- Email: [email protected]
Emergency debate support for Europe-wide—and worldwide—ban on human cloning
THE LANCET
POLICY AND PEOPLE
Emergency debate support for Europe-wide—and worldwide—ban on human cloning An emergency debate in the European Parliament on March 11 produced cross-party support for a formal European-wide prohibition on research into cloning human beings. But members were divided on the case for restricting similar work with animals. Research Commissioner Edith Cresson reported that the Commission had asked its informal
advisory group on biotechnology to offer guidance by May. Prohibitions on research into human cloning had been imposed under national law in some member states—“so it is a matter of deciding whether a strict moratorium at international level will be necessary particularly in the fora of the United Nations or the 40-state Council of Europe”, she said, in a
UK hears evidence on cloning of human beings olly the sheep, cloned from a mammary gland cell of an adult ewe, has sparked off worldwide debate on human cloning. On March 5 and 6, the UK parliamentary committee on science and technology heard evidence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and from investigators from the Roslin Institute, Roslin, UK—the team that created Dolly. A major concern is the ability of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to prohibit cloning of human beings from adult somatic cells by nuclear replacement. Ruth Deech, chair of the HFEA, said, “We are 100% convinced that we have the legal framework to deal with everything [to do with human cloning] except the technique used at Roslin”. The cloning of human embryos, including the nuclear-replacement method, is already banned under the Act, but Deech conceded that “much turns on the definition of embryo”. The HFEA will be seeking legal advice on this point. If parliament seeks to amend the Act to encompass recent scientific advances, the HFEA would prefer an alteration to the definitions of gamete, fertilisation,
D
reference to the April European Bioethics Convention, which will ban human cloning in those states that ratify the accord. Worldwide agreement would be “desirable” but a European consensus would be a prerequisite. Agreement on broad lines would put the EU in a stronger position in negotiating with the USA and Japan, she said. AR
USA acts fast on Dolly
and embryo, rather than a straightforward ban on cloning. This would allow the HFEA a “flexible approach”, said Deech. “There may be research [on human cloning] in the future that could be of benefit to mankind that steers well clear of the artificial production of human beings”, she said, citing the generation of genetically identical tissue for use in cancer treatment. At the second hearing, the Committee heard that the techniques pioneered at Roslin could have “a great range of applications in therapeutics”: to advance the production of human proteins, such as clotting factors, from transgenic livestock; and to study certain genetic diseases. Ian Wilmut, principal investigator, believed that “significant progress” in human cloning could be made within 1–2 years, but added that “we would find this sort of work in human embryos offensive”.
A
Kelly Morris
Julie Rovner
US Congress representative is moving to bar human-cloning research permanently. Vernon Ehlers (Republican, Michigan) on March 5 introduced two separate bills; one to permanently bar federal research funding for human cloning, the other to bar all public or private research. Similar legislation has also been introduced in the Senate. Cloning issues have held much attention on Capitol Hill. First, President Clinton ordered the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the legal and ethical ramifications of the new technology and to report back by the end of May. But when it became apparent that the ban on the use of federal funds for research on human embryos might not cover the new cloning techniques, he also banned federally funded research into human cloning.
Specialists prtest as French doctors split under pressure fter decades of unity, French general practitioners and private specialists will have to work under different regulations, because each group will have separate contracts with the national health insurance. Specialists are unhappy with the new arrangement, and plan to protest in Paris on March 16. Every 4 years, medical trade unions and representatives of the health insurance have to agree on a convention, which sets out the organisation of their work and their fees. Traditionally, the rules have been the same for both groups of doctors, but the fees paid to specialists were about
A
Vol 349 • March 15, 1997
one-third higher than those paid to general practitioners. But after years of pressure, general practitioners’ trade unions have signed a new convention that they hope will bring better working conditions. The budgets allowed for doctors’ fees and prescription will now be divided between general practitioners and specialists. General practitioners will be allowed to earn 2·4% more in fees from patients this year than in 1996 and to prescribe 1·3% more drugs. The fees paid by patients to specialists will increase by only 1·4% this year, and the increase in their prescriptions will be limited to 0·5%.
