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:
- Further debate is needed on the implications of new technologies ( why am I surprised, the debate has been going on for almost 15 years)
- Terminology- refer to cloning only when it is used for reproduction, not for research or therapies.
- Governance- there should be a convention or moratorium on reproductive cloning.
- 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?
No comments:
Post a Comment