Regulating stem-cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: an exercise in protecting the status of the human subject

Over 12 months prior to the recent United Nations decision to defer a decision about what type of international treaty should be developed in the global stem-cell research and human cloning debate, the Federal Parliament of Australia passed two separate pieces of legislation relating to both these concerns. After a five-year long process of community consultation, media spectacle and parliamentary debate, reproductive cloning has been banned in Australia and only embryos considered to be excess to assisted reproductive technologies in existence on the 5th of April 2002 are currently valid research material. This paper argues that underpinning both pieces of legislation is a profound belief in the disruptive potential of all types of human cloning for the very nature and integrity of human species being. A belief, moreover, that is based on a presumption that it is apparently possible to conceptualise what being human even means for all Australians.     

The pros and cons of human therapeutic cloning in the public debate

Few issues linked to genetic research have raised as much controversial debate as the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to create embryos specifically for stem cell research. Whereas European countries unanimously agree that reproductive cloning should be prohibited there is no agreement to be found on whether or not research into therapeutic cloning should be permitted. Since the UK took the lead and voted in favour of regulations allowing therapeutic cloning the public debate has intensified on the Continent. This debate reflects the wide spectrum of diverse religious and secular moralities that are prevalent in modern multicultural European democratic societies. Arguments range from putting forward strictly utilitarian views that weight the moral issues involved against the potential benefits that embryonic stem cell research may harbour to considering the embryo as a human being, endowed with human dignity and human rights from the moment of its creation, concluding that its use for research is unethical and should be strictly prohibited. Given the current state of dissension among the various European states, it is difficult to predict whether 'non-harmonisation' will prevail or whether in the long run 'harmonisation' of legislation that will allow stem cell research will evolve in the EU.     

Knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel

Abstract

The success of mammal cloning in 1997 has brought the issue of human cloning into public discussion. Human cloning has several aspects and potential applications for use in both reproductive and non-reproductive matters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel. Data from 120 respondents (68 health professionals and 52 non-health professionals), all Jewish, Hebrew speaking with at least 15 years of education each, were collected using two questionnaires that dealt with knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning. Results showed that although health professionals had significantly more knowledge than non-health professionals, all respondents had poor knowledge about cloning. No difference in attitudes was found between the groups. Most respondents opposed human cloning, but more positive attitudes toward non-reproductive cloning were found. The results are discussed in the context of the deficit model. The findings indicate a need to provide information about human cloning to allow people to form their attitudes based on factual knowledge.     

Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and christian fundamentalist pastors

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the ‘first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology’ (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p. 313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning).

In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over ‘playing God’ for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.     

Abortion rhetoric in American news coverage of the human cloning debate

Abstract

The issue of human cloning has received intense media and political attention since the cloning of Dolly the sheep was announced in 1997. This research explores the discursive basis for support and opposition to human cloning by examining the role of abortion-related rhetoric in constructing the concept of human cloning within the American press. An in-depth content analysis of human cloning news coverage was conducted on a sample of articles collected from the mainstream press as well as advocacy publications with either a pro-science or Christian fundamentalist orientation. Statistically significant differences were found indicating an important role for abortion rhetoric in the human cloning debate. This expansion of abortion rhetoric into the domain of science policy portends a unique and growing problem for resolving bioethical debates within American politics over the future development of biomedical technologies such as human cloning.     

Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and Christian fundamentalist pastors

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the 'first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology' (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p.313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning). In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over 'playing God' for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.     

Human cloning: category, dignity, and the role of bioethics

Human cloning has been simultaneously a running joke for massive worldwide publicity of fringe groups like the Raelians, and the core issue of an international movement at the United Nations in support of a treaty to ban the use of cloning techniques to produce a child (so called reproductive cloning). Yet, even though debates on human cloning have greatly increased since the birth of Dolly, the clone sheep, in 1997, we continue to wonder whether cloning is after all any different from other methods of medically assisted reproduction, and what exactly makes cloning an 'affront to the dignity of humans.' Categories we adopt matter mightily as they inform but can also misinform and lead to mistaken and unproductive decisions. And thus bioethicists have a responsibility to ensure that the proper categories are used in the cloning debates and denounce those who try to win the ethical debate through well-crafted labels rather than well-reasoned argumentations. But it is as important for bioethicists to take a position on broad issues such as human cloning and species altering interventions. One 'natural question' would be, for example, should there be an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning?     

UN stalls on human cloning

The United Nations postponed again a controversial vote on the issue of therapeutic cloning of human stem cells, hampering the widely supported opposition to reproductive cloning but many countries are developing their own legislation.     

