Human cloning has become a hot topic for debate. As we progressed one step closer to successfully cloning and developing a human being, legislators and the general public have become more concerned about the ethical and moral implications of this procedure. The federal government has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement as to what policy to pass and enact. Thus, any current legislation on human cloning has been developed and enforced by individual states. The state of California is one of the few states in the United States that has a policy on human cloning. Human cloning is banned in the state of California. Because current policy does not allow for any human cloning to take place, many research projects have come to a standstill. Scientists have still been able to carry out certain cloning procedures that may not be viewed as ethical by the general public as a result of loopholes in current legislation. It is recommended that the current policy in place be revised to eliminate these loopholes and rewritten to permit human cloning to take place to generate the tissue and cells needed for therapeutic development and research to take place. The ban on human cloning should only apply when the procedure is used for reproductive purposes because current research has shown that it is not safe to use in humans at this time(Appendix A.1).
With proper restrictions and guidelines in place, society stands to gain many benefits through permitting human cloning for the purpose of research. DRAFT April 17, 1999 M E M O R A N D U M TO: California State Legislators and Governor Gray Davis DATE: April 17, 1999 SUBJECT: Recommendation that the state of California continues its ban on human cloning but revise the current policy to permit human cloning for research. BACKGROUND On July 5, 1996, researchers in Scotland made history when they announced the birth of Dolly, the world’s first successful cloning of a sheep (Appendix A.1).
The Term Paper on Cloning Human Clone
... place in only hours, where as eggs usually have years to reorganize their DNA. Scientists say that because of current cloning techniques, human cloning ... type of cloning, either. Anti-abortion groups have also enthusiastically opposed research on therapeutic cloning since embryonic ... not support therapeutic cloning. "In the United States, both therapeutic and reproductive human cloning are barred from ...
The world was shocked. The ability to reproduce human beings without sexual reproduction was no longer only an idea to be explored in sci-fi movies and books. After over forty years of research and development, human cloning is quickly becoming a reality. The basic technique used to clone humans and animals, somatic-cell nuclear transfer, involves the insertion of DNA from a somatic cell into an egg which has had its nucleus removed (Appendix A.2).
The egg begins to divide and develop into an embryo which is implanted into the uterus of a surrogate female, where it is carried to term and delivered(Appendix A.3).
A clone is genetically identical to the person or animal who provided the somatic cell that provided the DNA. Much of the new laws being drafted to prevent human cloning have yet to be enacted or reviewed by Congress. There has been much debate between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue. Problems with ethical concerns over human cloning play a very large role in hindering the adoption of various legislation. Anti-abortion organizations have entered the debate by voicing their opinions about human cloning and research. They claim that by allowing research to take place on human embryos, Congress would be giving approval for the destruction of life(Appendix A.4).
Would we, in fact, be devaluing life by creating, experimenting and killing human embryos for the purpose of research?(Appendix A.5) There has also been concern over the rights of a human clone. Issues have been raised about the “individuality, autonomy, objectification, and kinship of the resulting children” (Appendix A.6).
Because the clone would be identical genetically and phenotypically to a person who currently exists or did exist in the past, he or she may be expected to follow in the footsteps of the DNA donor. This would take away any individuality and autonomy that would normally be experienced by an individual conceived sexually. Objectification becomes a matter of concern because of the way in which the clone is produced or “conceived”. The clone is not produced sexually but through asexual scientific means. Although in vitro fertilization involves the fertilization of the egg in a petri dish or test tube, the involvement of sperm makes it sexual and thus, more “normal” and acceptable than the cloning procedure. With kinship, there is the question to the relation of the clone to its “parents”. The clone has a full set of DNA that has been derived from the mother and father of the donor. This is because the clone is genetically identical to the donor. Thus, the clone is not the offspring or child of the donor, nor is the donor the “parent” of the clone in any biological sense. The clone is more like a sibling or “delayed twin” to the donor (Appendix A.7).
The Research paper on Human Cloning Government Research Clone
Governmental Banning on human and organ cloning is posing a problem on those educated ones in academia. Researcher and scientist Dr. Ian Wilmot has successfully cloned a sheep, and has gathered from this experiment evidence that strongly proves that human and organ cloning could be performed safely and effectively. Unfortunately, our government has almost immediately banned such cloning in this ...
At the beginning of this year, researchers at an infertility clinic in South Korea announced that they had created the world’s first human clone. The experiment had to be halted after the embryo reached a certain stage in development to comply with established ethical guidelines (Appendix A.8).
