Banning science from meeting fiction
ON NOVEMBER 6, 2003, the legal committee of the UN General Assembly decided that a vote to ban research on the reproductive cloning of human beings need not be taken up till the end of 2005. During deliberations, a little twist related to the research aspect of the issue generated a divided house. The US, along with Costa Rica and the Vatican, had lobbied hard for a comprehensive ban, presumably goaded by anti-abortion groups. But European countries, along with Brazil and South Africa, had lobbied for a partial one: they wished to exempt therapeutic cloning research.
In the eye of the storm lies stem cells. Their ability to replicate and generate specialised cells and tissue holds the promise to treat degenerative diseases like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, leukaemia and spinal chord injury. The most versatile stem cells are obtained from the embryo; this prompts anti-abortion sympathisers to oppose all forms of cloning research. On the other hand, the vast requirement of eggs for research evokes the fear that poor women in developing nations will be exploited for research.
The Interacademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), a global network of science academies, made a strong case for therapeutic cloning in its presentation. IAP strongly calls for a ban on reproductive cloning; cloning non-human mammals, they have found, always generates higher incidence of foetal disorder. It might be possible one day to reduce such incidence, but such cloning