Thank you and goodbye

Can I just say firstly that I haven't been accused of phone hacking as the title suggests....this is my final blog on the issue of human cloning.

My journey of discovery of the ethics of human cloning has been a fascinating one. I have explored the many issues around human cloning ethics, looked at the weird and the wonderful parts of the debate, I've travelled the world and seen the ewe that sparked the debate and I have also looked at the laws and what is required.

What I have discovered myself is that yes, we do need an international law on reproductive cloning, but we should allow stem cell research to progress, because it promises so much for our future health and wellbeing.  Stem cell research is poorly understood by our community. I have met many people with incurable disease who feel that stem cell research is a beacon of hope for them. At the same time, I realise that whilst there have been significant developments in stem cell therapies, (one of which I showed in my second blog "Amazing footage look at what stem cells can do"), I also realise that some cures may be a long way off.

Today, is Stem Cell Awareness Day, and if you are in Melbourne, there is a host of activities taking place in Federation Square. The event is being organised by the Australian Stem Cell Centre and information is available on their Facebook page. Unfortunately this is the only event taking place in Australia today. It could not be timed better, just yesterday, scientists in New York have discovered that they have been able to program somatic cells to a pluripotent state to read it, see my link to Nature. Or if you have trouble with all the techniterms, try this article from the BBC which was kindly donated to me ;). This expands on the work of Woo Suk Hwang which was discussed in my blog on 17 September.

Now in terms of reproductive cloning, I don't think that governance will be in effect before the development of the first ever human clone. The fact that this issue has been widely debated for a number of years is evidence that there is great concern about its implications. And, although the law making process seems to me to be lengthy and frustrating, there is at least action being taken. 

As the old adage says:


"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"


I hope that in the future that the laws and systems do reflect the intent and action on this issue or else I might need to keep blogging on the life of the first human clone!

So, thank you and goodbye.

Revisiting international law- are there any options?

I've just created this link to the UNESCO Final Draft on Human Cloning and International Governance so that you can read the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee on human cloning. It's an interesting read. There are four main recommendations:

1. Further debate is needed on the implications of new technologies ( why am I surprised, the debate has   been going on for almost 15 years)
2. Terminology- refer to cloning only when it is used for reproduction, not for research or therapies.
3. Governance- there should be a convention or moratorium on reproductive cloning.
4. Control of dissemination of information.

When I first looked at the law (back in August), there was still some debate about a total ban on all forms of cloning and the scientific community did not want this, because it limited research opportunities. That scientists were involved in the conflict demonstrates the power that the scientific community has in relation to laws on these issues. It's interesting (and slightly unrelated), this morning I saw an interview with Australia's Nobel Prize winning scientist Brian Schmidt and have linked the article in his name, where he says he thinks that "science should inform public policy" (he was talking about climate change, but I think it is relevant here).  He also said that [science] "is not the only input". So in the human cloning debate, whilst there has been time to analyse the science and distinguish reproductive cloning from other forms, perhaps it is time now for scientists to step back from the argument??? However, now it has been recognised that an international convention is needed, how long will it be before this comes into effect?

Do we believe it can be done? Should it be done?

According to UNESCO, who have been meeting every year on the issue of cloning scientists now have a number of cloning techniques at their disposal. Since 1997, techniques have improved for the cloning of larger mammals. Over the course of the last few months, I have been exploring the ethics of human cloning, the scientists who are involved . The evidence I have found makes me believe that it is possible, albeit harmful to individuals (mothers in particular) to clone humans for reproductive purposes. 

So now the question is, should it be done?

I found the following article about researchers in Japan, being able to grow viable sperm in a test tube dish.  I had heard that there was some significant finding about when I was oversease, but hadn't explored it thoroughly (I was too busy visiting Dolly the sheep! So to find the information I had to type JAPAN, MICE, SPERM into my favourite search engine and hold my breath for what was to come.  Then up popped the result from the Daily Mail. Phew!

