“BIO is circulating [Californian] legislation to promote its solution for therapeutic technologies,” the memo said. He goes on to say that opponents of unregulated cloning technology are fighting against government efforts to allow the cloning of human embryos for stem cell extraction. “They understand the effort to create stem cell research at the state level.” On 13 December 2001, the United Nations General Assembly began drafting an international convention against human reproductive cloning. A broad coalition of States, including Italy, the Philippines, Costa Rica, the Holy See and Spain, had sought to broaden the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that they believed therapeutic human cloning violated human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention banning all forms of human cloning. In the absence of consensus on a binding agreement, a non-binding United Nations declaration on human cloning had been adopted in March 2005, calling for the prohibition of all forms of human cloning that violated human dignity. [79] [80] Work on cloning techniques has broadened our basic understanding of human developmental biology. The observation of human pluripotent stem cells grown in culture provides a good insight into the development of the human embryo that is not seen otherwise. Scientists are now able to better define the stages of early human development. The study of signal transduction as well as genetic manipulation in the early human embryo has the potential to provide answers to many diseases and developmental defects. Many human-specific signaling pathways have been discovered by studying human embryonic stem cells. The study of developmental pathways in humans has provided developmental biologists with more evidence for the hypothesis that developmental pathways are preserved in all species. [25] Proponents of a convention banning the reproductive cloning of human beings have expressed concern that an attempt to ban all forms of cloning would undermine efforts to reach an agreement before a cloned human being is produced.

This view implies that a convention could be negotiated and brought into force in a very short period of time. It took several years for the recent conventions of the United Nations General Assembly to enter into force. In order to effectively ban “reproductive” cloning, human cloning must be banned. Under a partial ban allowing the creation of cloned embryos for research purposes, human embryos are largely cloned in laboratories and assisted reproduction facilities. Once the cloned embryos were available, it would be virtually impossible to control what would be done to them. Stocks of embryonic clones could be produced, bought and sold without anyone knowing. The implantation of cloned embryos would take place out of sight, and even elaborate and intrusive regulations and police departments would have great difficulty detecting or preventing the onset of a clonal pregnancy. Once an illegal clonal pregnancy has begun, it would be virtually impossible to detect. The ban on “reproductive” cloning would therefore be a false ban that would create the illusion that such cloning had been banned.

In addition, a fully effective ban would require general acceptance to ensure that there were no safe havens for cloning activities. On 19 April 2002, the Federal Assembly of Russia adopted Federal Law N 54-FZ on the temporary prohibition of human cloning. On 20 May 2002, President Vladimir Putin signed this moratorium on the implementation of human cloning. On 29 March 2010, the Federal Assembly adopted the second revision of this law for an indefinite period. [68] Congress` first attempt to ban human cloning was introduced in the House of Representatives in early March 1997, just days after Dolly News announced. In addition, some States had now passed their own laws, in some cases to ban cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and in others to authorize therapeutic cloning and even pledge millions of dollars in funding, particularly in California. There are other cloning techniques that do not raise these moral and ethical concerns. For example, scientists commonly use cell or molecular cloning in their work to make genetically identical cells for research. Although these other cloning techniques can be used to develop therapies to treat the disease, scientists do not use the term “therapeutic” to describe these techniques. On the contrary, as noted above, the term “therapeutic” cloning is used by scientists to describe somatic nuclear transfer cloning for therapeutic purposes, as opposed to reproductive purposes. The latter type of cloning is also known as “experimental” cloning or “research cloning”. Would banning human cloning violate the “right to scientific research”? Some policymakers and legal analysts have argued that banning cloning for biomedical research would violate an amorphous First Amendment right to participate in scientific experiments.

Currently, there is no federal law in the United States that completely prohibits cloning. Fifteen US states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Florida, Georgia and Virginia) prohibit reproductive cloning and three states (Arizona, Maryland and Missouri) prohibit the use of public funds for such activities. [84] India does not have specific cloning laws, but policies prohibiting whole-human cloning or reproductive cloning. India allowed therapeutic cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. [64] [65] Elsewhere, opinions and laws are equally diverse. Europe is divided on these issues. Most countries, including Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands, have adopted laws prohibiting reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Nevertheless, they are in the curious position of not going as far as countries like Italy, Ireland, Norway and Denmark, which have also restricted research on human embryonic stem cells. This raises an interesting moral question about whether these countries will allow their patients to receive the treatments that will be developed in the future using technologies they deem unacceptable. By contrast, in the United States, despite an influential religious lobby that systematically condemns all embryonic research, there is no primary federal legislation regulating all forms of human cloning. This reflects a split between those who firmly believe that cloning should be banned and those who only want reproductive cloning banned, and the inability to legislate properly despite numerous and sustained efforts.

Scientists are known to be smart, but instead of focusing on cloning human teeth and other organs that can help a lot of people, they waste their time on research like this, there is a lot of useful research you can do than waste your time on this research. The FDA said it believes it has jurisdiction over the process, but that doesn`t make the process illegal. In fact, someone could clone a human in the U.S. without FDA permission, and it still wouldn`t necessarily be illegal. While there is overwhelming consensus among members of Congress to ban reproductive cloning or the creation of a genetically identical human, lawmakers are almost equally divided over whether to allow less controversial therapeutic cloning research, leading to a legislative deadlock.