United Nations fails to agree on human cloning
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A United Nations committee debated an international convention on human cloning at a meeting last week but failed to reach an agreement. Commentators were predicting, as the BMJ went to press, that a vote might take place next week.
The meeting debated two proposals on human cloning. The first proposal, from Costa Rica and supported by the United States and more than 60 other countries, recommended a complete ban on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
A second proposal from Belgium, co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, suggested a ban on reproductive cloning but would allow UN member countries to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning. It had the support of about 20 countries. Many countries were still undecided as the BMJ went to press.
At the meeting France agreed to support the Belgian proposal and became a co-sponsor, taking the total number of co-sponsors to 22. Botswana, speaking on behalf of the nations of the Southern African Development Community, said it would not vote in favour of the Costa Rican proposal.
Liz Woodeson, head of the UK government delegation, told the meeting: 揥e would like to see a worldwide ban on reproductive cloning, and we will support any initiative by the United Nations that would achieve an effective global prohibition.
揌owever, we cannot support any attempt to ban or unreasonably restrict cloning for research purposes, known as therapeutic cloning. We are convinced that therapeutic cloning holds enormous promise for new treatments for serious degenerative conditions that are currently incurable.?/p>
Ms Woodeson explained that therapeutic cloning was allowed in the United Kingdom because of the huge potential health benefits, but it was very strictly regulated. She addressed three of the key arguments that other delegations put forward at a UN meeting last year against therapeutic cloning. The first was that it was impossible to ban one type of cloning and not the other because the technology used was the same in both cases. 揟he technology is indeed the same, but it is entirely possible to frame legislation that bans reproductive cloning only. We have done it in the UK.?/p>
The second was that therapeutic cloning would require a limitless supply of eggs. 揟his is not the case,?explained Ms Woodeson. 揑n the UK we have created the first stem cell bank in the world.?All UK researchers are obliged to donate a sample of their embryonic cell lines to the bank. The bank then cultures them and makes them available to other researchers. The aim is that eventually the bank will store sufficient stem cell lines to provide a match for all the main human tissue types.
The third argument was that adult stem cells could be used instead of embryonic stem cells. 揑n the UK we support research into all types of stem cells because we believe it is simply too early to say which type will prove the most beneficial,?Ms Woodeson said. 揃ut it is already clear that there are some things you can do using therapeutic cloning which you simply cannot do with adult stem cells. For example, using therapeutic cloning it is possible to develop stem cell lines with particular characteristics.?/p>
A spokesperson for the Royal Society, the UK抯 national academy of science, said: 揥e hope that the discussion at the United Nations on human cloning has helped many countries realise the flexibility that the Belgian proposal gives to individual countries. At the end of two days there has been no vote on the issue, but if one is proposed in the coming week we strongly urge all countries to vote against the Costa Rican proposal for a ban on both human reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Instead they should vote for the Belgian proposal, which would ban reproductive cloning worldwide but allow individual countries to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning.?/p>(London Susan Mayor)
The meeting debated two proposals on human cloning. The first proposal, from Costa Rica and supported by the United States and more than 60 other countries, recommended a complete ban on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
A second proposal from Belgium, co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, suggested a ban on reproductive cloning but would allow UN member countries to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning. It had the support of about 20 countries. Many countries were still undecided as the BMJ went to press.
At the meeting France agreed to support the Belgian proposal and became a co-sponsor, taking the total number of co-sponsors to 22. Botswana, speaking on behalf of the nations of the Southern African Development Community, said it would not vote in favour of the Costa Rican proposal.
Liz Woodeson, head of the UK government delegation, told the meeting: 揥e would like to see a worldwide ban on reproductive cloning, and we will support any initiative by the United Nations that would achieve an effective global prohibition.
揌owever, we cannot support any attempt to ban or unreasonably restrict cloning for research purposes, known as therapeutic cloning. We are convinced that therapeutic cloning holds enormous promise for new treatments for serious degenerative conditions that are currently incurable.?/p>
Ms Woodeson explained that therapeutic cloning was allowed in the United Kingdom because of the huge potential health benefits, but it was very strictly regulated. She addressed three of the key arguments that other delegations put forward at a UN meeting last year against therapeutic cloning. The first was that it was impossible to ban one type of cloning and not the other because the technology used was the same in both cases. 揟he technology is indeed the same, but it is entirely possible to frame legislation that bans reproductive cloning only. We have done it in the UK.?/p>
The second was that therapeutic cloning would require a limitless supply of eggs. 揟his is not the case,?explained Ms Woodeson. 揑n the UK we have created the first stem cell bank in the world.?All UK researchers are obliged to donate a sample of their embryonic cell lines to the bank. The bank then cultures them and makes them available to other researchers. The aim is that eventually the bank will store sufficient stem cell lines to provide a match for all the main human tissue types.
The third argument was that adult stem cells could be used instead of embryonic stem cells. 揑n the UK we support research into all types of stem cells because we believe it is simply too early to say which type will prove the most beneficial,?Ms Woodeson said. 揃ut it is already clear that there are some things you can do using therapeutic cloning which you simply cannot do with adult stem cells. For example, using therapeutic cloning it is possible to develop stem cell lines with particular characteristics.?/p>
A spokesperson for the Royal Society, the UK抯 national academy of science, said: 揥e hope that the discussion at the United Nations on human cloning has helped many countries realise the flexibility that the Belgian proposal gives to individual countries. At the end of two days there has been no vote on the issue, but if one is proposed in the coming week we strongly urge all countries to vote against the Costa Rican proposal for a ban on both human reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Instead they should vote for the Belgian proposal, which would ban reproductive cloning worldwide but allow individual countries to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning.?/p>(London Susan Mayor)