It was reported by the team leader of the research group that implanting the embryo into the uterine wall would have led to the birth of the first human clone(Appendix A.9).
The fact that we are only a few steps away from producing a human being through cloning has caused an outcry from the general population for legislators to restrict research that is currently taking place. The reasons as to why this should or should not be done has become a hot topic for debate. Ethical and legal implications of limiting human cloning and research are just two of the issues that legislators are struggling to address in the form of new policies. PROBLEM STATEMENT There is currently no federal policy on human cloning. President Clinton placed a ban on the use of federal funds for human cloning studies in 1996, but since then, Congress has been unable to reach an agreement about the bills that have been introduced to address the issue of human cloning (Appendix A.10).
Human Resources Policy Research Paper
Abstract All companies must develop, identify, and utilize appropriate human resource policies. These policies are a vital part of running any business. However, it is imperative that each company understands that their human resource functions must be created to meet the unique needs of that company and therefore cannot be lumped together into one tactic. Each company is different based on their ...
Thus, with the exception of the ban on the use of federal funds, any implementation of policies concerning this topic has been left up to the states. Although California legislation prohibits cloning, legislators must decide whether to maintain or revise current policy. The extent to which human cloning should be restricted has been of major concern for legislators and researchers as well as for society as a whole. At what point does the development of a human embryo through asexual means become unethical? What are the consequences that may come about as a result of cloning human embryos? Do these embryos have rights? We need to distinguish the difference between the cloning of cells and tissues from the cloning of human beings through somatic nuclear transplantation. The creation of policies that clearly define the terms of cloning to minimize loopholes and address the urgent need for a mechanism to regulate, rather than ban, human cloning for the purpose of research is imperative. Too many legislators discount the benefits that can be obtained from human cloning research. The current lack of satisfactory resolutions to the issues brought up by cloning highlights society’s need for some type of common ground between scientists and law makers.
Several options will be analyzed. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the options will be discussed. The following will be explored: 1. Allow California to maintain current practices with no change in policy; 2. Continue to prohibit human cloning except for purposes of research; 3. Create an organization to monitor and regulate any activities concerning human cloning, and review and update policies as necessary. ALTERNATIVES 1) Allow California to maintain current practices with no change in policy. California is one of several states in the nation to adopt a law that prohibits human cloning. Currently, the Health and Safety Code Section 24185 in California states the following: a) No person shall clone a human being; b)No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human being; c) For the purpose of this section, “clone” means the practice of creating or attempting to create a human being by transforming the nucleus from a human cell from whatever source into a human egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed in the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being (Appendix A.11).
The Essay on Human Cloning 17
Human Cloning Science is one of the greatest powers on Earth and some people compare it to magic. The reason for such controversial attitude is first of all the nature of science, which is the art of explaining everything in this world in scientific terms. The problem is that many people are not ready to accept the new information and learn the other side of many different things they previously ...
This exemplifies many of the other policies that have been passed and enacted in other states. Advantages Saves any costs that may result from implementation of a federal law. Depending on what the new legislation calls for, it may cost a lot of money for its enactment. Prevents/bans cloning of an individual through the most commonly used technique. Complies with the views of the general public. The public supports placing a ban on human cloning due to moral/ethical issues. Allows for re-evaluation of policy after 5 years of enforcement; open-ended for new policies. The option to update the current policy in accordance with the new views of the population is provided. Disadvantages Continued existence of loopholes in the current policy due to problems with drafting. The word “clone” means that a human being cannot be created by somatic-cell nuclear transfer using human DNA and a human ovum to generate a human being. This law does not prohibit the use of human DNA and an animal ovum or vice versa to produce an animal-human hybrid (Appendix A.12).
Also, what about the human embryos that currently exist? It is possible for scientists to clone them through a procedure called “splitting”. This policy does not address such issues. Does not allow for human cloning research. This is important because it can result in the discovery of better contraceptives, decrease the number of spontaneous abortions and the development of a cure for cancer. Embryonic study in cancer research will advance understanding of the rapid growth of cancer (Appendix A.13).
Goes against the recommendation made by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission that “any regulations or legislative actions undertaken to effect the foregoing prohibition should be carefully written so as to not interfere with other important areas of scientific research” (Appendix A.1).
The Term Paper on Human Cloning 16
Human Cloning There is no other issue throughout American history, which has produced such controversy across opinion of the general public. Not slavery, prohibition, or abortion has aroused such a significant dispute regarding specific dilemma, than cloning did. Human cloning debate united and simultaneously separated scientific convictions. While one group of scientists seems inhospitable to ...
