- Email: [email protected]
Call to strengthen UK ban on human clones
POLICY AND PEOPLE
Call to strengthen UK ban on human clones
A
ban on human reproductive cloning should be enshrined in statute, but there should be reasonable freedom to explore the potential benefits of nuclearreplacement techniques. These are the main messages from a formal consultation of the UK public on human cloning, published on Dec 8. The consultation process was prompted by the creation of Dolly the sheep, the first adult vertebrate cloned from an adult. The consultation document’s launch earlier this year (see Lancet 1998; 351: 427) came shortly after the eccentric US physicist, Richard Seed, first made public his intention to pursue the cloning of human beings. The process consisted of a document created by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, an independent body that advises government ministers on genetic issues, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates artificial reproductive technologies and research. In light of the wide media coverage of developments in cloning in the UK and abroad, the response to this national consultation exercise seems—at 191 submissions—a little modest. About 40% were from individuals, the remainder being from a range of interested groups. The result has been a resounding “no” to human reproductive cloning, irrespective of the technique used. Although current legislation is “wholly adequate” to forbid human cloning, the report nevertheless recommends that government should consider introducing explicit legislation, presumably for future cases in which current legislation might not be adequate. By contrast, the report recommends “keeping the door open” to the potential benefits of nuclear transfer. Since these advances had not been envisaged when the HFEA’s remit and responibilities were spelled out in law in 1990, the report recommends an amendment to the law. Thus the report suggests that the HFEA should be allowed to authorise research for “developing methods of therapy for mitochondrial diseases” and for “developing methods of therapy for diseased or damaged tissues or organs”. Sarah Ramsay
THE LANCET • Vol 352 • December 12, 1998
Japan dashes Seed’s plans for clone clinic apanese government officials have thrown cold water on plans by the American scientist Richard Seed to set up a cloning research centre in Japan. Seed, who announced plans to clone human beings earlier this year, said on Nov 30 that he has acquired sites and partial funding for a fertility clinic and an animal cloning centre. Initially, the facilities will be used to help childless couples and to clone pets and rare animals. Seed plans to clone people in the future. “There are no laws against human cloning in Japan, but I think it will be difficult”, said Motohito Nishizawa of the Health and Welfare Ministry. “He will need a licence to operate in Japan and there are strict guidelines on genetic research.” A Council for Science and Technology subcommittee has rec-
J
ommended a ban on human cloning, which it described as “socially impermissible”. In August, the Education Ministry also prohibited university research in the field. And the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology prohibits in-vitro fertilisation using sperm and eggs of unmarried couples. But, there are no penalties for violations. James Ryan, a Tokyo-based businessman who has helped raise US$15 million for the project, said demand for infertility treatment would overcome all obstacles. “We may have to fight for the right of people to have children”, he said. Seed said he has abandoned plans to clone himself “because it would be an ego trip”. Instead, he will clone his third wife, Gloria. Jonathan Watts
Project focuses on migrant health and wellbeing etropolis, an international project to focus the critical social, health, economic, and political policy issues regarding migration and ethnic diversity in a rapidly changing world, held its third conference last week (Zichron Yaakov, Israel; Nov 30–Dec 3). “Health implications of migration to cities drew on the experience of international organizations, national health agencies, municipal health officers, clinicians, and community workers”, said Brian Gushulak, International Organisation for Migration, Geneva, Switzerland, who co-organised the workshop with Linda Williams, Health Policy Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Many factors affect and influence the health of migrants in urban environments. “Although diverse, examples from Israel, Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands each reflected two basic conclusions: health needs must be considered in the broader cultural-socioeconomic context, including access to and the availability of appropriate services; few immigration policy makers appear to appreciate the importance of health and well-being in migrants”, said Williams.
