Those with the highest levels of education and income give majority support to the cloning of animals, and men are more supportive than women. There is also a religious dimension to patterns of support for cloning, with non-religious Americans being far more supportive of animal cloning than are those who are more religious.
In fact, a majority of Americans who say religion is "not very important" in their lives say that cloning of animals should be allowed. Most Americans do not expect that cloning will be possible or frequent in the near future. Fifteen percent of respondents say it will never be possible to clone humans. In the poll, roughly two-thirds of Americans feel human cloning will not be legal in and six in 10 do not feel human cloning will be commonplace in A substantial minority of Americans, however, feel human cloning will be commonplace by Discover a valuable tool for business owners, policymakers and investors to reliably assess companies' potential for growth.
Subscribe to the Gallup News brief and real time alerts. Stay up to date with our latest insights. How would you describe your own health at this time?
Would you say your health is -- excellent, good, just fair, or poor? How would you describe your own mental health or emotional wellbeing at this time?
Would you say it is -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Next, I'm going to read you a list of issues. The old, hierarchical model of multilateral governance is considered too rigid Pauwelyn et al. Traditional intergovernmental organizations have not adapted to the increasing complexity of society and the ensuing need for flexible regulatory mechanisms that can keep pace with scientific development Pauwelyn et al. These problems have led to changes and innovations in both the theory and practice of global governance Ruggie, ; Weiss and Wilkinson, ; Pegram and Acuto, : As Pauwelyn et al.
The international system is becoming more pluralist and less dominated by sovereign states pursuing narrow interests. There has been movement towards voluntary rather than binding regulation, as well as capacity building Pauwelyn et al.
Particularly for emerging areas, such as the internet, regulation has been informal, with no discussion of a legally binding treaty Pauwelyn et al. Although the idea of human cloning excites strong views, there is much confusion about what it would actually entail. These terms are not scientifically accurate, but are commonly used nevertheless. They stem from the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, whereby an enucleated egg receives a nucleus from a somatic body cell. In reproductive cloning, the embryo is implanted into a female for gestation.
Through this method, Dolly the Sheep became the first mammal to be cloned in July In therapeutic cloning, an embryo is harvested for stem cells rather than brought to term Wilmut et al.
Although therapeutic cloning is held by many to have great potential medically, as a source of compatible tissue and organs for those who need transplants, it generates considerable controversy.
For people who see human life as beginning at fertilization, therapeutic cloning is also reproductive Isasi et al. Since the cloning of Dolly the Sheep, ethicists, lawyers and scientists have argued vigorously both for and against developing this technology for use in humans. Those in favour draw on liberal values, citing reproductive freedom, or hope that cloning will provide a new means to tackle infertility.
Those against fear for the psychological health of the clone, who would be unable to enjoy what they see as the inherently human quality of having a unique identity. In most cases, their laws refer to somatic cell nuclear transfer rather than cloning more generally and thus newer technologies are not covered Lo et al. Hence, at the request of France and Germany, in the UN General Assembly began to deliberate on a binding treaty to prohibit human reproductive cloning. Four years of dispute and discord followed.
Some states were concerned that an embargo on reproductive cloning specifically would implicitly endorse therapeutic or research cloning, whilst those wishing to pursue therapeutic cloning could not support a holistic ban.
With agreement on a binding convention seemingly elusive, the General Assembly opted for a non-binding declaration. It is considered too weak an instrument to either thwart rogue research or promote legitimate scientific endeavour Isasi and Annas, : 63; United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, : Each committee has 36 members. Regular joint meetings of the two committees are also held. The IBC has various functions, including promoting bioethics education and reflection on ethical issues.
The IBC works on the basis of 2-year Work Programmes human cloning, for example, featured in the — and — programmes , with reflections on particular topics being drafted by specially appointed Working Groups, comprising a small number of IBC members, over the 2-year cycle. Each Group presents their work-in-progress at IBC and IGBC meetings and takes the views expressed at these meetings into account in their final reports. Scholars from both within and without the Bioethics Programme have analysed its efficacy as a forum for ethical debate and standard-setting.
Footnote 1 These analyses have mostly focused on the negotiation of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The interest-based bargaining often seen within intergovernmental organizations led to vague wording on beginning and end of life issues and risk assessment, while controversial issues such as sex selection, gene therapy and stem cell research were left out entirely, as states could not reach a consensus on these Schmidt, ; Langlois, However, there has been a lack of buy-in from the global bioethics community, particularly academics, who have questioned the expertise and representativeness of the IBC Cameron : and The lack of enforcement power of the declaration, as a non-binding instrument, has also been noted.
Yet Cameron : and argues that declarations have advantages over conventions, because of their reliance on moral persuasion and their inclusivity in comparison to conventions, which are only binding on those states that accede to them.
Many participants did not believe there had been sufficient change in national positions to avoid a repetition of the fractious debate and unsatisfactory outcome at the UN General Assembly a few years before.
On the other hand, some delegates underlined the potential utility of a convention for those developing countries yet to legislate on cloning UNESCO, a : 6 and In response to these discussions, the Working Group was more cautious in its final report of June Judging that the introduction of a new international normative instrument would be premature, it recommended increased global dialogue as an alternative UNESCO, a : 7.
The cloning mandate continued into the next Work Programme of — After discussion at its November meeting and on the advice of the IGBC, the IBC instructed an expanded Working Group to continue its work on cloning by examining three issues: a the ethical impact of terminology b dissemination activities and c regulation of human reproductive cloning including by moratorium.
