None, whatsoever…. Take your ranks alongside Pope Paul V, who in tried to stop Galileo. Alta Charo, some experiments can be protected under the First Amendment. Finally, it is worth noting that there are already many examples of restrictions on scientific research today, most obviously laws and regulations protecting human research subjects and the welfare of animals used in experiments. The distinction between a temporary moratorium and a permanent prohibition is not clear-cut, since Congress can revisit and overturn past laws or can indefinitely renew any temporary moratorium.
Some policymakers may find a cloning moratorium attractive because it would imply that the justification for a prohibition may change in the future. But the most important reasons for outlawing human cloning are not historically relative.
The chief arguments against cloning — that it would warp the relationship between the generations and that it is an unjust and destructive exploitation of human life — will not lose their force no matter what scientific or cultural developments take place in the coming years, and the first experimental use of cloning-to-produce-children will always be an unethical form of human experimentation. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that we will have better conditions for reasoning about the morality of human cloning in the future than we do today.
Despite widespread agreement in the wake of the Dolly announcement that at least cloning-to-produce-children should be prohibited, and despite many efforts from legislators to enact such a prohibition, there is no nationwide prohibition on cloning in the United States.
But laws and regulations prohibiting cloning can be crafted to comport with the Constitution, and to overcome objections related to reproductive freedom and the First Amendment. In the final section of this report , we recommend policies that can be implemented to put a stop to human cloning. The New Atlantis is building a culture in which science and technology work for, not on, human beings. Summer The Threat of Human Cloning. We are the only publication of our kind, dedicated to exploring science and technology as a cultural project — one that might elevate our humanity or degrade it.
Projects Journal Blogs Books. About Subscribe Search Sign in. About Us Contact Praise Donate. About Us. Subscribe today for early access to new articles and subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today. Sign in to access subscriber-only content and to manage your account. Sign in or Subscribe Now for audio version. Get our newsletter.
For updates about our latest work. First veto: George W. Second veto: George W. Bush , Book I , Washington, D. Order No. Obama , Book I , Washington, D. Sherley v. In , the U. Court of Appeals found that research on stem cell lines was sufficiently dissimilar to the actual creation or destruction of embryos to be permissible under Dickey-Wicker.
Therefore, while the Dickey-Wicker Amendment still prohibits the U. Altering the guidelines to permit funding on stem cell lines derived from cloned embryos would require that restriction to be revised. Such policy changes would likely pose political difficulties, not only because they would remind the public of the connection between stem cell research and human cloning, but because of the risks that such research imposes on women who donate eggs — an issue that raises concerns across the political spectrum.
Sparman, Masahito Tachibana, and Shoukhrat M. Covington and William E. Lopez , U. See also United States v. Morrison , U. See, for example, Coby S. Wilson , 73 F. The same court later rejected the argument that the regulation in question violates the First Amendment protection of free speech.
United States v. Wilson , F. Gonzales v. Carhart , U. On the question of the commerce clause, notice the concurrence of Justice Thomas, ibid. Dole , U.
Klutznick , U. United States , U. On the matter of coercion, see also National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , U. This technique essentially used the cell nucleus from an adult cell that is transferred into an unfertilized oocyte that had its cell nucleus removed. After stimulating the cell to divide, the resulting blastocyte was transported into the surrogate mother.
At the time of Dolly's creation, the technology to clone mammals was highly inefficient. Dolly was the only lamb that survived to adulthood in over attempts [2]. Questions quickly arose as to whether the technique could be used for humans. Recently, in January , two identical Macaque monkeys were created by researchers in China out of over 70 attempts [3].
By using techniques to undo chemical modifications in DNA that occur when embryonic cells turn into specialized cells, the researchers expanded upon the somatic cell nuclear transfer technology [4]. Given the inefficient nature of cloning, the expense to clone an animal can be quite high. Interestingly, many executives at these companies admit to being approached by wealthy individuals inquiring about human cloning [7].
Since Dolly's creation, a legal framework regarding the regulatory issues and patentability of human cloning has created an oddly patched quilt. Within the United States, federal laws and regulations focus on addressing funding and only indirectly relate to cloning. On the state level, several states passed various laws regarding cloning. World-wide many countries banned human cloning altogether [8].
The state seems to permit cloning-for-biomedical-research. Nebraska has no laws directly prohibiting either cloning-for-biomedical-research or cloning-to-produce-children, but a law does prohibit the Nebraska government from funding somatic cell nuclear transfer, which effectively prohibits state funding for any form of human cloning. There are currently no laws in Nevada that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children. New Hampshire. There are currently no laws in New Hampshire that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
New Jersey. New Jersey permits cloning-for-biomedical-research and prohibits cloning-to-produce-children. New Mexico. There are currently no laws in New Mexico that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children. New York. New York law does not directly prohibit cloning-to-produce-children or cloning-for-biomedical research.
North Carolina. There are currently no laws in North Carolina that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
North Dakota. North Dakota prohibits all forms of human cloning. There are currently no laws in Ohio that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children. Oklahoma prohibits all forms of human cloning. There are currently no laws in Oregon that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children. There are currently no laws in Pennsylvania that directly prohibit cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
Rhode Island. Rhode Island permits cloning-for-biomedical-research while prohibiting cloning-to-produce-children. The state has in fact passed three cloning laws, each with sunset provisions. The first, passed in , was due to expire in However, the law explicitly permits somatic cell nuclear transfer, making it mandatory in Rhode Island for scientists either to freeze in perpetuity or to destroy any cloned embryos they create. South Carolina. There are currently no laws in South Carolina that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
South Dakota. South Dakota prohibits all forms of human cloning. There are currently no laws in Tennessee that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
There are currently no laws in Texas that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children. There are currently no laws in Utah that prohibit human cloning, whether for biomedical research or to produce children.
0コメント