United Nations and human cloning: a slender and fortunate defence for biomedical research

Abstract

Numerous biomedical scientists have contributed to the wide knowledge on the growth of preimplantation human embryos in vitro, now improving every aspect of the form of clinical care. These data were gained ethically in many countries, to open new vistas including the alleviation of infertility, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and stem cells, combined with some recent reports on human reproductive cloning. After detailed consultations with scientists, clinicians, ethicists and lawyers, many governments passed legislation permitting research under their own particular socially-defined conditions. Virtually all of them rejected reproductive cloning; a few have accepted therapeutic cloning. These legislatures saluted the many biomedical scientists striving to improve IVF and its derivatives, recognizing their immense medical potential. A motion recently placed before the United Nations then recommended a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning. Proponents included the Vatican and many Roman Catholic countries, the USA and others. Opponents included Belgium, China, Japan, Brazil, UK, Germany and France. Mediation was achieved by Iran and other Muslim nations, and led to a motion passed by single vote for a two-year delay. This may be the first-ever proposal to ban worldwide a particular form of research. It sounds the alarm bells for further research. It raises questions about the UN being an appropriate forum for ethical decisions affecting the entire world and its future medicine. Large blocs of nations committed to particular religions and outlooks confronted each other, a situation in total contrast to the detailed and widespread consultations made by individual governments when deciding their own individual ethics. This event was clearly a narrow escape for free research as defined by each country's own jurisprudence. It also places research on human embryology and reproductive biomedicine into a more critical situation than before. Current liberalism in studies on assisted conception, clearly threatened by powerful adversaries, will have to be fortified to maintain the current impetus into newer forms of clinical care.