On options for regulation, it found that a more robust instrument on human reproductive cloning than existed currently was needed, such as an international convention or moratorium UNESCO, b : 1 and 6. IBC members were unequivocal in expressing concern that the recent scientific developments have raised a need for a binding international legal instrument.
However, feedback by Member States of IGBC was indicative that the political hurdles that have prevented the realization of such instrument in the past are still in place. It advocated ongoing dialogue instead, alongside support for states developing national regulations on cloning. Germany and Brazil also backed the status quo, prompting one IBC member to ask why in they believed a convention to be premature, when in , the year the idea was first put to the UN, they had thought one timely.
Meanwhile, some developing countries stated their desire for a convention on cloning but not necessarily a prohibitive one personal observations, Joint Session of the IBC and IGBC, October This statement repeated the recommendations of the draft report, emphasizing that developing countries that do not have national regulations on human reproductive cloning are in particular need of a binding international convention or moratorium.
At the ethical level, some members were not convinced that the potential for detrimental genetic determinism was a strong enough argument against reproductive cloning, whilst at the political level, some felt the committee could make little progress while consensus among states remained elusive personal observations, Eighteenth Session of the IBC, May—June He also expressed his belief that consensus on a ban will always be impossible to achieve, because at its core the issue is philosophical rather than scientific, concerning the status of the early embryo.
In its — Work Programme the IBC revisited the topic of human cloning as part of its wider efforts to update its earlier work on the human genome and human rights.
The June draft report of the Working Group appointed to this task reiterated the need for a ban on human reproductive cloning. The report addresses several issues that fall under the banner of the human genome and human rights, not just cloning. Nevertheless, cloning is prominent. The main text expands on this, to state that such experiments should be discouraged by not being allocated public funds, for instance and in some cases prohibited, where there is no medical justification and a risk to safety.
As shown above, some members of the IBC and IGBC believed that the reason why they failed to reach consensus during the first 4 years of debate on human cloning — was the inherently irresolvable nature of the problem itself. Indeed, it could be argued that we should be focussing our policy making energy not on the technology but on the possible causes of the deterministic sentiments that may motivate the desire to use reproductive cloning.
Unfortunately, "genetic determinism" is a much more challenging and amorphous policy target as compared with human cloning technology. In addition, using human dignity as a blanket argument against all forms of human cloning makes it much more difficult to reflect rationally on the true risks and benefits of the technology. Such claims can have powerful rhetorical force no one is against the idea of human dignity!
Finally, we are in danger of trivializing and degrading the potential normative value of human dignity. There seems little doubt that the rapid advances that are occurring in the field of science, and biotechnology in particular, will continue to create new social and regulatory challenges, many of which may also raise issues associated with notions of human dignity. The way we handle current science policy issues stands as a precedent for future analysis. The ad hoc application of human dignity in relation to human cloning will undoubtedly impact how it is applied to future technologies.
We should strive to apply the principle in a logical and coherent fashion otherwise the notion of human dignity is in danger of being eroded to the point where it stands as nothing more than a symbol of amorphous cultural anxiety. Vogel G: Dolly goes to greener pastures. Google Scholar. Bonnicksen A: Crafting a cloning policy: from Dolly to stem cells. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Schachter O: Human dignity as a normative concept.
Am J Int Law. Article Google Scholar. Malby S: Human dignity and human reproductive cloning. Heath and Human Rights. Christian Bioethics. Public Law. Edited by: Meyer M, Parent W. Kass L: The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic.
June 2, Mohler RA: The brave new world of cloning: a Christian worldview perspective. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Vogel G: Misguided chromosomes foil primate cloning. Giles G, Knight J: Dolly's death leaves researchers woolly on clone ageing issue.
Saad L: Cloning of humans is a turn off to most Americans. Gallup News Service. May 16, Health and Human Rights. Williamson R: Human reproductive cloning is unethical because it undermines autonomy: commentary on Savulescu. J Med Ethics. Bruce D: A View from Edinburgh.
Edited by: Cole-Turner R. Rovane C: Genetics and personal identity. In A Companion to Genethics. Edited by: Burley J, Harris J. Nat Biotech. Polkinghorne J: Cloning and the Moral Imperative.
Valparaiso University Law Review. The Modern Law Review. Med L Rev. Edited by: Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Kolnai A: Dignity. In Dignity, Character and Self-Respect. Edited by: Dillon RS. Global Jurist Frontiers. However, following the successful derivation of human embryonic stem cells in , the debate over human cloning largely shifted to the question of whether it is acceptable for scientists to create human embryos only to destroy them.
The subsequent discovery of promising alternative techniques for generating stem cells without creating or destroying embryos seemed to show that scientific progress would obviate the demand for cloning. But cloning research continued, and American scientists announced in that they had for the first time successfully obtained stem cells from cloned human embryos. Although the latest scientific work related to cloning has been focused on potential medical applications, much of that research is relevant to the creation of cloned children.
Not only would cloning-to-produce-children be a dangerous experimental procedure, one that cannot be consented to by its subjects the children created by it , it is also a profound distortion of the moral meaning of human procreation. Cloning-to-produce-children could also be used to attempt to control the physical and even psychological traits of children, extending the eugenic logic of those who would use reproductive biotechnology to have the perfect child.
This form of genetic engineering would deny the children it produces an open future, burdening them with the expectation that they will be like the individuals from whom they were cloned.
And cloning could make possible still more dramatic forms of genetic engineering. Cloning-for-biomedical-research is also profoundly unethical, as it turns human reproduction into a manufacturing process in the most literal sense: human embryos are created to serve as raw materials for the production of biomedical research supplies.
0コメント