International response to Dolly: will scientific freedom get sheared?

• Author: Cantrell, Melissa K.
• Position: Cloning

"Freedom is the oxygen without which science cannot breathe."

--David Sarnoff, Chairman of RCA(1)

1. INTRODUCTION

   On February 22, 1997, the researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh shocked the scientific community as well as the world by unveiling the first clone of an adult animal from differentiated cell.(2) Their seven-month old sheep, Dolly, was created from an adult mammary gland cell.(3) Although successful nuclear transplantation ("cloning") was first reported in 1952, all of the experiments involved undifferentiated embryonic cells.(4) Scientists considered it impossible to use the same techniques on differentiated cells from an adult animal.(5) After many failed experiments, a generation of researchers believed that differentiated animal cells could not be reprogrammed to develop into a new animal.(6) Dr. Ian Wilmut, leader of the Roslin research team, and his colleagues proved conventional wisdom wrong.

   The theory behind Dr. Wilmut's technique is that all body cells contain the exact same genetic information as the initial fertilized egg cell (or embryo).(7) As an embryo develops, parts of the genetic message "switch off" through the process of differentiation.(8) This causes the cell to become a specific tissue or organ (the cell is now considered to be differentiated).(9) Dr. Wilmut's trick was to make the DNA of the differentiated donor cell act like the DNA of a sperm or unfertilized egg.(10) He and his team "starved" the mammary cell into a dormant stage by reducing the nutrient-laden serum to the cell,(11) which made it capable of duplicating the entire organism (like an undifferentiated cell).(12) An electrical current was then administered which caused the "starved" mammary cell to fuse, in a process called renucleation, with an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus had previously been removed through enucleation.(13) The resulting embryo was then implanted into a surrogate mother and brought to term.(14) Dolly became an exact genetic duplicate (a clone, or twin) of the mammary cell donor.(15) However, her long-term health is still an uncertainty because her cells may act like the cells of a sheep six years older--the age difference between Dolly and her mother.(16)

   When asked about the applications of this new technology, Dr. Wilmut told Britain's Press Association news agency it would be used "to produce more health care products. It will enable us to study genetic diseases for which there is presently no cure and track down the mechanisms that are involved."(17) Cloning technology, in general, holds the promise of tremendous benefits in agriculture and medicine,(18) and could help save endangered species such as the Hairy Nosed Wombat and China's Giant Panda.(19) Medical advances include "revolutionary medical treatments and life-saving cures for diseases such as cancer, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and emphysema."(20) It can also further understanding of developmental biology and allow physicians to repair and regenerate human tissue in burn victims and those suffering from spinal cord injuries.(21)

   One medical application relates to tissue and organ transplants.(22) There is a greater medical need of transplantable organs than is currently available from any source.(23) It is possible using cloning techniques to grow a replacement organ with the same genetic make-up of the patient to receive it.(24) If organs are derived from the person in whom they will ultimately be transplanted, immune rejections of the implant would be prevented.(25)

   Although scientists have been able to clone animals since the 1950's, Dolly represents two important breakthroughs. Scientifically, she proves that differentiated cells can be "turned back on" and induced to grow into a complete animal.(26) Douglas Foster, an animal science professor at the University of Minnesota, said the event was "mind-boggling because everybody thought you could never de-differentiate cells."(27) Ethically, Dolly represents the possibility of asexual human reproduction--a woman could reproduce without the involvement of a man. "She merely provides her own DNA, her own unfertilized egg, and her own womb."(28)

   Dolly's entrance onto the world stage re-ignited an on-going global debate regarding the ethics of genetic research, and in particular, the cloning of a human. In the United States, President Clinton charged the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to report back to him in ninety days about the moral, scientific, and ethical ramifications of cloning a human being.(29) On the same day, the Foundation of Economic Trends said that it had organized 400 religious and health organizations worldwide to push for new laws banning human cloning.(30) Three bills were introduced in Congress regarding this issue (S. 368 on 2/27/97, and H.R. 922 and 923 on 3/4/97),(31) and the President proposed his legislation on June 9, 1997.(32) As of August 1997, at least thirteen states have also drafted bills to prohibit human cloning.(33)