2) Continue to prohibit human cloning except for purposes of research; The state of California could maintain their current practices for the most part, but add a clause to the law that allows human cloning for research purposes. By forbidding human cloning, unethical practices of implanting a cloned human embryo will continue to be banned. However, permitting human cloning to produce the embryonic tissues necessary for research will allow scientists to progress with their studies to find beneficial therapies for various diseases that currently plague society. The new policy would be comparable to the Feinstein-Kennedy Bill, which is currently pending in Congress. It was introduced by Senators Diane Feinstein(D-CA) and Edward Kennedy(D-MA).
This bill would allow laboratory work on human tissue generated through cloning, but for the next ten years, the transfer of a cloned embryo into a woman’s uterus would be prohibited (Appendix A.7).
Modifying the current policy in California to emulate the Feinstein-Kennedy Bill would result in more of a neutral ground for the debate currently in place between various interest groups. Advantages Research is facilitated and encouraged through the acknowledgement of the future benefits that may result through studying human embryos. Scientist may find cures for deadly diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Embryonic stem cells can be grown to produce tissues or organs to replace or repair damaged ones. Quadriplegics may be able to walk again with stem cell research. Genetic diseases may be identified and eventually eliminated with human cloning (Appendix A.14).
Human cloning for the purpose of developing and selling a human baby, which is deemed as “unethical, irresponsible, and unprofessional” is still prohibited(Appendix A.1).
Disadvantages The new policy must be drafted in a way that would specify what is allowed and what is prohibited to try to minimize the existence of loopholes. Strict guidelines as to how large the embryo is allowed to grow must be included in the policy. It has been found that embryos grown up to fourteen days from conception are appropriate enough for research purposes (Appendix a.15).
Who will regulate and enforce the new policy? What types of punishments and penalties will be given to those who violate the conditions of the new law? There will be much ethical concern over the embryo’s rights by anti-abortion groups. The embryo must be killed to obtain the cells and tissues needed for research. When does a person’s life really begin? The popular answer to this question is: at conception. If this is the case, scientist would be murdering embryos. However, despite popular belief, the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the word “person” does not pertain to a fetus, at least as it appears in the Constitution in Row v. Wade (Appendix A.16).
The Essay on Human Cloning angel Or Satan
Since I am majored in biology, I will mainly talk about the topic of human cloning today. Four billion years ago, life arose on the earth. Four billion years later, human beings begin to look into the secrets hidden in the genes, which are the most delicate structure of life. A little over a year ago, scientists completed the Human Genome Project, which is one of the three most important advances ...
3) Create an organization to monitor and regulate any activities concerning human cloning, and review and update policies as necessary. This option involves the development of an advisory committee for the purpose of investigating matters on human cloning and research. This agency would be responsible for authorizing any type of experimentation on human embryos. Researchers would have to submit their proposals to this committee for review and approval before they can progress with their studies. The committee would also examine and change policy concerning human cloning as needed. Any fines or punishment as a result of violating the law will be decided upon by the committee. The Human Fertilization and Embryology of 1990 in Great Britain maintains policies and also establishes a group to oversee human cloning activities. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority is involved in deciding where to draw ethical boundaries and is empowered to forbid human reproductive cloning in the United Kingdom (Appendix A.17).
They also ensure that the current existing law is adequate. The creation of an organization modeled after the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in Britain is what is being proposed for the state of California. Advantages Unethical research studies would not be permitted to take place. Any loopholes in current policies can be addressed by the agency. Continuous review and updating of the current policy will allow for any adjustments and changes that are necessary to keep up with the changing time and views of the public. This agency can enforce current legislation and oversee proper punishment for non-compliant organizations and institutions. Punishments and fines can be adjusted to match the crime. Problems can be addressed in a more timely manner than if the state legislators or governor had to intervene. Disadvantages Creation of this type of entity will cost a lot of money, and there will also be costs incurred to maintain the committee. Who would the committee be held accountable to? Would this entity be an extension of the legislative branch of the state government? Would it be a committee under the governor? There may be difficulty in generating a committee that is objective rather than subjective when it comes to deciding policy or punishment matters. The combination of individuals who would promote this objectivity may be hard to find. Researchers are going to be biased in favor of research, thus, they may try to implement policies that give scientists more freedom. On the other hand, having people with conservative views about human cloning issues may inhibit scientists through the implementation of severe punishments and imposing restrictions. The FDA may have problems with this option because it has decided to regulate human cloning and assert its authority regarding this topic (Appendix A.18).
