Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Number 1

Article 23

4-1-2002

International Response to Human Cloning Elizabeth L. Shanin

Recommended Citation Shanin, Elizabeth L. (2002) "International Response to Human Cloning," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 3: No. 1, Article 23. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol3/iss1/23

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected].

International Response to Human Cloning Elizabeth L. Shanin*

I.

INTRODUCTION

In September of 2001, the United Nations placed the topic of human cloning on its agenda at the request of France and Germany. These countries hope that negotiations regarding human cloning will prompt the UN to adopt "an international legal instrument banning the reproductive cloning of human beings."' Currently, scientists can travel to one of the many countries lacking restrictions on cloning and attempt to clone humans without facing legal repercussions. An international regulatory regime, therefore, seems necessary if a prohibition on cloning is to be effective.2 An international treaty banning human cloning may not be the perfect solution; it will probably lack universal acceptance, and it will take years to create. However, the development of such a treaty will initiate an international discussion regarding the consequences of human cloning, and the enforcement of such a treaty will inevitably lead to some international regulation of cloning technology. I conclude that the benefits of creating and enforcing a treaty banning the reproductive cloning of human beings outweigh its possible weaknesses.

*

BA 2000, Washington University in Sr. Louis 2000; JD Candidate 2003, University of Chicago.

1.

See Annex I to Letter dated Aug 7, 2001, from the Charges d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Missions of France and Germany to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary General, Requestfor the Inclusion of a Supplementary Item in the Agenda of the Fifty-sixth Session: InternationalConvention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, UN Doc No A/56/192 (2001). Reproductive cloning is the process of producing a doned fetus by implanting a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus. Reproductive cloning differs from embryonic stem cell research or therapeutic cloning where genetic material from a patient's cells are used to grow different types of tissues. Therapeutic cloning could be used, for example, to "heal damaged spinal cords . . . [and] treat brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease." Jose B. Cibelli, et al, The First Human Cloned Embryo, 286 Scientific American

2.

45,48 (Jan 2002). The debate as to whether human cloning is immoral, unethical, or a violation of human dignity is beyond the scope of this development.

CbicagoJournalofInternationa(Law

II.

CURRENT CLONING LAWS

At present, there is significant agreement among the countries which have addressed the topic of human cloning that the practice should be banned; however, not all of these countries have been able to enact and enforce laws to effect such a ban. The United States is a prime example of a country that has taken up the debate regarding human cloning but has yet to do much else. President Bush has been vocal on the topic of human cloning. In August 2001, the President announced that federal funds could be used for research on embryonic stem-cell lines already in existence.3 Then, after learning that researchers had cloned human embryos at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. ("ACT") in Worcester, Massachusetts, the President qualified his earlier announcement by stating that "[t]he use of embryos to clone is wrong"; society should not "grow life to destroy it.' President Bush's stance on cloning roughly corresponds to that of the US House of Representatives. In July 2001, the House, by a 265-to-162 vote, passed a bill criminalizing the creation of cloned embryos for reproductive or research purposes; the bill carries with it a fine of $1 million and up to 10 years in prison. 5 Unlike the House, the US Senate is divided as to whether it should ban all cloning, or ban only reproductive cloning.6 Thus, despite the President's and Congress's interest in banning cloning, there are no laws regulating human cloning research in the United States. The situation in Great Britain and Ireland is similar to that in the US. In Ireland, there are no laws preventing privately funded groups from engaging in human cloning.7 Britain is in a comparable position even though it created a law on embryology in 1990 that was intended to prohibit reproductive cloning.8 On November 15, 2001, Britain's high court ruled that an organism created by cloning was not an embryo such that it could be regulated under the 1990 Embryology Act. 9 The British government is presently working to close the newly discovered loophole

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

Eric Cohen, The Nation / Biotecbnology; Busb's Stem-Cell Ruling A Missouri Compromise, LA Times M2 (Aug 12, 2001). Rick Weiss, Mass. Firm'sDisclosure Renews Cloning Debate,Wash Post A3 (Nov 27, 2001). See Tom Abate, House Votes to Ban Cloning ofHumans, San Fran Chron Al (Aug 1, 2001). Weiss, Mass. Firm'sDisclosure Renews CloningDebate, Wash Post at A3 (cited in note 4). Dick Ahistrom, Privately Funded Human Cloning Not Covered by Law, Irish Times (Nov 27, 2001), available online at (visited Mar 24,2002). Tarquin Cooper, Britain Rushes to Close Legal Loophole on Human Cloning, Christian Science Monitor 7 (Nov 23, 2001). Joshua Rozenberg and Roger Highfield, No Law Against Human Cloning, Says Judge, available online at