   Internationally, the Vatican was one of the first to take a public stand on the issue arguing that people have a right to be born in a human way and not in a laboratory.(34) An emergency debate in the European Parliament on March 11, 1997 generated support for a formal Europe-wide prohibition.(35) Many other countries followed suit and banned or introduced legislation to ban human cloning (i.e. Malaysia, China, Japan, etc.).(36) The World Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and UNESCO were among many international organizations who also condemned the practice.(37) The issue was even addressed at the Summit of the Eight held in Denver, CO in June.(38)

   With all the international attention this little sheep has generated, many scientists, lawyers, and members of the pharmaceutical industry are concerned that important research will be thwarted, and life-saving medical breakthroughs frustrated by ill-conceived laws.(39) Although there is no mention in the U.S. Constitution or in U.S. case law of a specific right to freedom of scientific inquiry, the First Amendment free speech clause and the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause support this concept.(40) Justice McReynolds stated in Meyer v. State of Nebraska that "It]he American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted."(41)

   Internationally, the law is even murkier. The UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms the fundamental rights to life, liberty, medical care, and to benefit from scientific progress and its uses, yet prohibits human cloning.(42) Several countries, including France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, forbid embryo research, and Germany and Spain have complete bans against human cloning.(43)

   As the world attempts to harness this new technology for the benefit of all people, careful attention must be paid to the concept of scientific freedom. Historical figures such as Galileo remind us of the tragedy of encumbered scientific inquiry,(44) while Nazi doctor s are a glaring example of medical research gone awry.(45) Medical advances in this century such as heart transplants and in-vitro fertilization were also greeted with the fear and trepidation that cloning received, but thankfully for the millions of lives that have been created or saved, the world did not ban these procedures.(46)

   This Comment will discuss the current threat to scientific freedom posed by absolute bans on human cloning. Parts II and III discuss the response of the United States and the international community to Dolly. Part IV discusses the legal position of scientific freedom in the U.S. and abroad. Finally; Part V will posit that a total ban on human cloning infringes on the freedom of scientific inquiry, and endangers the public by encouraging the establishment of black market cloning clinics.(47)

2. THE UNITED STATES' RESPONSE

   On February 22, 1997, British scientists at the Roslin Institute made the international announcement of Dolly's birth.(48) Two days later, President Clinton requested Dr. Harold T. Shapiro, chairman of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and president of Princeton University to have the commission undertake a ninety day; thorough review of human cloning and recommend ways to prevent abuse of the technology.(49) The eighteen member panel was composed of expert scientists, theologians, and lawyers.(50)

   The science journal Nature published Ian Helmut's results on February 27, 1997.(51) On that same day Senator Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Mo.) introduced S. 368 which would permanently ban federal funding for human cloning research.(52) It was his intent to make sure that human cloning stays in the realm of science fiction.(53) He wanted to send a clear signal that "human cloning is something we cannot and should not tolerate[,]" noting that the notion of cloning a human is repugnant to the public.(54) However, he narrowly drafted the bill so it would not affect plant and animal cloning research or the mapping of the human genome.(55)

   A CNN/Time poll released on March 10, 1997 confirmed Sen. Bond's statement regarding the feelings of the public.(56) Based on interviews with 1,005 adult Americans, most thought cloning animals or humans was morally unacceptable--seventy-four percent said human cloning is against God's will.(57) When asked if they would consider cloning themselves, ninety-one percent said no.(58)

   A week after his request that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission review this technology; Clinton issued a memorandum entitled "Prohibition on Federal Funding for Cloning of Human Beings"(59) In the memorandum, he made clear that because of the profound ethical issues this technology raises, no federal funds would be allocated for human cloning.(60) In his announcement to reporters about the prohibition, Clinton compared this discovery to the splitting of the...