M
Additionally, workshop participants reinforced the necessity and importance of involving the local migrant community in policymaking. “Policy attention is required to focus on both socioeconomic factors and organic diseases”, suggested Gushulak. Gushulak drew attention to the concentrations of migrants in metropolitan areas; import of infectious diseases (such as tuberculosis, tropical maladies, and HIV); development of psychosocial and mental disorders, stress related endocrine and cardiovascular disease; resultant poor quality of maternal child health; and subsequent degraded child development. The “capacity and resilience of existing metropolitan health systems to recognise and manage these health issues can be compromised by high level of migratory flow”, said Gushalak. The most effective methods of dealing with health in migrant populations have been those based on interdisciplinary approaches involving a broad concept of health, and the early and sustained support of community and non-governmental organisations resources, Gushalak added. Rachelle H B Fishman
1917
Call to strengthen UK ban on human clones
A
ban on human reproductive cloning should be enshrined in statute, but there should be reasonable freedom to explore the potential benefits of nuclearreplacement techniques. These are the main messages from a formal consultation of the UK public on human cloning, published on Dec 8. The consultation process was prompted by the creation of Dolly the sheep, the first adult vertebrate cloned from an adult. The consultation document’s launch earlier this year (see Lancet 1998; 351: 427) came shortly after the eccentric US physicist, Richard Seed, first made public his intention to pursue the cloning of human beings. The process consisted of a document created by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, an independent body that advises government ministers on genetic issues, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates artificial reproductive technologies and research. In light of the wide media coverage of developments in cloning in the UK and abroad, the response to this national consultation exercise seems—at 191 submissions—a little modest. About 40% were from individuals, the remainder being from a range of interested groups. The result has been a resounding “no” to human reproductive cloning, irrespective of the technique used. Although current legislation is “wholly adequate” to forbid human cloning, the report nevertheless recommends that government should consider introducing explicit legislation, presumably for future cases in which current legislation might not be adequate. By contrast, the report recommends “keeping the door open” to the potential benefits of nuclear transfer. Since these advances had not been envisaged when the HFEA’s remit and responibilities were spelled out in law in 1990, the report recommends an amendment to the law. Thus the report suggests that the HFEA should be allowed to authorise research for “developing methods of therapy for mitochondrial diseases” and for “developing methods of therapy for diseased or damaged tissues or organs”. Sarah Ramsay
THE LANCET • Vol 352 • December 12, 1998
Japan dashes Seed’s plans for clone clinic apanese government officials have thrown cold water on plans by the American scientist Richard Seed to set up a cloning research centre in Japan. Seed, who announced plans to clone human beings earlier this year, said on Nov 30 that he has acquired sites and partial funding for a fertility clinic and an animal cloning centre. Initially, the facilities will be used to help childless couples and to clone pets and rare animals. Seed plans to clone people in the future. “There are no laws against human cloning in Japan, but I think it will be difficult”, said Motohito Nishizawa of the Health and Welfare Ministry. “He will need a licence to operate in Japan and there are strict guidelines on genetic research.” A Council for Science and Technology subcommittee has rec-
J
ommended a ban on human cloning, which it described as “socially impermissible”. In August, the Education Ministry also prohibited university research in the field. And the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology prohibits in-vitro fertilisation using sperm and eggs of unmarried couples. But, there are no penalties for violations. James Ryan, a Tokyo-based businessman who has helped raise US$15 million for the project, said demand for infertility treatment would overcome all obstacles. “We may have to fight for the right of people to have children”, he said. Seed said he has abandoned plans to clone himself “because it would be an ego trip”. Instead, he will clone his third wife, Gloria. Jonathan Watts
Project focuses on migrant health and wellbeing etropolis, an international project to focus the critical social, health, economic, and political policy issues regarding migration and ethnic diversity in a rapidly changing world, held its third conference last week (Zichron Yaakov, Israel; Nov 30–Dec 3). “Health implications of migration to cities drew on the experience of international organizations, national health agencies, municipal health officers, clinicians, and community workers”, said Brian Gushulak, International Organisation for Migration, Geneva, Switzerland, who co-organised the workshop with Linda Williams, Health Policy Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Many factors affect and influence the health of migrants in urban environments. “Although diverse, examples from Israel, Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands each reflected two basic conclusions: health needs must be considered in the broader cultural-socioeconomic context, including access to and the availability of appropriate services; few immigration policy makers appear to appreciate the importance of health and well-being in migrants”, said Williams.
M
Additionally, workshop participants reinforced the necessity and importance of involving the local migrant community in policymaking. “Policy attention is required to focus on both socioeconomic factors and organic diseases”, suggested Gushulak. Gushulak drew attention to the concentrations of migrants in metropolitan areas; import of infectious diseases (such as tuberculosis, tropical maladies, and HIV); development of psychosocial and mental disorders, stress related endocrine and cardiovascular disease; resultant poor quality of maternal child health; and subsequent degraded child development. The “capacity and resilience of existing metropolitan health systems to recognise and manage these health issues can be compromised by high level of migratory flow”, said Gushalak. The most effective methods of dealing with health in migrant populations have been those based on interdisciplinary approaches involving a broad concept of health, and the early and sustained support of community and non-governmental organisations resources, Gushalak added. Rachelle H B Fishman
1917