Source: Getty Images

Whilst some scientists are attempting to clone for by implantation of embryos for reproductive purposes, the use of induced pluripotent cells (those obtained without the creation of an embryo) to produce gametes negates any reasonable argument to clone an embryo and implant it. On these grounds, because of risks to the parent, there is no real reason to clone a human being. Why not clone the gametes and use them to produce a genetically unique embryo to then use in an IVF process?

Of course these techniques are at this stage, only successful in mice. So it could be argued that for those who cannot wait, then the trial of implantation of cloned embryos may be the only option. But in time, I think that the idea that reproductive cloning will be a cure for infertility will be an outdated one. As we have seen over the course of my blogs though is that all we need is one mad scientist, with skill to take things to the next level, and at this stage, as I have said many times before, international law is not robust enough to deal the scientist who wants to create the first human clone, and that may not be too far away. So next up I will review the latest UNESCO proceedings and provide a few suggestions of my own for how to address the issue.

Glowing dogs- why aren't we scared?

In 2009 the cute little beagles in the video above were cloned in an attempt to cure a number of diseases. Scientists are becoming better at cloning targeting specific genes in animals. To me, cloning animals for the purposes is undisputably beneficial. It is ground breaking research which promises to change the course of our lives in the future. To eliminate diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's disease would not only reduce the burden on healthcare systems across the world, but would also free many people from pain and disability. The possibilities that this technology brings is what brought my attention to the cloning controversy.

Yet there is still a long way to go, not only in the treatment of disease, but also in the ethics around reproductive cloning. Scientists are now more rapidly gaining and refining the skills required  to clone humans. So this sort of technology, while promising, also should be cause for alarm, because the governance of reproductive cloning across the world is not consistent.

So the future may hold flying pigs in terms of the cloning of animals, but glowing humans would be a different kettle of fish altogether......

Case of the hero pig

I found this article, from the Telegraph UK, on a pig that has been cloned in china, because it survived the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province China. Click on the link to see the story Hero Pig Cloned.

But this is no ordinary pig. He survived for over a month, buried under rubble, eating charcoal and drinking rainwater. He now has six clones of himself, and interestingly, the report says they all "bear a striking resemblance" to him. That makes sense to me! If they are clones, they are the exact genetic copy of him, so uh would look exactly the same! 

We've come a long way in the cloning debate in the last 15 years haven't we? When Dolly the sheep was cloned,  controversy abounded. It seemed that it was only a matter of time before human clones were born.Now we seem to be cloning animals quite frequently and the reaction is very different. People can clone their pets, their pig. Mice, Bantengs and monkeys have been cloned in the name of science. The public (or media) at least seems to have created a link between the cloning of animals and therapeutic cloning, rather than here comes the human clones. I think this is because scientists have become better at communicating the reasons why they are cloning animals. Scientists such as Ian Wilmut (who cloned Dolly) and Robert Lanza (yesterday's blog), have seemed to perfect a balance between animal cloning technology and therapeutic cloning (regardless of what their intentions may be). 

So I'm not sure where the cloners of the Hero Pig should stand? Actually I'm not even sure that the report is true, but the story itself shows us how far we have come.

Next time I am going to show another example of the parallels between animal and human reproductive cloning.

Robert Lanza- its all in the eyes

I found this picture of Robert Lanza, featured in People Magazine in 2003. The picture paints a thousand words.Would any credible scientist appear in such a sculptured way for the purposes of their science? Robert Lanza is a publicity pup. You need only look at his website to see that. 

Here's the link so you can see yourself: Robert Lanza

So who is Robert Lanza? If you just looked at his website, you will know he is the chief medical officer of Advanced Cell Technologies and an adjunct professor at Wakefield University. He was one of the team who created the first cloned human embryo for therapeutic research in 2001. His team also discovered induced pluripotent stem cells, which could be used without having to develop an embryo (ground breaking!). In 2003 he was successful in cloning a Bantang, an endangered species. In 2011, Lanza is conducting stem cell research into therapies for blindness, a worthy cause.

I have to say that although Lanza is quite an extraordinary man, I don't quite know what to make of him. On the one hand, he has been a vocal advocate for stem cell research for many years, has fought criticism from pro life supporters in terms of his cloning, and is now trying to cure blindness.

