 |
 |
The Hill Times Monday, February 24, 2003 Not all cloning is alike MPs must not let outrageous claims of Raelians drive national policy development By TIMOTHY CAULFIELD, ABDULLAH DAAR, BARTHA KNOPPERS, PETER A. SINGER, DAVID CASTLE, RON FORBES 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 per cent 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 last week 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 U.S., 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 per cent oppose any law that restricts research into human cloning; 39 per cent support a ban on human reproductive cloning, while allowing research on cloned embryos; and only 33 per cent 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 Jan. 17 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 new 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, is the Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta; Abdallah Daar, is a professor of Public Health Sciences and Surgery and Director, Program in Applied Ethics and Biotechnology, at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics; Bartha Knoppers, is Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine, at the University of Montreal; Peter A. Singer, is a Professor of Medicine and Director, at the University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics; David Castle, is a PhD, at the Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph; and Ron Forbes, is president and CEO, of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). © February 24, 2003 The Hill Times SOURCE: The Hill Times http://www.thehilltimes.ca/2003/february/24/caulfield/ * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn