- Email: [email protected]
Cooling down over cloning
EDITORIAL
THE LANCET Volume 351, Number 9097
Cooling down over cloning “One lamb, much fuss” was the theme of our editorial of March 8 last year, in which we commented on a report from the Roslin Institute in Scotland of the birth of a viable lamb created from an adult mammalian somatic cell. The title for our editorial this week might well have been “One man, much fuss”. Last week, the lay press worldwide reported the intention of Richard Seed, a physicist from Chicago, USA, to set up a clinic to clone human beings. It is reported that Seed intends to use the technique to produce “offspring” for infertile couples, and that he has four such couples willing to participate in his endeavour. Seed was quoted as saying: “I certainly regret I didn’t speak to Mother Teresa and get some of her blood before she died”. In response, President Clinton has called on the US Congress to outlaw human cloning experiments for at least 5 years. A Bill is being drafted for Congress to consider next month. In Europe, a ban is already underway. On Jan 12 in Paris, France, the Council of Europe’s Bioethics Convention Protocol banning the cloning of human beings was opened for signature. The problem that the authors face is that the original Bioethics Convention has so far managed to garner signatures from only 22 of the 40 eligible states. Thus, only these 22 nations are qualified to sign the Protocol pertaining to human cloning. Against this background, it has been refreshing to discover that the UK is to take a more considered and informed route towards decisions on human cloning. That country’s Human Genetics Advisory Commission is to issue a public consultation document by the end of this month. The aim of this publication is to explain the process by which a human clone could be made, and to list the possible benefits of such a technique together with the inevitable ethical pitfalls. Members of the public can then communicate their views to the Commission, which in turn will report to Government ministers later this year. This approach seems sensible and neatly cuts through knee-jerk reactions of blanket bans and illinformed hysteria. Within Robert Winston’s timely monograph (The Future of Genetic Manipulation, THE LANCET • Vol 351 • January 17, 1998
London: Phoenix, 1997), he sets out the case in favour of human cloning research. It is a case worth reviewing seriously. Winston—professor of fertility studies at the University of London and a leading researcher into in-vitro fertilisation—is an uncompromising enthusiast for the “exciting” work at the Roslin Institute. He believes that research into human-tissue cloning has possible advantages and that “it is not easy to see a clear ethical objection to cloning a single individual”. Why? First, because “there will be immense clinical value in being able to clone human tissues and organs, rather than whole people”. For example, US scientists are soon to report the first use of a cloned human vein in laboratory-animal experiments. Second, cloning would help with presently untreatable infertility. And, finally, cloning would enable the production of transgenic animals that may have medical benefits—eg, providing organs for transplantation. Winston argues strongly that “the benefits that could be derived from this research are really very significant”. Nevertheless, he described Richard Seed as “clearly unhinged”. The lessons learned from the past few years in which initially vilified artificial reproductive techniques have gained wide and welcome acceptance should be borne in mind by the UK Commission and President Clinton. There is no question that, despite assurances from Harrith Hasson, head of obstetrics and gynaecology at Chicago’s Weiss Memorial Hospital, that Seed “is a brilliant man”, his uncontrolled initiative deserves censure. But it would be an error to rule out human cloning as a direct result of his premature efforts. Donna Shalala, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, made this illogical link when she stated that “The President and this country [are] opposed to human cloning . . . Dr Seed will not do human cloning in this country.” Decisions about the rights and wrongs of cloning need to be made with the potential benefits clearly in mind, if only so that we understand what we might lose by imposing a hasty worldwide ban.
The Lancet 151
THE LANCET Volume 351, Number 9097
Cooling down over cloning “One lamb, much fuss” was the theme of our editorial of March 8 last year, in which we commented on a report from the Roslin Institute in Scotland of the birth of a viable lamb created from an adult mammalian somatic cell. The title for our editorial this week might well have been “One man, much fuss”. Last week, the lay press worldwide reported the intention of Richard Seed, a physicist from Chicago, USA, to set up a clinic to clone human beings. It is reported that Seed intends to use the technique to produce “offspring” for infertile couples, and that he has four such couples willing to participate in his endeavour. Seed was quoted as saying: “I certainly regret I didn’t speak to Mother Teresa and get some of her blood before she died”. In response, President Clinton has called on the US Congress to outlaw human cloning experiments for at least 5 years. A Bill is being drafted for Congress to consider next month. In Europe, a ban is already underway. On Jan 12 in Paris, France, the Council of Europe’s Bioethics Convention Protocol banning the cloning of human beings was opened for signature. The problem that the authors face is that the original Bioethics Convention has so far managed to garner signatures from only 22 of the 40 eligible states. Thus, only these 22 nations are qualified to sign the Protocol pertaining to human cloning. Against this background, it has been refreshing to discover that the UK is to take a more considered and informed route towards decisions on human cloning. That country’s Human Genetics Advisory Commission is to issue a public consultation document by the end of this month. The aim of this publication is to explain the process by which a human clone could be made, and to list the possible benefits of such a technique together with the inevitable ethical pitfalls. Members of the public can then communicate their views to the Commission, which in turn will report to Government ministers later this year. This approach seems sensible and neatly cuts through knee-jerk reactions of blanket bans and illinformed hysteria. Within Robert Winston’s timely monograph (The Future of Genetic Manipulation, THE LANCET • Vol 351 • January 17, 1998
London: Phoenix, 1997), he sets out the case in favour of human cloning research. It is a case worth reviewing seriously. Winston—professor of fertility studies at the University of London and a leading researcher into in-vitro fertilisation—is an uncompromising enthusiast for the “exciting” work at the Roslin Institute. He believes that research into human-tissue cloning has possible advantages and that “it is not easy to see a clear ethical objection to cloning a single individual”. Why? First, because “there will be immense clinical value in being able to clone human tissues and organs, rather than whole people”. For example, US scientists are soon to report the first use of a cloned human vein in laboratory-animal experiments. Second, cloning would help with presently untreatable infertility. And, finally, cloning would enable the production of transgenic animals that may have medical benefits—eg, providing organs for transplantation. Winston argues strongly that “the benefits that could be derived from this research are really very significant”. Nevertheless, he described Richard Seed as “clearly unhinged”. The lessons learned from the past few years in which initially vilified artificial reproductive techniques have gained wide and welcome acceptance should be borne in mind by the UK Commission and President Clinton. There is no question that, despite assurances from Harrith Hasson, head of obstetrics and gynaecology at Chicago’s Weiss Memorial Hospital, that Seed “is a brilliant man”, his uncontrolled initiative deserves censure. But it would be an error to rule out human cloning as a direct result of his premature efforts. Donna Shalala, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, made this illogical link when she stated that “The President and this country [are] opposed to human cloning . . . Dr Seed will not do human cloning in this country.” Decisions about the rights and wrongs of cloning need to be made with the potential benefits clearly in mind, if only so that we understand what we might lose by imposing a hasty worldwide ban.
The Lancet 151