Ethical dimensions of therapeutic human cloning

Therapeutic human cloning has the potential significantly to reduce human suffering and enhance human happiness. This is the main ethical argument in its favour. The main ethical arguments against it centre on questions to do with the moral status of the human embryo. A subsidiary set of arguments arises from the connections between therapeutic human cloning and reproductive cloning. Most of the ethical questions concerning the status of the human embryo have long been examined in the context of abortion, though they are being re-examined in the context of genetic screening and embryo research. A consensus on such matters seems extremely unlikely to result in the near future. The current role of ethicists may not, therefore, be so much to attempt to produce a definitive answer to the question of the status of the human embryo at the very early developmental stages at which therapeutic human cloning would take place, but more to help clarify arguments and indicate the implications of particular approaches. That is what this paper seeks to do.     

Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning

Can philosophers come up with persuasive reasons to allow or ban human reproductive cloning? Yes. Can philosophers agree, locally and temporarily, which practices related to cloning should be condoned and which should be rejected? Some of them can. Can philosophers reproduce universally convincing arguments for or against different kinds of human cloning? No. This paper analyses some of the main arguments presented by philosophers in the cloning debate, and some of the most important objections against them. The clashes between the schools of thought suggest that philosophers cannot be trusted to provide the public authorities, or the general public, a unified, universally applicable view of the morality of human reproductive cloning.     

Eve's sons

Abstract

The aim of this article is to use the episode of the baby allegedly cloned by the Raelians and born on the day after Christmas 2002 in order to analyse what is threatened by the prospect of cloning as a reproductive method, and why it is a matter of such importance as to provoke immediate and general condemnation. The announcement made by the Raelians provoked public debate in the media. Therefore, analysis of the articles published in the main Italian newspapers during that period allows exploration of the hypothesis that the Raelians' attempt of cloning was generally interpreted as a threat against the basis of our conception of human identity, not only at the individual level—which defines each of us as a balance between difference and continuity—but also at the social level, where human identity is the result of a classification system in which human beings are identified in contrast to other living beings. For these reasons, the case of the Raelians is of particular interest because it strains the reproduction/identity nexus in an extreme way which highlights what otherwise may lie buried beneath a thick layer of taken-for-granted beliefs.     

Ethical issues in animal cloning

The issue of human reproductive cloning has recently received a great deal attention in public discourse. Bioethicists, policy makers, and the media have been quick to identify the key ethical issues involved in human reproductive cloning and to argue, almost unanimously, for an international ban on such attempts. Meanwhile, scientists have proceeded with extensive research agendas in the cloning of animals. Despite this research, there has been little public discussion of the ethical issues raised by animal cloning projects. Polling data show that the public is decidedly against the cloning of animals. To understand the public's reaction and fill the void of reasoned debate about the issue, we need to review the possible objections to animal cloning and assess the merits of the anti-animal cloning stance. Some objections to animal cloning (e.g., the impact of cloning on the population of unwanted animals) can be easily addressed, while others (e.g., the health of cloned animals) require more serious attention by the public and policy makers.     

Knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel

The success of mammal cloning in 1997 has brought the issue of human cloning into public discussion. Human cloning has several aspects and potential applications for use in both reproductive and non-reproductive matters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel. Data from 120 respondents (68 health professionals and 52 non-health professionals), all Jewish, Hebrew speaking with at least 15 years of education each, were collected using two questionnaires that dealt with knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning. Results showed that although health professionals had significantly more knowledge that non-health professionals, all respondents had poor knowledge about cloning. No difference in attitudes was found between the groups. Most respondents opposed human cloning, but more positive attitudes toward non-reproductive cloning were found. The results are discussed in the context of the deficit model. The findings indicate a need to provide information about human cloning to allow people to form their attitudes based on factual knowledge.     

Stem cells and cell therapy. Contribution to the ethical debate

Divergent and sometimes conflicting positions with respect to human stem cells and cell therapy do not merely reflect disagreement among scientists and conflicts of interest. They attest the ethical tension resulting from recent progress in understanding the earliest stages of development of the human being that can be observed in vitro. Can the extremely potent notion of the human person starting with conception apply to the very first stage of artificial in vitro fertilisation and disregard the fact that to be a real substitute for natural conception, implantation in the uterus that enables the oocyte to nest and a new human being to develop must also be included? Several arguments are presented that plead in favour of making a clear distinction between the status of in vitro cells obtained by artificial fertilisation and that of the embryo, which becomes a developing human being from the moment it implants in the endometrium of the uterus. This subject could have remained in the sphere of the individual conscience, but it has now become a theme for social debate! The revision of the French 1994 so-called Bioethics Laws, which was recently approved on first reading on 22 January 2002, authorises research on spare embryos from in vitro fertilisation under certain conditions. However, for the sole reason that there is a risk of opening the door wide to reproductive cloning, which is unanimously rejected and condemned, all research on stem cells deriving from the nuclear transfer of a somatic cell is prohibited, irrespective of the distinction between cloning for therapeutic purposes and reproductive cloning. It is undeniable that if the efficacy of somatic stem cells could be demonstrated, they would offer a far more preferable solution, for several reasons, than those involving stem cells obtained from spare embryos from IVF or nuclear transfer. Nevertheless, how will a comparison of the two methods be possible if one of them is prohibited a priori? At present, many fear that French researchers will be prevented from doing essential research that, even if it has far to go, is indispensable if we wish to attempt to control the failures of natural procreation and open the way towards the new regenerative medicine that so many look forward to.     

