UNESCO draft, with proposed language on human cloning

The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) of UNESCO met in Paris July 22-25, 1997, to review the "Draft of a Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights." Their previous meeting had been in December 1996, and since then, the report from Scotland of a cloned sheep had raised new questions. Dr. Gerhardt Fulda, the head of the German delegation to the meeting, said that his nation brought a proposal to ban human cloning. Before formal discussion and debate began, though, the Germans had already abandoned their original text, because they understood that they could not get any consensus on it. Their original proposal, according to Dr. Fulda:

That the cloning of a human being -- that is, artificial production of an embyo, possessing the same genetic information as another human being -- should be prohibited.

The text that was eventually approved by the IBC says:

Article 11 Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall   not be permitted. States and competent international organizations are invited to cooperate in identifying such practices and in determining, national or internationally, appropriate measures to be taken toensure that the principles set out in this Declaration are respected.

"Reproductive cloning" is (apparently) distinguished from human cloning for research purposes. So this article does not in any way challenge or criticize cloning for research and destruction. This is the same distinction made by the NBAC, which used the phrase "cloning a human being" to mean cloning and implantation, distinguished from cloning human embryos for research purposes. Further, the insertion of the phrase "such as"adds another layer of intentional ambiguity, according to Eric Meslin. If the document spoke out against "practices contrary to human dignity, including cloning . . ." that would be a clear statement of opposition to cloning. But "such as cloning" is softer, providing the reader a hint of the kind of problem that the declaration was addressing. With the softer language, one might review the question after several years of new developments, and conclude consistent with this text that reproductive cloning of human beings is consistent with human dignity, and should be legal. The full text of the July draft is available on the internet at: <http://www.unesco.org/ibc>.