On the other hand, if you look at his blogs on the Huffington Post he has really indulged in fringe science. He's written articles like "Does Death Exist? Theory Says 'No'" "Why does life exist?" which make me think he's got some sort of Messiah Complex. Then there's the cloning of endangered animals. 

What should we make of it? What is the plan here? Lanza has publicly condemned the production of human clones. Yet I wonder whether or not the scientific community may be using animal models in preparation for the inevitability of the future use of reproductive cloning in humans? I'm not sure. One thing is for sure though, cloning is still a hot topic and has come along way since Dolly was a lamb. Its also extremely lucrative with Advance Cell Technologies being one of the hottest shares to by on the stock market.

The field of technology in animal cloning is advancing rapidly. Next time I'm going to look at an example, and how the reactions differ from when Dolly the sheep was first cloned.

Advanced Cell technologies- first to clone human embryo

Today is the only day of the year that I watch an AFL game. I'm sitting in front of the TV whilst blogging, as I am not keen enough to admit I enjoy watching football!!!! 

Over the last couple of weeks I have been looking at the scientists who have made human cloning claims. The delineation between reproductive cloning and  therapeutic cloning s a very weak one. For those who believe in pro life argument, therapeutic cloning is just as unacceptable as reproductive cloning. In fact the Raelians actually saw no distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. For me the real distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning is whether that embryo is implanted into a womb. Its this distinction that the scientific community will accept in the debate on cloning. Those scientists who are pursuing the end of implantation and establishment of a pregnancy have been shunned by the scientific community (and the public).

Source: xconomy

Advanced Cell Technologies is one company who has walked the line in terms of the cloning of embryos. In 2001, the company were the first to clone embryos to be used for therapeutic purposes. Like Woo Suk Hwang, Advanced Cell Technologies never planned to implant an human embryo, and maintained credibility in the scientific community by providing robust evidence and being open about their intentions.

After the company managed to clone human embryos for therapeutic purposes they expanded their business to another field. They started to clone animals. Of particular interest was the cloning of extinct and endangered animals to make a real life "Jurassic Park". For me this is a fascinating part of the human cloning controversy. They directly avoulded the human cloning issue, similar to what Ian Wilmut had done with Dolly, by cloning animals. I'm not sure where their intentions lie..... But the poster boy for this company was a man called Robert Lanza, who took science publicity to a new level, and since 2001 has been lobbying for stem cell research. I'm going to talk about him next time.

Another clone claimer

I've been looking in to other scientists who have been involved in making cloning claims, and yes I have found one more, but we need to go back to 2002. This man fits the profile of other scientists who have revealed their intention to clone humans. The checklist is as follows:

Souce: Guardian UK

Reproductive specialist- check.
Wants to cure infertility, by cloning-check.
Working from an undisclosed location (middle east)- check.
Won't publish his research on cloning- check.
Linked to the Raelian Sect and Clonaid- check.
The only he's missing is a cloned dog named Snuppy.

The gentleman in question is Professor Severino Antinori, an italian reproductive specialist, who has a history of working on the fringes of ethical science. Antinori's specialty was reproductive technology for older women. In 1994, Antinori caught the attention of the media for providing IVF treatment to a 59 year old woman, resulting in a pregnancy (Source BMJ News 15 January 1994). In 2002, Antinori claimed that a cloned child was expected from one of his patients within months (Source: CBS News). Obviously, neither scientific results or the cloned babies were ever produced. This is a familiar story in the cloning controversy. There are a number of "maverick" "mad" or just plain ridiculous scientists who make dramatic claims and produce no evidence. Whilst they retreat underground, I think that their function has been to desensitise the public to the notions of a much morally less confronting issue of therapeutic cloning.

Next time I will be looking at the cloning claims of a company that on the face of it seems to be honest and produce evidence at the very least....

