Attention News/Health Editors:
Leading Canadian Bio-ethicists Unite to urge Parliament:
Regulate - Don't Ban Therapeutic Cloning
TORONTO, Feb. 24 /CNW/ - Several of Canada's top bio-ethicists, along
with a research funding organization, have come together to urge
Canada's Parliament to regulate "therapeutic" cloning, but not to
prohibit it.
Bill C-13, an Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction, in the
final debate stages in the House of Commons, calls for a ban on human
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), commonly known as therapeutic
cloning. The group of leading research academics and the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) are making a final plea to
Parliamentarians to reconsider this decision.
"We feel that Parliamentarians are about to pass an unwarranted
statutory criminal ban on a potentially useful procedure," says
Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy,
University of Alberta.
Professor Caulfield, along with Abdallah Daar, Bartha Knoppers,
Peter A. Singer, David Castle and Ron Forbes have submitted an
opinion editorial for publication in the Hill Times, Canada's
parliamentary weekly newspaper.
SCNT involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell,
replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a "somatic cell"
(a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this
cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can
be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research.
The researchers note that this technology offers a strong
potential for medical and scientific benefits. They also point that
out that many jurisdictions, including, recently, the State of
California, made a decision to regulate instead of prohibit
therapeutic cloning because of its great potential.
"Policy makers must be careful not to let outrageous,
unsubstantiated claims drive national policy development", said Peter
A. Singer, Professor of Medicine and Director, University of Toronto
Joint Centre for Bioethics.
Dr. Singer was referring to recent publicity claiming that human
beings have been cloned.
Poll after poll shows that a majority of Canadians support
research cloning. For example, a 2002 IPSOS-REID poll found that 61%
of Canadians approve of therapeutic cloning.
"We would be better served to consider regulations that allows
for promising research to proceed, so that we won't close the door to
potential medical advances and potential life-saving cures for many
serious diseases in our society, such as juvenile (type 1) diabetes"
says Ron Forbes, President and CEO, JDRF.
To support therapeutic cloning, visit
http://www.therapeuticcloning.ca
The opinion editorial piece:
---------------------------
Over the past few months, Parliamentarians have heard a lot of
commentary on the policy issues associated with reproductive and
"therapeutic" cloning.
In many respects this dynamic debate is ideal, as it should inform
the final political debates on Bill C-13, The Assisted Human
Reproduction Act. We realize that amendments to this Bill,
particularly in the context of therapeutic cloning, are, at this
time, not likely. Nevertheless, we feel that Parliamentarians are
about to pass an unwarranted statutory criminal ban on a
potentially useful procedure. As such, we offer the following
critical observations.
First, not all cloning is alike. And not all cloning is
associated with the same issues, a point highlighted again and again
by numerous academic and policy groups. To cite just one example, in
2002 the California government's Advisory Committee on Human Cloning,
which was an interdisciplinary group of world renowned scholars,
stated as follows: "California should not prohibit but should
reasonably regulate human non-reproductive cloning. We believe that
use of this technology offers potential medical and scientific
benefits while not raising many of the same concerns as human
reproductive cloning." The California government has adopted this
recommendation.
Yes, "therapeutic" cloning and reproductive cloning use similar
techniques. But just as we don't have a statutory ban on research on
atomic energy or dangerous chemicals, we shouldn't ban all forms of
cloning research simply because they may be abused. We should
carefully regulate the technology, knowing that regulating does not
automatically mean permission to proceed. Indeed, if we took this
"slippery slope" argument to the extreme, we would need to ban
research on radiation therapy for cancer because the research can be
associated with the abuse of nuclear physics.
Second, all available evidence indicates that the public is
completely capable of understanding the distinction between
reproductive cloning and cloning for the purpose of research. Poll
after poll has shown that a majority of Canadians support research
cloning (e.g., the well known 2002 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 61% of
Canadians approve of the creation of cloned human embryos for
collecting stem cells).
In addition, recent focus group data from the University of
Calgary, while preliminary, also found strong support for the
technique. The research, which was presented recently at a national
conference in Montreal, found that 23 out of 27 participants
supported the use of cloning for research purposes.
Only two of the participants felt it should be banned. Even in the
US, where views are generally more conservative, there is evidence
that the public understands the distinction between research and
reproductive cloning. A 2001 Ipsos-Reid poll found that of those
surveyed, 21% oppose any law that restricts research into human
cloning; 39% support a ban on human reproductive cloning, while
allowing research on cloned embryos; and only 33% support a
complete ban on all human cloning.
Third, it must be remembered that arguments about the possible
efficacy and utility of therapeutic cloning, while interesting and
important from a science policy perspective, are not, on their own,
relevant to a consideration of a statutory ban. You don't ban
something because it doesn't work or is unnecessary. There has to be
an independent and principled reason for the ban itself, usually
associated with a clear social harm. And it should not be forgotten
that in liberal democracies it is generally accepted that a criminal
statutory ban should be an instrument of last resort.
Parliamentarians should ask themselves "is a statutory criminal ban
absolutely necessary to achieve our policy goals?" not "does it
work?"
That said, there is emerging "proof of principle" evidence from
animal studies that supports the possible therapeutic applications of
"therapeutic cloning."
Fourth, policy makers must be careful not to let outrageous,
unsubstantiated claims, such as those of the Raelians, drive national
policy development. "Cloning Claim is Science Fiction, Not Science"
states a January 17th letter to Science, co-authored by the father of
mammalian cloning, Ian Wilmut. The letter goes on to note that
"debates over ethics ... should be separated from the fantasy
currently occupying news reports."
Parliamentarians should be wary of those seeking to exploit
presumed media hoaxes for the purpose of policy development. No
reasoned, reasonable or principled approach can come from responding
(and, by implication,legitimizing) the Raelian fear-mongering. Don't
carry a ban on therapeutic cloning on the back of the distaste
generated by the Raelian's claim of reproductive cloning.
Statutory bans are inflexible, take a long time to change and do
little to facilitate an ongoing, open and constructive dialogue,
which is absolutely essential in this context. We would be better
served to consider regulations that allow for promising research to
proceed, so that we won't close the door to potential medical
advances and potential life-saving cures for many serious
diseases in our society.
Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy,
University of Alberta
Abdallah Daar, Professor of Public Health Sciences and Surgery and
Director, Program in Applied Ethics and Biotechnology, University of
Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics
Bartha Knoppers, Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine,
University of Montreal
Peter A. Singer, Professor Medicine and Director, University of
Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics
David Castle, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of
Philosophy, University of Guelph
Ron Forbes, President and CEO, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
(JDRF)
-30-
For further information:
Timothy Caulfield, 780-492-8358;
Peter A. Singer, 416-978-4756;
Elaine Flis, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation,
(905) 944-8700 ext. 268, (416) 522-5761 cell
JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION
has 42 releases in this database.
SOURCE: Canada News Wire
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/February2003/24/c2993.html
* * *
Murray Charters <[log in to unmask]>
http://www.geocities.com/murraycharters/
http://www.therapeuticcloning.ca/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
