 |
 |
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 Ethicist says Canada should allow human cloning By DENNIS BUECKERT-- The Canadian Press OTTAWA (CP) -- There is nothing inherently wrong with human cloning and Canada should not ban it, says a prominent ethicist. Tim Caulfield, research director of the University of Alberta's Health Law Institute, is one of the first reputable researchers in Canada -- if not the first -- to publicly oppose a ban on cloning people. He sees nothing wrong with using reproductive cloning -- made famous by Dolly the sheep -- to produce an individual genetically identical to another person. Those who argue cloning is offensive to human dignity are in effect adopting a view that humans are no more than the sum of their genes, Caulfield suggested in an interview Wednesday. "I believe that human beings are so much more than just their genes." Caulfield acknowledged that there are important safety concerns associated with cloning people -- for example, clones might be more susceptible to cancer or some other medical condition. But that indicates a need for oversight by a government agency, not a criminal ban, he said. "With a criminal law against cloning . . . we're casting a possible chill over possible scientific inquiry that may be beneficial. When you have a criminal law, it sends a strong symbolic statement." Canada is one of the few advanced countries that currently has no ban on human cloning, either for research purposes or for reproduction. The federal government is grappling with how to regulate new genetic technologies, and legislation is expected during the current mandate. Margaret Somerville of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, supports a clear prohibition on replication of humans through biotechnology. She said the aversion of most Canadians to cloning -- verified by public opinion polls -- is well-founded. "I think it carries great dangers apart from being inherently wrong. Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we can assume it's fine to go ahead." She said some people want to produce replicas of themselves, but that creates many problems, including that the cloned child would lack opportunities for normal bonding. Somerville doesn't buy the mad scientist scenario, where some renegade creates an army of Hitlers, but sees the reaction of most people as a warning signal. "I think our fear is justified here, of what kind of people would we become, what would it mean to be human, what kind of world would we create, if we did this?" Somerville also opposes permitting the cloning of embryos for research, as Britain has proposed to do. Under the British regime, research embryos would not live more than a couple of weeks. "I have grave reservations about how hardened we might become, to what we're prepared to do to human life, if we start using human embryos as just another thing, another product, as . . . a human organ manufacturing plant." Caulfield likes the British proposal. He doesn't think cloning would become widespread even if it were permitted. "I really think by creating simplistic prohibitions against cloning, you're giving legitimacy to the hyperbole that surrounds the genetic revolution?" http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0101/31_eth-cp.html *********** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn