Model Legislation to ban the Cloning of Human Beings
Whoever knowingly replicates or produces an organism that is genetically human, or is genetically a hybrid between the human and any other species, by removing, inserting, or transferring a nucleus or nuclear genetic material to or from a human diploid cell shall be fined $_______ or imprisoned not more than ___ years, or both.
Notes on the Legislative Language
The above legislation would bar the use of cloning techniques to replicate human beings. It would also prohibit the use of such methods to produce creatures that are part human and part animal.
Cloning, as done by the scientists in Scotland who replicated a sheep, involves taking an ovum from a female, removing the genetic material from that egg, and inserting in its place the genetic material from the cell of an already existing member of the same species. The ovum is then implanted, carried to term, and a new being that is a replica of the cell-donor is born.
Whereas normal human reproduction involves the union of an egg (having one set of chromosomes) and a sperm (having another set of chromosomes) to form a unique, new being (an embryo, having two sets of chromosomes), human cloning would involve no such merging of cells to form a new creature. Rather, cloning would use the ovum merely as a vehicle in which to carry the complete genetic structure of an already existing person.
Human cloning, then, would involve the removal, insertion, or transfer of genetic material to or from a human diploid cell (i.e., a cell having two sets of chromosomes). Since it involves no union of egg and sperm, it is considered “asexual reproduction.”
Because the model legislation above deals only with human diploid cells, it does not affect already existing means of reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization. Such technologies use haploid cells (e.g., eggs and sperm) to reproduce human beings.
The model legislation uses the words “replicates or produces.” The point here is that cloning is not reproduction; genetically speaking, a cloned human is “replicated.” This measure speaks of an “organism” rather than a “human” or a “person,” words with complicated histories. An organism is a complete living entity, not just an organ.
The proposed legislation speaks of an organism that is “genetically human,” and does not address any other definitions of who or what is “human.”
The intent of this bill is to focus sharply on human cloning. However, some of the nations that have banned human cloning have banned the production of chimeras at the same time. One reason for adding this detail, even in a sharply focused bill, is to prevent a situation in which a researcher adds some non-human genetic material to the strand of DNA, and then argues that the organism he is producing is not “genetically human.”
The model legislation speaks of “removing, inserting or transferring” in an abundance of caution. The point is to avoid a situation in which different researchers of clinicians perform separate steps in the procedure, and then argue that no single individual had done the prohibited activity.
The model bill speaks of “nucleus or nuclear genetic material” in order to cover the situation in which a researcher transfers a slightly altered nucleus.
The reference to “human diploid cell” is an efficient way to describe the nuclear transfer technique, or asexual replication. The term “diploid” is preferable to “somatic” cell since cloning breaks down a distinction that had previously seemed clear, between germ cells (cells for reproduction) and somatic cells.
The measure proposes criminal penalties for human cloning, in line with the federal legislation against other crimes in the area of bioethics. Civil penalties alone cannot be judged sufficient; some unscrupulous people might pay a great deal for the procedure, for a variety of reasons. A fine alone could be treated as an initiation fee at the beginning of a lucrative practice.