Doctors who exceed these limits will have to refund at least part of the overspend to the health insurance. But since the two budgets are now totally separated, none of the parties will be responsible for overprescriptions or overpayments made by the other, as was the case in 1996. Furthermore, general practitioners are to get some specific advantages, including better payment for emergency care and emergency visits, and a special fee for coordinating treatment made in cooperation with specialists. Denis Durand de Bousingen
785
POLICY AND PEOPLE
Emergency debate support for Europe-wide—and worldwide—ban on human cloning An emergency debate in the European Parliament on March 11 produced cross-party support for a formal European-wide prohibition on research into cloning human beings. But members were divided on the case for restricting similar work with animals. Research Commissioner Edith Cresson reported that the Commission had asked its informal
advisory group on biotechnology to offer guidance by May. Prohibitions on research into human cloning had been imposed under national law in some member states—“so it is a matter of deciding whether a strict moratorium at international level will be necessary particularly in the fora of the United Nations or the 40-state Council of Europe”, she said, in a
UK hears evidence on cloning of human beings olly the sheep, cloned from a mammary gland cell of an adult ewe, has sparked off worldwide debate on human cloning. On March 5 and 6, the UK parliamentary committee on science and technology heard evidence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and from investigators from the Roslin Institute, Roslin, UK—the team that created Dolly. A major concern is the ability of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to prohibit cloning of human beings from adult somatic cells by nuclear replacement. Ruth Deech, chair of the HFEA, said, “We are 100% convinced that we have the legal framework to deal with everything [to do with human cloning] except the technique used at Roslin”. The cloning of human embryos, including the nuclear-replacement method, is already banned under the Act, but Deech conceded that “much turns on the definition of embryo”. The HFEA will be seeking legal advice on this point. If parliament seeks to amend the Act to encompass recent scientific advances, the HFEA would prefer an alteration to the definitions of gamete, fertilisation,
D
reference to the April European Bioethics Convention, which will ban human cloning in those states that ratify the accord. Worldwide agreement would be “desirable” but a European consensus would be a prerequisite. Agreement on broad lines would put the EU in a stronger position in negotiating with the USA and Japan, she said. AR
USA acts fast on Dolly
and embryo, rather than a straightforward ban on cloning. This would allow the HFEA a “flexible approach”, said Deech. “There may be research [on human cloning] in the future that could be of benefit to mankind that steers well clear of the artificial production of human beings”, she said, citing the generation of genetically identical tissue for use in cancer treatment. At the second hearing, the Committee heard that the techniques pioneered at Roslin could have “a great range of applications in therapeutics”: to advance the production of human proteins, such as clotting factors, from transgenic livestock; and to study certain genetic diseases. Ian Wilmut, principal investigator, believed that “significant progress” in human cloning could be made within 1–2 years, but added that “we would find this sort of work in human embryos offensive”.
A
Kelly Morris
Julie Rovner
US Congress representative is moving to bar human-cloning research permanently. Vernon Ehlers (Republican, Michigan) on March 5 introduced two separate bills; one to permanently bar federal research funding for human cloning, the other to bar all public or private research. Similar legislation has also been introduced in the Senate. Cloning issues have held much attention on Capitol Hill. First, President Clinton ordered the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the legal and ethical ramifications of the new technology and to report back by the end of May. But when it became apparent that the ban on the use of federal funds for research on human embryos might not cover the new cloning techniques, he also banned federally funded research into human cloning.
Specialists prtest as French doctors split under pressure fter decades of unity, French general practitioners and private specialists will have to work under different regulations, because each group will have separate contracts with the national health insurance. Specialists are unhappy with the new arrangement, and plan to protest in Paris on March 16. Every 4 years, medical trade unions and representatives of the health insurance have to agree on a convention, which sets out the organisation of their work and their fees. Traditionally, the rules have been the same for both groups of doctors, but the fees paid to specialists were about
A
Vol 349 • March 15, 1997
one-third higher than those paid to general practitioners. But after years of pressure, general practitioners’ trade unions have signed a new convention that they hope will bring better working conditions. The budgets allowed for doctors’ fees and prescription will now be divided between general practitioners and specialists. General practitioners will be allowed to earn 2·4% more in fees from patients this year than in 1996 and to prescribe 1·3% more drugs. The fees paid by patients to specialists will increase by only 1·4% this year, and the increase in their prescriptions will be limited to 0·5%.
Doctors who exceed these limits will have to refund at least part of the overspend to the health insurance. But since the two budgets are now totally separated, none of the parties will be responsible for overprescriptions or overpayments made by the other, as was the case in 1996. Furthermore, general practitioners are to get some specific advantages, including better payment for emergency care and emergency visits, and a special fee for coordinating treatment made in cooperation with specialists. Denis Durand de Bousingen
785