They are requiring that a formal application must be filed with them first for permission to attempt human cloning legally. This application is to undergo a very lengthy review before it is given approval or rejected. If the FDA does not allow for the newly created committee to have the authority to review experimentation proposals from within the state, then this proposal is unnecessary and implausible. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Human Cloning – for the purpose of producing a child When Dr. Richard Seed announced to the world his plans to open the first human cloning clinic in the United States, for the purpose of offering the procedure to infertile couples, President Clinton declared his desire to ban cloning. One of his reasons for doing so was because of the unknown effects cloning can have on the clone. What are the long term effects of cloning an individual? Nuclear transfer bypasses the mechanisms that usually correct errors in DNA of germ cells, but since this will not be present in clones, incidence of cancer may be increased (Appendix A.9).
Will cloning cause premature aging? Scientists are concerned that the DNA in a cloned animal may have a shortened life span. A cloned animal may behave like an animal that has the “combined age of the donor and offspring” (Appendix A.20).
The fact that it took two hundred and seventy-seven embryos to result in the successful birth of the sheep clone Dolly is enough to make people wary about cloning (Appendix A.10).
The probability that a cloned human embryo may be stillborn or die soon after birth is very high, and until better methods for cloning are developed, the challenge of activating the 100,000 genes in the somatic cell nucleus and having them “perform perfectly” for the gestation period of the clone will remain (Appendix A.9).
Dr. Seed is hoping to produce the first human clone some time this year. Although he is a physicist, he has some experience in reproductive genetics. Because he is not qualified to completely carry out the human cloning process, the individuals who will actually be involved in the medical aspect of the procedure are physicians and trained medical personnel (Appendix A.20).
The physicians will be the ones to establish a relationship with the people who come into the clinic to seek advice and intervention in overcoming problems of infertility since they will be the ones to actually perform the cloning procedure and implantation. Once this relationship is established, physicians are obligated to provide their patients with continuous medical attention. The doctrine of informed consent is very important and applicable to human cloning, especially in its early stages of testing. A patient must be informed of the nature of the treatment, the risks, complications and benefits of the treatments and any alternative treatments and their risks and benefits. The physician must also disclose any other information requested by the patient (Appendix A.21).
For physicians working at the cloning clinic, this means that they must inform patients of the risk of having a child with deformities and disorders currently undetectable through testing such as premature aging. This type of information may help couples to put more thought into going through with the procedure that rather than basing their decisions on the emotional desire to have a child. However, because the result of this process has not yet been studied, it will be difficult to determine if and when there was a breach of duty by the physician in his or her failure to render proper care in the notification of risks . It is unclear as to what type of relationship a physician working at the human cloning clinic will have with the institution. The clinic will probably advertise heavily about its technology and the ability to provide infertile couples with the opportunity to have a child of their own. Unless they decide to promote the birth of a “healthy” baby and try to market the expertise of the physicians and staff on hand, vicarious liability should not be much of a problem. It was found by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in the case Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc. that third parties, such as the human cloning clinic can be liable for the negligent acts of their apparent agents, regardless of whether or not they are employees or independent contractors (Appendix A.22).
As long as the clinic conveyed the notion that the physicians were their employees to their clients or patients, it may be held responsible for the negligent acts of the physicians. Also, by advertising the birth of “healthy” babies, couples can held the clinic liable for the birth of an abnormal or deformed clone. What are the rights of a clone? He or she did not ask to be born; the decision to create this individual was made by the “parents”. If, in fact, this clone was born with defects, would he or she be able to hold the “parents” liable for his abnormalities along with the clinic? The issue of cloning has created many problems for which there are few answers. The legal authority which currently exists is inadequate for dealing with human cloning (Appendix A.23).
Human Cloning – for research purposes Cloning to produce human embryos for research is also another topic where current laws are proving to be insufficient. Because the purpose of research on human embryos is to generate cells, tissue and to study them for therapeutic applications, people have been more favorable to this than to the idea of cloning a human being for reproductive practices. There has been concern over the right of these embryos by anti-abortion groups, but because they have always voiced their opinions on issues such as fetal tissue research, people are not surprised by the reactions of these people to human embryo cloning. In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the California appellate court ruled that “a patient must have the ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues” and that “to hold otherwise would open the door to a massive invasion of human dignity in the name of medical progress” (Appendix A.24).