In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: Can we allow one while banning the other?

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is believed to be the next big breakthrough in reproductive medicine. The prima facie acceptance of this possible future technology is notable when compared to the general prohibition on human reproductive cloning. After all, if safety is the main reason for not allowing reproductive cloning, one might expect a similar conclusion for the reproductive application of IVG, since both technologies hold considerable and comparable risks. However, safety concerns may be overcome, and are presumably not the sole reason why cloning is being condemned. We therefore assess the non‐safety arguments against reproductive cloning, yet most of these can also be held against IVG. The few arguments that cannot be used against IVG are defective. We conclude from this that it will be hard to defend a ban on reproductive cloning while accepting the reproductive use of IVG.     

A report from Australia: when a human life has not yet begun--according to the law

Victoria, Australia's Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, the first legislation to regulate reproductive technologies, permits research on surplus embryos fertilized in vitro but prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes. The failure to define when an embryo has come into existence or when fertilization has occurred has prevented the continuation of potentially valuable research directed at overcoming infertility. The Standing Review and Advisory Committee on Infertility must now consider the debate over when fertilization occurs, an event that is no longer regarded as a discrete or instantaneous act but as a process revealing no clear point at which a human individual begins to exist. Because the law requires a clear line of demarcation, any legislation in this area will face the problem of defining this point. Interpretation of a 1987 amendment to the 1984 Act may allow the fertilization of ova for purposes other than implantation.     

Rejecting the Rainbow Serpent: An Aboriginal Artist's Choice of the Christian God as Creator1

In this paper, I illustrate the way one Aboriginal artist challenged what he perceived as an essentialised concept of Aboriginality, by rejecting rainbow serpent iconography. The motivations for this rejection were the artist's strong belief in the Christian God as creator and his reaction against New Age representations of Aboriginality in which the rainbow serpent signifies Aboriginal spirituality and is posited as the single creator for all of Aboriginal Australia. A conflict arose at the artist's gallery when he refused to exhibit a rainbow serpent painting by another Aboriginal artist. Publicised in the local newspaper, the rejection of these artworks started a brief public debate about the role of Christianity in Aboriginal culture. The various positions adopted by the Aboriginal protagonists highlight the complex processes of negotiation, dialogue and debate surrounding diverse constructions of identity.     

Human infertility, reproductive cloning and nuclear transfer: a confusion of meanings

The Chief Medical Officer of Health of the United Kingdom has recommended that the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should be amended to allow cloning in humans for research purposes only. He also recommended that: "The transfer of an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement into the uterus of a woman (so called 'reproductive cloning') should remain a criminal offence" (recommendation 7, Ref. 1). This recommendation implies that nuclear replacement and cloning are the same. They are not. Nuclear transfer constitutes reproductive cloning only when the individual created is genetically identical to the nuclear donor. In this paper, we describe a possible future use of nuclear transfer for the treatment of infertile individuals. The treatment yields an individual that receives approximately equal genetic contributions from each parent. We use this example to illustrate how semantic confusion might lead to plausibly moral and justifiable treatments being legally banned. In doing so, we hope to encourage a more accurate and informed use of language in science, law and politics, so that legislation is properly informed by science and achieves what it intends. BioEssays 23:359-364, 2001.     

Human embryonic stem cell research: an Australian perspective

A conscience vote of individual parliamentarians in the Australian government last month regarding amendments to current legislation regulating human embryonic stem cell research yielded a surprising outcome. Despite opposition by the Australian Prime Minister, the Senate and House of Representatives voted to adopt the recommendations of the Lockhart Review and approve human somatic cell nuclear transfer, thus providing a consistent national policy for all researchers in Australia.     

Managing mosquitoes without destroying wetlands: an eastern Australian approach

Recognising both the importance of intertidal wetlands and their role in mosquito-borne disease we discuss wise management to conserve wetland values and to reduce vector borne disease health risks. First we summarise the mosquito-borne diseases associated with intertidal wetlands in sub-tropical and tropical Australia. We consider the Ramsar Strategic Plan, its reflection in some key Australian statutes and the relationship between environment-focussed legislation and health legislation. This is followed by a brief overview of mosquito control and its impact on human health. Using a salt marsh example of an integrated process, we describe the development of what was, in the 1980s in Australia, a novel method of habitat modification (runnelling) for mosquito control. Runnelling modifies the tidal water flow on salt marshes, reducing mosquito larval numbers and minimising environmental impacts. The approach is related to two of the Ramsar goals (wise use and institutional capacity and effectiveness). We then describe the extension of its rationale to a complex mangrove system. Finally, with a concept model, we consider the convergence between minimal habitat modification for wetland conservation and human health protection using an interdisicplinary approach involving multiple stakeholders.