|
SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point 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 |
|
So are we really supposing all this is almost certain to happen? There is a finite risk, but it is not 100%. According to some, it is well nigh inevitable. Many would not agree. There are many reasons why what is scientific possible is not always done. It is a commonplace that most active research scientists create far more potential research ideas than they have the time, people and money to pursue. There are presumably many things which it would be scientifically possible to do to live patients that are illegal which would be medically very useful for knowledge of the human disease. This does not mean that they are all inevitably done. Of course it is right to raise the question of cloning of humans as a result of the Roslin research, but let us keep a sense of proportion about the level of risk.
Comment on the Korean Claim - Need for International Research Guidelines
Research in this area is proceeding at a rapid rate. Developments in stem cell and cloning technology are changed the picture of the issues under debate. This is brought home further by the claim on December 15 that Korean scienctists have cloned a very early human embryo. At the moment we should be sceptical about this claim. It has not been published in a scientific journal and the Roslin Institute says that since the experiment only went as far as the 4 cell stage, it had not reached a stage where it was possible to say that it was a cloned embryo. Nonetheless, the fact that they have apparently tried raises exactly the ethical questions of whether we should allow the creation cloned embryos which we have posed above.
The faster science and technology proceeds, the less our frameworks of legislation and regulation seem to cope with them. As soon as Dolly was announced aleady people were asking whether even our present UK Human Fertilisation and Embryolgy Act covers the possibility of human cloning from adult cells. There is clearly great diversity over this matter - some countries' laws do indeed outlaw human cloning, but in many no effective legislation exists. In the US, only publicly funded research in this area is banned. There has been much progress as many Governments have examined the adequacy of their legislative and regulatory situation.
The Church of Scotland, along with many others, considers that attempts to clone human beings should be outlawed worldwide. There seems to be a substantial policital mandate for this. It would be impossible to stop a "back street" clinic or a dictatorship from ignoring such an international treaty, but the lines need to be drawn. The situation on non-reproductive uses and research is much more complex, but it would be important at the very least to work towards establishing some internationally agreed guidelines what should and should not be allowed in such research. A number of bodies could address this question. The SRT Director was part of the UK delegation at a summit meeting of national bioethics committees in November in Japan. A committee was set up to see what collaborative work could be done. Here is an excellent subject which it could address. Dr Bruce was also recently invited as an observer to the meeting of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. In 1997 this committee produced a Universal Declaration on the Human Genome, together with a statement against cloning human beings, recently endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Again, this should now address the question of cloning research. The Council of Europe's Bioethics Convention also has a Protocol on Human Cloning also could do the same.
Consideration also needs taking from how much further research should be done in in the animal field of this type. It would seem unfair not to allow the next step of the Roslin work, which would try to attempt the same exercise on a genetically engineered cells, but how much further beyond that should it go? Unfortunately there is a lack of necessary procedures to look at the ethics of animal experiments, as opposed to safety or welfare. The existing UK animal experimentation legislation is not designed to allow for the ethical assessment of experimental proposals. Moreover, the continuing lack of a statutory Ethical Commission on Biotechnology is leaving such issues dealt with on a piecemeal basis, when many are asking for a better way of balanced debate.
The third line of defence is openness to public scrutiny of the research and its aims. The pace of present developments raises the point of whether society has an effective scope for comment on the acceptability of research which would break new ground ethically. For some time it has been clear that we need a better way of enabling the public assessment of new areas like this where there could be cause for concern. Ultimately society as a whole must own the research which is nominally being done on its behalf. This can only happen if there is true participation. Ethics committees are useful up to a point, but they can never be the complete answer for how to involve the public and provide for a debate which engages the non-expert. There needs to be a radical improvement of providing for informed public debate on developments of this nature.
Return to the top of the Page
This page has been produced by the Society Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland. For more about our work on other issues, see our Other SRT Project pages, our SRT Publications List, or our On-line SRT Newsletter.
We'd also welcome any comments you may have. We don't claim to have said the last word!
If you want to send us a comment or obtain further information or receive our latest Newsletter,
email us at :
mailto:srtp@srtp.org.uk
Return to Contents
Return to Further Information
Links to other SRT Project Pages
SRT Website Map
