Tragedies mistaken for triumphs

Whether the recent claim by Clonaid, that it has produced a cloned human being proves to be correct or not, the fact is that many individuals and research establishments are keen to be the first to show that cloning is a viable procedure. There are many scientists who would be only too happy to be the first to clone a human being.

Unfortunately, there are too many who have become desperate to end their wait to have a family and they look on cloning as a last resort. Others have less worthy reasons for trying to make an image unto themselves.

So why is it that every ethical committee has condemned the procedure? Why is it that the Council of Europe has thought it fit to promote a protocol prohibiting the use of cloning to produce human beings?

Firstly, from the purely scientific point of view, responsible institutions, including those most involved in extensive animal experimentation, point to the multiple physical problems associated with the process of cloning. These include severe chromosomal abnormalities leading to genetic problems, including frequent miscarriages, early death of the animal, or marked pathological features, such as severe arthritis or disease of the liver and other organs. Before these "technical" problems are solved it would be irresponsible folly to try the technique on human beings.

From the ethical point of view, the process of knowingly and artificially producing a human being that shares the totality of its nuclear genetic material (DNA) with another human being is considered abhorrent. It denies the new creature its autonomy and individuality. It will always be a copy of someone else. Indeed, Jürgen Habermas, a renowned philosopher, says: "The clone is comparable to a slave".

The obvious question has been: why have nations been dragging their feet about banning human cloning altogether? The Convention of Bioethics has been in existence since 1997 but so far only a handful of European states have ratified it, although the majority have signed both the convention and the associated protocol on cloning. In Malta, in spite of repeated public statements by the relevant authorities, we still have not signed this convention. It is worth emphasising that no European convention has any effect on local legislation unless our parliament ratifies it.

Moreover, such a European instrument would have no effect on any other people but Europeans - hence the need that has been felt that the United Nations should push for such a directive to ban cloning. A German-French recommendation to this effect is currently being debated at the UN but, unfortunately, it is facing a stalemate because of the confusion created by the related but quite distinct process of therapeutic cloning.

So what is the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning?

In reproductive cloning, the aim is to produce one or several individuals who share genetic identity with someone else. This is done by transferring a nucleus from a cell taken from a donor and implanting it into an ovum whose own nucleus has been removed. The ovum (which therefore contains all the genetic material from the one donor) is then implanted into a uterus.

Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, refers to the process of manipulating cells obtained from an embryo for the purpose of producing useful cell lines that can be used to replace dead of deficient body cells. This is currently a booming research procedure full of potential for replacing hormones or even whole organs. In some countries, embryos left over from in vitro fertilisation procedures (from infertility clinics) are used for this process. In some countries (like the UK and Finland), legislation demands that embryos have to be created specifically for research purposes. In other countries - including Malta, Germany and Ireland - embryo manipulations of any kind are prohibited.

While the German-French proposal for banning reproductive cloning should have been acceptable to most nations, the same cannot be said for therapeutic cloning.

The insistence by the Bush administration and some other states (including the Vatican) to lump together both types of cloning at the UN is a sure recipe for rejection of both.

It is only by considering the two issues separately that a worldwide ban on reproductive cloning is likely to be achieved.