"Second Thoughts About the Cloning 'Victory' at the U.N. and Passing a U.S. 'Ban'; Definitions, Definitions, Definitions"

Dianne N. Irving
Copyright March 9, 2005
Reproduced with Permission

I. Introduction

As Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, has recently put it:

"The United Nations (U.N.) has voted to ban all forms of human cloning as inconsistent with human dignity. ... The U.N. is showing the leadership that the U.S. Senate should provide. The Senate needs to take a firm moral stand and pass a total ban on human cloning as President Bush has previously asked it to do." (see full press release copied below; emphases added)

Presumably, then, (1) the U.N. has voted (non-binding) to "ban all forms of human cloning", and (2) we here in the U.S. should follow suit with due haste and pass the Brownback "total human cloning ban" (binding). But is this really the "prolife victory" as depicted? Let's look briefly at these two claims one at a time, just focusing on the formal scientific definition of "human cloning" used by them in these feisty cloning debates.

II. "The U.N. has voted to ban all forms of human cloning"

I would point out, as many before me already have, that the human cloning debates were mis-framed for us very early on in terms of the (false) distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning. The terms "therapeutic" and "reproductive" do not refer to different kinds or forms of human cloning (of which there are many); rather, they simply refer to the different purposes for performing human cloning (regardless of the kinds or forms of human cloning techniques used).

Therefore, the phrase "banning all forms of human cloning" as used in the U.N. document just passed must mean the banning of any and all kinds or forms of human cloning (of which there are many) for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes. Put simply, the U.N. document purports to ban all human cloning - regardless of the kind or form of cloning technique used, and regardless of the purposes intended. Right? Isn't that what the "fierce" debates at the U.N. have been all about?

Wrong. This would be a terrific victory, indeed - as long as the term "human cloning" is defined scientifically accurately and includes all kinds or forms of cloning techniques - such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT), twinning, pronuclei transfer, and a host of other genetic engineering techniques that can also produce new living human beings for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes.

However, that is not how the term "human cloning" has been defined or used in these U.N. debates. Rather, "human cloning" has been mis-defined as referring only to the use of nuclear transfer using somatic cells (SCNT). Period. It has not been defined as including nuclear transfer using germ line cells (GLCNT), twinning, pronuclei transfer or a host of other genetic engineering techniques. Therefore, according to their own operative definition of "human cloning", the U.N. "ban" bans (non-binding) only the "cloning" of human beings using the SCNT cloning technique for "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes. It does not ban any of the other kinds or forms of human cloning techniques - for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

So the question must arise: If the U.N. document means by the term "human cloning" only the use of the SCNT human cloning technique, then does this U.N. document really ban "all forms of human cloning" for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes? No. It only bans one kind or form of cloning - SCNT - when used for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes. It does not ban the use of any other kinds or forms of human cloning techniques - for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

Furthermore, since even the SCNT human cloning technique has itself previously been mis-defined scientifically in their debates (i.e., as producing a human embryo that is "virtually genetically identical to any existing or previously existing human being"), then even human cloning by means of the real SCNT cloning technique is not really banned by this U.N. document (since the real SCNT cloning technique produces a human embryo who is genetically unique). So if neither the cloning of human beings using the real SCNT cloning technique, nor the cloning of human beings using any of the other numerous human cloning techniques, are really banned by this U.N. document -- is this even a "symbolic" prolife "victory"?

III. "The Senate needs to take a firm moral stand and pass a total ban on human cloning"

So now the U.N. "victory" is "embarrassing" the U.S. which has as yet not passed a similar "total human cloning ban" - and the U.S. bill to which Perkins is referring is the Brownback "total human cloning ban". The U.S. should follow suit immediately and pass this U.S. "total human cloning ban".

But the problem is the similarities in the erroneous and insufficient scientific "definitions" used in both cases. As most pieces of legislation specifically state, if something is not specifically articulated in the bill, then the bill does not cover or apply to it - that is, it can continue without any legal consequences. This is the legal issue. Once again, the Brownback bill defines "human cloning" only in terms of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique. It does not include in the bill's formal definition of "cloning" all the other human cloning techniques that could be used - for both "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes - such as germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT), twinning, pronuclei transfer, and a host of other genetic engineering techniques. Therefore, it legally allows them to be used.

Thus the question must arise: If the Brownback "total human cloning ban" defines "human cloning" only in terms of the SCNT human cloning technique, then it is really a "total human cloning ban"? And if even the formal scientific definition of "SCNT" used in the bill is scientifically erroneous, then the bill doesn't even ban the use of the real SCNT cloning technique; it does not "at least ban some human cloning". It bans no human cloning. And this would be a "prolife victory"?

Therefore, as with the recent U.N human cloning document, because of the erroneous and insufficient formal scientific definitions used, the U.S. bill bans no human cloning - for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes. I find both situations embarrassing.

Worse, although the U.N. human cloning document is non-binding on countries, the Brownback "total human cloning ban" would be binding - legally binding, federally binding, and become stare decisis (legal precedent) to be applied to any future related issues in the courts. And that is where the similarities stop.


View this Press Release online at:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05C06&f=PR05C06&t=e


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 9, 2005 CONTACT:
Amber Hildebrand,
(202) 393-2100

Victory at the U.N.!

That the United Nations recognizes the pitfalls of the unethical science of cloning before the United States of America, is embarrassing." ~Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Washington, D.C. - The United Nations (U.N.) has voted to ban all forms of human cloning as inconsistent with human dignity. Eighty-four countries, including the United States, voted for the resolution. Thirty-four countries, including Great Britain, voted against the ban and thirty-seven countries, including many Islamic nations, opted to abstain from the vote on the grounds that the U.N. had yet to issue an official stance on whether stem-cell research was a valid medical pursuit or the willful destruction of life. The United Nations has called on member states to adopt urgent legislation outlawing all cloning practices.

FRC resident stem cell and cloning expert, Dr. David Prentice, worked alongside the Costa Rican delegation which sponsored the resolution in educating member nations on the true malevolent nature of embryonic stem cell research and so-called therapeutic cloning."

"The U.N. has taken a strong moral stand. The global community has firmly stated that it will not condone any use of human cloning, because it is an affront to human dignity and an abuse of science to manufacture experimental human beings," says Prentice.

"That the United Nations recognizes the pitfalls of the unethical science of cloning before the United States of America, is embarrassing," laments Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.

"The U.N. is showing the leadership that the U.S. Senate should provide. The Senate needs to take a firm moral stand and pass a total ban on human cloning as President Bush has previously asked it to do," continues Perkins.

"This vote will change history. For the first time, a world body has recognized that therapeutic cloning does involve the creation of human life and then promptly destroying it. This is a great victory for advocates for life."

Top