South Korean scientist and claims of cloning embryos

Last time I mentioned that I was going to talk about more credible claims of reproductive cloning. And I really thought I was on to something. I had read an initial report from the BBC back in 2004, about the claims of a South Korean Scientist, Dr Hwang Woo-Suk, who had published work in the well respected journal, Science, reporting to have cloned 30 embryos (Source: BBC News). He had also published another work, also in Science, a year later, and at the time these results were respected by the scientific community. The results released were all peer reviewed by Science.  Hwang had also gained credibility by cloning his dog, "Snuppy". Hwang was celebrated as a hero in Korea, and was given millions of dollars by the Korean government in reward and for further research (Source: Asian Scientist).

Source: Asian Scientist

Sounds interesting, but it was all too good to be true. Soon after, it was found that Hwang's research was fabricated. Egg donors for the research were women who worked in the laboratory, and there was many more eggs used in the process than first indicated (Source: BBC News) Hwang was accused of fraud, embezzlement and ethics violation and was convicted of embezzlement in 2009 (Source: Nature Volume 461, 2009)

But the story gets better.  In 2011, Hwang was rescued from Lybia in the wake of the civil war there and was linked to exiled Lybian leader Muammar Gaddafi. It is thought that Hwang was being funded to set up a stem cell clinic in Lybia (Source: Asian Scientist)

The story has similar elements to other cloning claims I have explored. The only exceptions are:

• Hwang's work was published by a leading, peer reviewed journal. Twice.
• Hwang wasn't lying about the cloning of his dog, Snuppy. It was confirmed that Snuppy was a clone.

From my perspective, the motivation for Hwang to do what he did is obvious. He gained recognition and large amounts of money for his works. There are high stakes involved in producing results proving reproductive cloning at the early embryo stage. Maybe this is why the weird, wonderful and strange have been attracted to claiming they can clone a human.

The Raelians and their cloning claims

I'm at home sitting on the couch with my cat Jewels, and I just stumbled on this video. It's quite long, so if you don't have much time, just watch the first 3 minutes.

After watching it, even the cat seems sceptical about the claims of Rael and Dr Brigitte Bosselier. Since the end of 2002, Dr Bosselier has claimed to have cloned at least 5 people. To date there has not been any scientific evidence to support her claims, and when you throw aliens into the mix, it's even less likely. 

Next time I'm going to look at a credible claim to have produced a human clone, but even credible science is in this area is still taboo, and attracts a label of "science gone wrong".

Reactions to Dr Seed's plan to clone a human

It's not difficult to find the reactions of leading scientists and politicians to Dr Seed's plan to clone a human in 1998. Here are some important ones:

“He’s just a silly old man"                                                                                   Professor Ian Wilmut, Scientist who created Dolly the Sheep, 1998  

“This week, like many Americans, I learned the profoundly troubling news that a member of the scientific community is actually laying plans to clone a human being. Personally, I believe that human cloning raises deep concerns. We know it's possible for some to ignore the consensus of their colleagues and proceed without regard for our common values.”                                                                                
 Bill Clinton 10 January, 1998. 

“My first reaction here is somebody who is trying to make a quick buck off of self-advertising”  
Lord Winston, ‘Father’ of IVF technology, 1998.                                                                                                                  

“I think his science is no better than his theology”                                             Thomas Murray, a member of the National Bioethics Committee, 1998.

Although Dr Seed was very easy to discredit, he was extremely effective in harnessing the attention of the scientific community and the public world wide. Having been widely condemned for his claims, he quickly faded from the limelight. But I think he fuelled the controversy of producing the first human clone. He paved the way for the weird and the wonderful out there to quietly go about their attempts to produce, or at least talk about their attempts in reproductive cloning. I'm going to be exploring who else is out there in the field of reproductive cloning, who's doing it, where are they, and are they pursuing a moral and ethical approach to it. Stay tuned.....

The Seed sprouts in the human cloning debate.

Photo courtesy of: MSN

On 8 January 1998, Dr Richard Seed, a physicist, announced plans that he wanted to create  the first human clone, before any laws could be passed restricting it, using the same techniques to clone Dolly the sheep. He was seeking $2M in funding from private investors and advised that he planned to clone 500 babies per year. But his claims shifted, when he was condemned for taking advantage of vulnerable couples, he said that he would clone himself. But when he was again condemned for being a megalomaniac, he then changed his plans again to clone his wife Gloria.

