Therapeutic alibis” “

The laboratories of the United Kingdom could be the first, after those in the USA, to realize the cloning of human embryos. What is more, these experiments could take place not in a private laboratory, as in the USA, but in a public hospital, with State funding. And not only for therapeutic, but also for reproductive purposes, as announced by Severino Antinori some weeks ago. After these announcements, the British Parliament hastened to approve a new law on “Reproductive human cloning” which punishes with a prison sentence of ten years anyone who attempts to implant cloned embryos in the womb of a woman. But cloning for therapeutic ends remains legal; it has the backing of both government and parliament. According to John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child”, one of the most important of the pro-life movements in Great Britain, this is the country “with the most liberal attitude to human cloning”. In fact, explained Smeaton to Sir Europe, “we consider the law that has just been approved to be wholly unsatisfactory. Even if an embryo cannot for the time being be implanted in the womb of a British woman, it may be cloned in Great Britain and then sent abroad to be implanted. The law does not prevent such an eventuality, nor does it prohibit cloned embryos from being implanted in men, instead of women, or in animals or artificial wombs. Some experiments have already been conducted along these lines. In fact there are no provisions in British law that require the consent of the donor of the cell used for the cloning. So the law is over-hasty and unsatisfactory”. The director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child is also convinced that “cloning for reproductive purposes will inevitably follow that for therapeutic purposes, because the principle involved is the same”. It is not by chance, according to a survey conducted by the daily The Independent during the summer, that the majority of British scientists have defined reproductive cloning as inevitable, although the British legislation prevents it for the time being. More than half the scientists interviewed – some thirty – in fact declared that reproductive cloning will be attempted within twenty years and that the law will consequently be amended, although such an eventuality is still unacceptable to the majority of public opinion. Similar fears have been registered in France. In the view of Jean-Marie Le Mené, president of the Jérome Lejeune Foundation (named after the discoverer of the chromosomatic origin of mongolism), the distinction between “good” and “bad” cloning (for therapeutic and for reproductive ends) “is a fallacy on a global scale”. “I have the scientific certainty – Le Mené declared to Sir Europe – that babies will be born by cloning before the drugs produced thanks to the cloning of embryos are developed”. It is estimated in fact that at least a decade is needed to successfully produce such drugs. “Cloning will arrive in Europe. It falls into the logic of experimentation on superfluous embryos. With the forthcoming legislative reform on the matter scheduled to take place in France in 2002, the problem will undoubtedly be posed”. Le Mené warns, however: “The culture of self-interest will be developed, the culture of Narcissus. And Narcissus ended up falling into the water”. Jean-François Mattei, Catholic physician and expert in bioethics, has also declared that the prospect of human cloning is “extremely grave”. The most disturbing fact, in his view, is that “in nine months’ time we could already receive the announcement of the birth of the first cloned baby. When one prohibition is overcome, the next one is confronted. It’s in the nature of science that research is never stopped, especially when it hides behind therapeutic alibis”.