Early in 2005, the government commissioned a review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The committee consisted of; John Lockhart (AO QC), Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, Professor Barry Marshall, Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Loane Skene.
The committee made some 55 recommendations in all, and I'd like to think about each one before saying I understand the report. So this is going to be a many part series, I hope you're willing to indulge me ;-) I’m going to be honest here and admit that I have not read all of the background material in the Lockhart review yet … but I plan to before completing the comments on the final set of recommendations.
I’ve read enough to date to know it will be informative but unsurprising from my perspective, having already been on the pointy end of many ‘controversial’ research topics ;-)
The recommendations, sometimes paraphrased, sometimes not
… and my thoughts.
1 National legislation is desired almost unanimously
I find it interesting that even those Australians very positive about the benefits of cloning & reproductive technologies are keen for it to be done in a legislated environment. On the other hand, there are some real benefits to have the legal boundaries clearly marked and uniform between the states & territories. It’s nice to know that a person who makes an honest effort to do their job within the law won’t be prosecuted & imprisoned for daily work I guess.
2 Human reproductive cloning should remain banned
The high likelihood of some negative health impact on cloned offspring is a really sound reason behind this recommendation. Dolly the sheep and others illustrate some of the potential problems.
I also appreciate the potential psychological and social concerns for a child born knowing they ‘were created’, in some way, albeit as an exact genetic copy of another person. As I happen to have met one or two pairs of identical twins, and lots of young people born through IVF and other reproductive assistance technologies, I know that it is not this fact alone which concerns people. It is really that as potential parents of a genetic clone we do not trust ourselves to act ethically, anticipating that we might be tempted to clone ourselves for a ‘walking organ bank’ instead of a child to help guide to independent adulthood.
The remaining reason cited in the report for making this recommendation is one that I have to admit I simply don’t get. Apparently there are also many who simply believe it is immoral to create a human clone. As in, I gather from the report that many people would object to human cloning even if the technology was safe and there were laws to prevent The Island type scenarios. I’m living in hope that Australians have become so delighted by the evolutionary, cultural, and other benefits of genetic diversity that they want to make it maximal in the population … laughs … but really, I’d love to find out more about the background to this one.
I personally believe there are ethical ways to clone humans, but honest, compassionate, well informed enquiry is the key.