Seed was a Harvard graduate, had no lab backing, had connections with Clonaid run by The Raelian Sect and had no evidence to back up his claims that he could clone a human. In terms of a controversy, Seed was the perfect “mad scientist”. He was so easy to discredit but he fuelled fears about human cloning already present since the birth Dolly the sheep. I believe he paved the way for other scientists to come forward and stake their claims on the “race” to be the first to clone a human. To demonstrate his extreme views, here is one of his quotes:

"God made man in his own image. God intended for man to become one with God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.” 
Richard Seed

Next time I will be looking at what others said in response to Seeds outrageous claims.

Dr Zavos largely unscathed for his cloning work

Source:  Fertility Zone

Dr Zavos, a physicist and fertility expert is portrayed in the clip from my last post as an eerie scientist in an underground clinic. To an extent he is, but he isn’t doing anything illegal in the countries he works in and his goal is to assist couples to have their own children.

The ethical issue comes from the safety of procedures and the techniques used. (For example, blending human DNA with  bovine eggs is grotesque!).  Although he has been exploring his treatments for some years now, he is not widely spoken about. 

There are only a few media reports about Dr Zavos, and whilst the scientific community seem to scorn him, this is one of the few comments I have found about him. 


"I do not know of any credible evidence that suggests Dr Zavos can clone a human being"
Lord Winston-Father of IVF Technology


Whilst Dr Zavos's procedures are potentially unsafe and unethical, from my research it seems that he has largely avoided scrutiny from the public for his attempts to clone a human. He is framed as a "mad scientist" and someone who doesn't have evidence to support his claims, yet he is able to continue his work in undisclosed locations. How has Dr Zavos managed to evade the law and continue his work? Or more importantly, have there been others who blazed a trail for him to more quietly produce the first human clone?

Reproductive cloning: A step closer

The debate about reproductive cloning is far from resolved. The clip below details some of the ethical issues with the concept of reproductive cloning and features the work of Dr Panyotis Zavos, who in 2009 claimed he had cloned human embryos for implantation. His work in the area of reproductive cloning, is bizarre, but has continued the debate about reproductive cloning. The views of scientists and their work for and against human cloning will be a focus for me in upcoming blogs. Take a look at the video and see what you think!

Having done a bit of research about Dr Zavos, I've found that he isn't even a medical doctor, but a reproductive physicist. He is legally permitted to practice IVF technologies in the US with this qualification. His argument for reproductive cloning is a compelling one, until we find out he has combined human and animal cells to make a hybrid embryo. Doctor he may not be....mad scientist???? I'll let you decide that one for yourself!!!!

"Cloned" woman could dispel cloning fears

Check out this video I found of Kim Taylor of Hackney in London, who claims she is a human clone.

The thing that strikes me about Kim is that whilst claiming she is the same genotype as someone else, she talks about developing her own identity. Academics call this the concept of Genetic Determinism, the idea that someone with the same genotype as another develops a different personality and identity. To me, she also presents a more human side of the reproductive cloning debate, and it is this which could dispel some of the fears about cloning for reproductive purposes.

Now although Kim makes a good point, I am unable to verify if she is a real person/ clone as my searches of facebook, linkedin, google and scholarly articles have not brought up anything. But whether this is a true account or not, Kim raises some relevant issues in the debate. And while we don't need to believe Kim in her account, scientists believe that we are getting closer to producing the first human clone.

The concept of reproductive cloning is one that I will be exploring further in this blog. I will be leaving the issues of therapeutic cloning aside to focus on the debate about human reproductive cloning.

Human cloning and child welfare

I'm sitting in the media centre here at UQ and there's a bubble of activity around me. Its nice to be back home.

So, on to human cloning and child welfare. This is one of the most contentious arguments against reproductive cloning. Those against human cloning propose that there will be a psychological impact on the child who has been cloned. There may also be dysfunctional aspects to the parent child relationship because the parent may project their personality on to the child. A child who has been cloned may be subject to ridicule and stigma because they are a clone.

