Comitted to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
Vol. 4 Num 113 Tue. September 16, 2003
http://www.thedailys...30916150182.htm
Of sheep and men
Koïchiro Matsuura
Dolly is dead. The most famous sheep in the world, also the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, was put down in February of this year. This happened shortly after the birth of a cloned baby was announced to the public, though never verified. Dolly's death created less of a sensation than her birth. However, even if the exact causes of this death have yet to be ascertained, it clearly raises the question of the long-term effects of cloning on the cloned organism. And in a way it grants human beings some respite. The codes governing medical research forbid the experimentation on human beings of a process whose safety and efficiency have not yet been proved through animal testing. But what will be the outcome when the technical barrier has been lifted, and when the argument of sanitary precaution no longer applies? Before it even materializes, the perspective of human cloning confronts us and our social awareness with a major ethical, cultural, and political challenge. The organisation of which I am the Director-General, at the time of the tenth anniversary of the International Bioethics Committee (ICB) of UNESCO, will continue to take an active role in debates and initiatives concerning this question.
The complexity of the issue cannot be dismissed. As far as bioethics, and cloning in particular, are concerned, we need to make sure that the fears and fictions of fantasy do not interfere with relevant questions. Human cloning, in the present day, refers to two technical procedures which differ both in purpose and in practice. The aim of therapeutic cloning is not to arrive at the birth of an individual, but to retrieve stem cells from an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement. It is generally understood that the use of these stem cells could transform regenerative medicine. Then why hesitate? What we have at stake is the status of the embryo, and around this question hopes and reservations cluster and clash. Are we running the risk of turning human embryos into the supermarket stalls of future organ sales? Is it legitimate to create embryos whose development will never be brought to completion? And who will provide the countless ovules required by these manipulations? Would this not lead to a new form of commodification of the female body -- particularly in the case of poorer women? These questions can only be solved through the creation of a strict legal framework for human embryo research, and in order to reach that point there is still a need for further debate.
The aim of reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is to enable the birth of a child who would be a chromosomic replica of another individual. But cloning an organism is not the same as copying a person. There is evidence of this in the mechanisms of natural sexual reproduction. Real twins, for instance, are unmistakeably different individuals, but still, they are more similar to each other than two clones would be. Those who associate cloning with the realisation of age-old myths of immortality or resurrection, in an impossible search for copies of themselves or of others, are using representations of genetics which are both mistaken and dangerous. Once we are rid of the illusion of an all-encompassing genome, what is left us? Human clones would certainly not be monsters; they could, however, reject the normative project that commanded their birth. This is why we must investigate further upstream, and examine the motives which are behind such a project, and the underlying vision of the human race and of society. This type of manipulation would consider clones as carriers for a particular genome, chosen for its specific qualities. It would not be difficult to imagine the disastrous psychological and social consequences of such a form of eugenics.
Nature provides each individual with a unique genetic identity, the result of the interplay of fortune and necessity. Giving up this natural wealth could eventually lead us as far as an artificial genetic divide between humans with original genomes and humans with cloned ones. Doesn't humanity already suffer from enough forms of discrimination? The idea of human cloning, at its best, rests on a series of misunderstandings and fantasies; at its worst, it hinges on the desire to utilise genetics for purposes that are decidedly questionable -- whether they be commercial, ideological, or practical. The idea of a ban on human cloning is therefore justified on all levels, medical, legal and moral. This ban, first recommended in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO in 1997, and then endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1998, is irrevocable.
In examining the stakes of bioethics we find ourselves confronted with a question that reaches deep into the cultural, philosophical and spiritual groundings of different human communities. Reconciling the respect of this cultural diversity with a pragmatic approach towards scientific progress is a preliminary condition for any joint research in the area of bioethics. This is the spirit in which we are currently working on a declaration on genetic data, since the use of such data -- if not properly managed -- could give rise to new forms of discrimination, and even terrifying denials of human rights. We are also asked -- yet another challenge! -- to devise a universal working tool for bioethics. This confirms that UNESCO can be the appropriate forum for cultures, worldviews, and religious beliefs to interact and reach an agreement on an ethical framework which may serve as a common point of reference.
Humans cannot be made to order, be it an ideal genetic order. UNESCO has acknowledged the importance of a challenge that reaches further than any national frame of reference and requires an active involvement on the part of scientific, political and economic players. It was the first intergovernmental organisation to propose a consistent programme addressing these questions -- with the creation of the IBC, followed a year later by that of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee. Ethics of science and technology is effectively one of the priorities of UNESCO, which is currently reinforcing its watch function and its foresight activity. One outcome of this is the choice of focus for the 21st Century Talks, organised by Jérôme Bindé in Paris on the 10th of September 2003: the difficult and urgent question "Should human cloning be banned?" In the case of human cloning, for the first time, ethical reflection has a chance to precede and guide technological development, providing there is a will to do so.
Man is not just any mammal. Animals can be reproduced through cloning. But humans are shaped by education, science and culture. Not by cloning.
Koïchiro Matsuura is Director General of UNESCO.
