On July 5^th, 1997, Dolly the sheep was born. A mammal born not through usual means of conception, that is fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm. Instead, Dolly was born using the mature nucleus (the most important part of the cell containing each individual’s genetic material) of an adult sheep and placing it within the egg of another animal that had its own nucleus removed.  This gave rise to Dolly, a living organism that contained the genetic material of only one adult organism as opposed to two.  This was praised by some as a leap forward in genetics, while simultaneously feared by others as a sci-fi scenario moving to reality (Page, 2016). As one would expect, this gave rise to major ethical debates globally. Fast forward almost two decades, and we find that the debate continues with no clear end in sight.

            UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization founded in 1945, launched a bioethics- that is, concerned with moral principles in the field of biology- division, in 1993. The organizations’ purpose was to provide a standard of bioethical governance on a global scale. In the mid 2000s, UNESCO began looking into whether an international ban on human cloning was warranted. In 2008, a working group was assigned to consider this position. UNESCO, through two of its bodies, the IBC (International Bioethics Committee) and the IGBC (Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee) spent several terms, each two years long, debating how a ban could be approached if in fact it was warranted. Over the course of two terms from 2008-2011, the working groups assigned by the IBC failed to meet consensus on a recommendation. At one point, they would recommend convention (a ban), only to flip to recommending more international discussions a year later. These conclusions repeated themselves for both terms, and as a result, the discussion was essentially dropped in 2011.

            Moving forward through time for a few years, 2014 saw a return of the discussion of convention on human cloning to the table. It is unclear what brought this topic back to the table, but it is speculated that the return was due to advances in research that cause lawmakers to realize the human cloning was closer to reality than fiction. In a report submitted to the IBC by its working group in 2015, it was reiterated the need for a ban on human cloning. The working group went on to say that the United Nations (UN) should convene a global taskforce of scientists and bioethicists that could further investigate the implications of genomic technologies including human cloning. The IGBC in what was noted as a turn from an opinion presented in 2009, agreed with the IBC labeling the conclusion as relevant to the times. The IGBC did however disagree with the IBC that the UN should oversee such an undertaking. Instead, the IGBC confidently proposed that the project was one that could be handled internally by UNESCO. At the end of the term, instead of a convention or declaration, the IBC and IGBC instead released recommendations on how individual states should address the issue of human cloning as a collective. The report also addressed smaller developing countries that do not have access to newer genomic technologies. They make recommendations that businesses should not chase profit by operating in countries with weaker regulations (UNESCO, 2015c: 3–4).

            The idea of businesses attempting to make profit by operating in areas where holes in regulations occur might stir one’s memories of similar situations in history where gray areas were exploited to conduct research at the expense of minority groups or people who belong to these minority groups. Firstly, we think of the Tuskegee syphilis studies. In this situation, 600 young black men were studied under the premise of being provided medical treatment. Instead, they were left to suffer from diseases, even for years after a cure was found. The similarities drawn here leads one to wonder of the types of research that would be conducted in nations lacking regulations.

            To be clear, most mainstream scientists consider human cloning to be unethical and do not support it. As is the concern of many in the public, cloning technology currently requires the destruction of an embryo. Although animal testing on cloning an organism have yielded successful attempts, the rate of loss is too high to consider human trials. Fortunately, human trials in this type of experiment are unlikely to be conducted behind closed doors without word getting out. This is a completely different scenario from that of Henrietta Lacks. In the 1950s, Henrietta Lacks visited a doctor and was diagnoses with cancer. After a biopsy, a sample of her cells were sent to a lab, without her knowledge and cultivated. Henrietta Lacks died, and for several years afterwards and up till this day, her cells continue to be propagated and used in a variety of research, ranging from understanding the way cell growth occurs, to testing of medication and vaccines. It wasn’t for a couple decades after her death, that the Lack’s family found out that Henrietta’s cells had essentially been immortalized. In this current day, it would be much more difficult for human cloning experiments to go on secretly.  

            Having highlighted these points of note, as an international body, it is important that the UNESCO come to a consensus on banning human cloning research. It is only a matter of time until successes in the field allow for human trials to be a real option. It is essential that regulations are set and in place globally to usher in the inevitable. This will aid in ensuring the protection of unwilling and uninformed minority participants.

 

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, April 22). Tuskegee study – timeline – CDC – nchhstp. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm.

Langlois A (2017) The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO. Palgrave Communications. 3:17019 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.19.

Klitzman, R. (2018, September 13). Should You Worry About Being the Next Henrietta Lacks? New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2021.

Page, H. Y. F. (2016, October 14). The birth of Dolly the sheep, the first ever GENETIC clone of an adult animal triggered a huge ethical debate. The Sun. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/hold-ye-front-page/1977351/the-birth-of-dolly-the-sheep-the-first-ever-clone-of-an-adult-animal-was-an-astonishing-leap-forward-in-genetics-but-triggered-a-huge-ethical-debate/.

UNESCO. (2015c) Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris, France.

What’s the difference between cloning embryonic stem cells and cloning a new organism?. Nat Rep Stem Cells (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/stemcells.2007.21