If we broke down this argument, let's have a think about this....

Dysfunctional families, psychological impacts, teasing, ridicule, stigma.

Are these things that some children would experience anyway, regardless of whether they are a clone or not???

Certainly those who are born out of a natural process of reproduction or even IVF could be subject to any of these in the course of their lifetime. But where do we draw the line under who has a right to be a parent, and how that occurs? Particularly if the "owner" of the genentic material decides to reproduce it. However when there is any possibility of producing a human clone, there is an outcry from the media and organisations, and people, including myself sqirm a little bit in our seats. Why is that?

Next time I want to look a little more into why the concept of reproductive cloning makes us feel uncomfortable, and the ethics of some examples of human cloning.

Human dignity and the value of a human life

I am now home in Australia, after so many fantastic experiences and one hell of a dose of jet lag!!!! I have the song "It had to be you" (instrumental version) ringing in my ears after it was played during every take off and landing from London to Brisbane (6 times in total). I couldn't help thinking that if the plane did crash, with that song playing mockingly, I'd be thinking "Why did it have to be me"!!!!!!!!!

Flying on a plane reminds me of how we value life. This is a central argument against cloning of any form, especially of Embryonic Stem Cell production for therapeutic purposes. It is argued that each "life" is intrinsically valuable and should be respected. Therefore to create a life in order to then destroy it would be unethical and inappropriate. The laws in Australia reflect these principles. Any embryonic stem cells for research purposes must be obtained from unused embryos created by the process of IVF and with consent from the donors. 

For me, the argument again stems (no pun intended) from a value base where a "life" is defined as the cells that could potentially develop in to life, a "pro life" argument.  However, I don't feel as ethically challenged by this argument, because even at the blastocyst stage, where cells are harvested to create further stem cells, there is still only a chance of life, not a life itself. 

In my initial readings for this blog, I heard stories about organ factories (see the film Autopsy for a visual, however possibly the worst film I've ever seen) and the abuse of life for the purposes of medical research. But the reality of the science of how the organs and cells for research is very far removed from the images that an organ factory conjures up. I think its the fear of what these images entail and therefore the way that the science has been communicated and understood has fuelled this argument.

Next time, in the last on the series of arguments against cloning, I'll be looking at the argument of the welfare of the child that has been cloned. I'm now off to bed, hoping to sleep off the travel fatigue!!!!!

Is cloning a human or human tissues “playing God”?

My trip is drawing to a close. I am in Paris and in two days, I’m flying back to Australia. But this is a concept I’ve been considering since we were in Bournemouth. 

For my sins (haha) I’ve been searching the internet for the religious viewpoint on human cloning. Without delving too far into the theological argument, here are two of the most poignant quotes from my search:

 “Only God has the right to create a new human soul, and only God has the power to grant eternal life” (interpretation of Genesis 1:27 King James Bible). Source Activated Ministries

Pope John Paul was quoted in August 2000 as condemning human reproductive and therapeutic cloning is “not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself”. Source Religious Tolerance

The argument that scientists should not be “playing God” by cloning a human is based on the principle that cloning of any form is “wrong” and “not morally acceptable”. My view is that the argument is value based rather than having a logical reason as to why it is wrong to play God. It could be argued that there many socially acceptable forms of “playing God” in medical science for example a life support machine or drugs to cure fatal disease. I am starting to wonder if the messages about what cloning is and what it can do are not communicated well enough. I hope to come back to that idea in the next week or so, but next time I will be looking at the intrinsic value of life, human dignity and cloning.

Hello Dolly- Part Two

After watching too many street performers at the Edinburgh Festival, I finally got to see Dolly! Here I am with Dolly, at the Edinburgh Museum.

Visiting Dolly made me think of the controversy that surrounded her.

Within the scientific community, there was a concern about the viability of cloning both in sheep and humans due to the following:

·         The scientists who created Dolly admitted that there were numerous failed attempts to produce viable offspring using the technique. There were reports that cloned lambs produced were abnormally large and died shortly after birth.

·         Dolly died prematurely at the age of six after suffering from arthritis and progressive lung disease.