Moore had bodily substances removed from his body by his physician and unbeknownst to him, this physician, along with researchers were making a lot of money off of his hairy cell leukemia samples. In the case of human embryo cloning for research, there must be individuals willing to donate their DNA or eggs in order to produce the needed embryos. According to Moore v. Regents of California, consent of a patient is required. What happens to the eggs and DNA when there is no way to locate the donor for consent? If the donor somehow finds out that his or her DNA or eggs have been used to generate embryos for research purposes without their consent, the donator can sue for proceeding with medical procedures without having obtained their informed consent. RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis recommends that the legislators of the state of California and the governor endorse a policy that continues to ban human cloning for reproductive purposes, yet allow for this procedure to be used for research (Alternative 2).
It has been recommended by government groups such as the National Bioethics Advisory Committee that legislation should not be written in such a way that it interferes with current and ongoing research. The current policy prohibits human cloning in general. Revisions need to be made so that human cloning techniques are only forbidden mainly for reproductive purposes. New clauses can be incorporated and added into the existing legislation, and these clauses can include specific restrictions to regulate the type of procedures that are acceptable. This type of specification will help to minimize any loopholes in the policy, thereby providing a more effective way to address the concerns of the scientist, legislators and the general public. Alternative 1 is the most economically viable, but it is not an attractive option because it has already been shown to be ineffective. The policy has many loopholes due to problems with drafting. Scientists have devised many ways to carry out unethical research practices by working around the law. Thus, regulations and restrictions must be addressed more appropriately and thoroughly before this law becomes more suitable for the state of California.
Alternative 3 has many attractive advantages. However, because of federal regulations as well as costs, it is not very feasible. The FDA is currently responsible for authorizing human cloning experiments. Establishing an organization to carry out the responsibilities that overlap with the current jurisdiction of the FDA may create problems. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY For the purposes of implementing Alternative 2, the following scenario can be considered. Present Continue to prohibit human cloning. May 1999 to Review current legislation and develop a draft of a new policy July 1999 or clause to add to the existing law that permits human cloning for research. Develop any guidelines that restrict or permit procedures to try to minimize ways for scientists to work around the policy. August 1999 Release a copy of the policy generated to mainstream press and to research institutions to generate support. September 1999 to Present bill to California state Senate for amendments and approval. December 1999 January 2000 to Present bill to state Assembly for amendments and approval. April 2000 May 2000 to Present bill to Governor for approval and signature. July 2000 July 2000 File bill with Secretary of State of California.
ACTION: Approve, implement as is Revise based on comments and implement Revise based on comments and resubmit See me Disapprove COMMENTS: APPENDIX A. Information Sources 1) Shapiro, Harold T. “Ethical and Policy Issues of Human Cloning.” Science. 1997;277: 195-196. 2) http://www.healthatoz.com/ 3) http://www.sciencexchange.com/ 4) Rovner, Julie. “US Congressional Battles Threaten Clear Legal Position on Cloning.” The Lancet. 1998;351: 506. 5) Eisenberg, Leon. “Would Cloned Humans Really Be Like Sheep?” The New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;340: 471-475. 6) Robertson, John A. “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339: 119-122. 7) Annas, George J. “Why We Should Ban Human Cloning.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339: 118-125. 8) “First Principles in Cloning.” Editorial. The Lancet. 1997;353: 81. 9) Watts, Jonathan and Morris, Kelly. “Human Cloning Trial Met with Outrage and Skepticism.” The Lancet. 1999;353: 43. 10) Marwick, Charles. “Put Human Cloning on Hold, Say Bioethicists.” JAMA. 1997;278: 13-14. 11) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 12) Wise, Jacqui.
“Bills on Human Cloning Are Full of Loopholes.” British Medical Journal. 1998;316: 573. 13) http://www.usfca.edu/cloning/ 14) http://www.humancloning.org/ 15) Mayor, Susan. “UK Authorities Recommend Human Cloning for Therapeutic Research.” British Medical Journal. 1998;317: 1613. 16) Furrow, Barry, et al. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. St. Paul: West Group, 1997, p.894. 17) Bower, Hilary. “Public Consultation on Human Cloning Launched.” British Medical Journal. 1998;316: 411. 18) http://www.seattletimes.com/health-science/html98/clon_012098.html 19) Benatar, D. “Cloning and Ethics.” QJM. 1998;91: 165-166. 20) Josefson, Deborah. “US Scientist Plans Human Cloning Clinic.” British Medical Journal. 1998;316: 167. 21) Furrow, Barry, et al. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. St. Paul: West Group, 1997, p. 415. 22) Furrow, Barry, et al. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. St. Paul: West Group, 1997, p. 248. 23) http://www.ebglaw.com/newsstand/cloning.html 24) Furrow, Barry, et al. Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems. St. Paul: West Group, 1997, p.435.
