SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point The Big Issues The Big Issues "Engineering Genesis" Genetic Engineering GM Food GM Animals Human Genetics Cloning Xenotransplantation Patenting Risk Environment Climate Change Energy Nuclear Power Transport Eco-Congregation Church Energy Saving Technology Internet Issues Science & Faith SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian     Environmental Network Eco-Congregation

Society, Religion and Technology Project Church of Scotland Looking at the ethics of technology for a New Millennium

Two UK patents have been granted on cloning technology to the Roslin Institute, and licensed Geron Corporation and PPL Therapeutics. Two important issues arise from this. The first concerns the patent, the second the ethics of some of the technologies it would be used for. The patent relates to two fields. One is PPL and Roslin's long standing work into pharmaceutical protein production in sheep's milk. The other is the use for replacement human cells, by US company Geron, which recently merged with the Scottish company Roslin Biomed. The first aim would be to use the cloning method to produce human embryos which would be reprogrammed to produce replacement cells. These might be effective in the treatment of a range of diseases, like Alzheimers. But this depends on the result of the Donaldson Committee inquiry into the scientific, legal, risk and ethical aspects of this technology, which is due to report fairly soon.

We are concerned about the impact of a monopoly on an invention upon the development of potential therapies. When a new technology begins, the first patent is usually very broad in what applications it covers. But broad patents are often criticised because in the past where they have held back development because one organisation held too much control. When it applies to potential medical therapies, this can also give too much power to charge high fees to use the invention. Society has given Geron and their collaborators certain rights. In return, we must now require Geron to exercise a clear social responsibility on how they use those rights. They must ensure that the benefits of their research are available not just to a few rich patients, but to all. This means putting human needs before profits. They must ensure that their position will only be for ethical purposes. Here is our second point.

The Church of Scotland has expressed its objection to the patenting of genes or transgenic animals and plants, on the basis that they are God's creation, a discovery not an invention, and something which no one should claim exclusive rights about. These patents are different, however, because they are about the cloning technology, which is indeed inventive, and passes the normal grounds for a patent. The ethical issue is what it would be used for. Cloning human beings is outlawed in UK law and in the EU Patent Directive, but is legal in the USA. The Kirk is pleased that Roslin have stipulated that the license would be withdrawn if anyone attempted to use their methods to clone human beings. The use for pharmaceutical production in animals is acceptable, provided animal welfare problems are resolved, but the use for human cell replacements is controversial.

While the Kirk has no formal view as yet, many are concerned at the creation of cloned embryos which would then be used as resources for creating cells. This would mark a radical change in the use of embryos, as a resource instead of an entity in itself. It would push the present compromise between seeing an embryo as having full human rights and something on which limited research could be done, to becoming "just a ball of cells". We urge Geron to concentrate their research effort into cell replacements that avoid the creation of embryos.

This page was set up on 25 January 2000