·         Dolly’s DNA was found to have shortened telomeres indicating premature ageing.  Doubts about the viability of clones beyond the age of their donor were raised because the donor cells came from a six year old sheep.

But it was Dolly’s very creation and existence that sparked controversy both internally and externally to the scientific community. Some of the arguments against cloning were:

·         The cloning of humans was unacceptable as it was in effect “playing god” with human life.

·         Life is intrinsically valuable. To clone a human would not preserve human dignity and respect the creation of life the way “nature” intended.

·         Concern for the welfare of the child who has been cloned.

I’m going to explore the arguments against cloning more fully in the next few blogs. I want to know whether  these arguments  are legitimate or not? So it’s goodbye to Dolly for now, but I have to say, it’s been fun!

Sources

Harris, J. “Goodbye Dolly?” The ethics of human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics 1997; 23 353-360.

Petersen, A. Replicating our bodies, losing ourselves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of Dolly. Body and Society, 2002; 8(4), 71-90.

Burley, J & Harris. J Human cloning and child welfare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999 25(2), 108-113.

Burley, J. The ethics of therapeutic and reproductive human cloning. Cell and Developmental Biology, 1999, 10, 287-294.

Hello Dolly- Part One

Its festival time in Edinburgh, which means the city is teeming with Australians, and every restaurant, café and theatre space in the city is packed out! 

Edinburgh not only plays host to one of the most popular arts festivals in the world, but, in 1997 was the city where one of the most controversial scientific events of recent times occurred- the birth of the cloned mammal, Dolly the Sheep.

Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh UK. Her birth was announced to the media 7 months later in February 1997. She was the first mammal to be cloned using somatic cell nuclear transfer using mammary glands from a six year old sheep donor. Dolly in actual fact had three mothers, one who provided the fertilized egg, one who provided the mammary cell and lastly the surrogate who carried her to term.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Dolly gave birth to two litters of lambs (five lambs in total across two years) in her lifetime. At the age of five she developed arthritis in her legs. In 2003 at the age of six, Dolly was euthanased due to developing lung disease and severe arthritis. Dolly had lived most of her life indoors, due to security reasons.(Source: Wikipedia)

What made Dolly’s birth so controversial was that, for the first time, scientists understood that it could be possible to clone other mammals, including humans, using the same technique. A number of scientists, religious organisations and politicians made statements about human cloning. The world was becoming conscious of the ethics of human cloning. Take a look at this video, for a bit more information.

 In Hello Dolly Part Two, I’ll be exploring the controversies internal and external to the scientific community in relation to Dolly the Sheep.

What does the UN say about Human Cloning?

In March 2005, the UN adopted a Declaration on Human Cloning. Attempts had been made since 2001 to explore a UN Convention on Human Cloning; however, agreement could not be reached, so a non binding Declaration was adopted.

This in itself is an example of how opinion on human cloning has been divided. When the declaration was adopted, the vote count was: 84 nations in favour, 34 nations against and 37 absentions. (Source: United Nations Website).

The UN declaration on human cloning called governments across the world to:

Prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life, prohibit any genetic engineering techniques "that may be contrary to human dignity"; and to take the measures (including legislative measures) necessary to implement those prohibitions.                                                                                   (Source: Genomics Gateway) 

                                                                                                               

Whilst the Declaration appears to take a fairly hard line stance on the issue, I think it remains open to interpretation. To preserve human dignity may mean to use embryos in order to cure life threatening diseases, or, to not undertake research where there is a risk of embryos being destroyed.

As the Declaration on human cloning is not legally binding, in certain countries, it may be legal to clone humans to treat infertility and for other purposes (Michael Jackson2 here we come!). Although this has not been evidenced, if it is legal to do in other countries how can the law in any one country be enforced? If parents used a treatment facility in another country to have cloned embryos implanted, what would stop a clone being born in Australia? Maybe firstly, we should be asking, really, can a human be cloned successfully?? And the only way we can really explore this is if we find out more about our favourite Scottish Sheep, Dolly. It’ll tie in nicely with my trip to Edinburgh!!!