UN has no place in cloning debate

Last Friday, a small working panel at the United Nations backed a statement urging member states to prohibit all forms of human cloning, including scientific research dedicated to the development of human embryonic stem cell lines or so-called "therapeutic cloning."

The declaration now goes to the full General Assembly for consideration, ending four years of laborious international debate over whether a comprehensive human cloning ban (outlawing reproductive and therapeutic cloning) or simply a partial ban (outlawing reproductive cloning only) was in order. Lacking any legal status or force, however, the likely passage of the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning will have little impact on the future course of this controversial research.

And rightly so.

Excessive UN involvement at this stage of the human cloning debate -- presently characterized by a profound lack of scientific knowledge substantiating the technology's purported promises and pitfalls -- is neither needed or nor desirable. Unlike most of the UN's benign posturing on matters of health and science (e.g., "women deserve medical treatment, too," "clean drinking water is a good thing" or "governments should not intimidate doctors"), attitudes toward human cloning are far from cohesive and are instead opposed along numerous religious, scientific, professional and philosophical dimensions in nearly every country.

For example, the Catholic Church favors an all-out ban for reasons of human dignity, while the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America supports therapeutic cloning. Some scientists believe that cloned human embryos are absolutely necessary for tomorrow's medical miracles, while others insist that adult stem cells would work just as well. Egalitarians claim that reproductive cloning would serve only the interests of the rich, while many supporters of in vitro fertilization see it as another helpful tool for childless couples.

Recognizing the diversity -- and divisiveness -- of these select positions (there are many others), it should be clear that any attempt to forge a global regulatory framework from this sea of contrarieties is foolhardy. Besides the apparent infea-sibility of achieving political consensus (just arriving at the watered-down UN declaration was hard enough), premature UN involvement might also dampen public discourse and research on human cloning that could better inform our moral reasoning.

Despite claims of rogue scientists (like Italy's Dr. Severino Antinori), marginalized religious groups (like the alien-obsessed Raelian Movement) or ludicrous corporations (like Clonaid, the self-described "human cloning company"), secret human cloning labs run by rich industrialists and sinister henchmen do not exist. Hence, reproductive cloning in particular does not pose an immediate, forget-everything-else threat deserving of hasty a priori condemnation.

But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the UN did achieve a bureaucratic wonderwork and managed to at least criminalize reproductive cloning. Would ensuring compliance with this ban be practically feasible, in the same way that, say, the UN monitors nuclear weapons development? In his newly released book Cloning After Dolly: Who's Still Afraid?, Dr. Gregory Pence, an early supporter of human cloning and bioethicist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is doubtful. He asks:

"Who would monitor cloning? How? Who would verify that a child had been cloned? How? Who would have the genotype of the ancestor for comparison? Could you compel her to donate blood or a skin test for match? ... What would be the penalties for cloning? Who would be punished? The child? The ancestor? The parents? The family? The physician-scientists?"

These important questions have yet to be adequately addressed by the UN (or any other governmental entity fearing a slide down the ethical slippery slope). Worse, as the number of potential stakeholders increases -- from infertile couples to the chronically/terminally ill -- the practical problems of regulation grow more difficult. Eyeing such obstacles ahead, perhaps we should reexamine the initial motivations for a worldwide human cloning ban, to see whether the benefits truly outweigh the costs (as well as the missed opportunities).

In the end, the failure of the UN to erect a ban is a victory for everyone who feels that a bit more time, thought and information -- as well as a bit less haste -- are required to make the wisest choices about human cloning.

Jason Lott is a first-year student in the School of Medicine from Anniston, Ala. Whole Lotta Love appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.