cgs/20021101_wcb.html
2. Z Magazine: The New Eugenics
The latest issue of Z Magazine contains an article by CGS
staff member Jesse Reynolds that draws the connection between human
reproductive cloning and more dangerous eugenic technologies, and
calls for a global ban. Jesse Reynolds, “The New Eugenics,” Z
Magazine (Vol. 15, No. 11, November 2002)
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/cgs/200211_z_reynolds.html
More Information
Analysis:
Examine the social, cultural, and economic landscape
Perspectives:
Explore various communities' concerns regarding human genetic
technologies
Policies:
Read about existing and potential regulations
Technologies:
Learn the basic science and consider arguments for and against