Why the UN banned human cloning

Earlier this year, Costa Rica was at the forefront of a campaign in the United Nations to ban both reproductive and "therapeutic" cloning. In this exclusive interview MercatorNet speaks to a diplomat who handled the negotiations.

Research on human embryos has become one of the biggest ethical issues of our times. Some scientists, businessmen and politicians claim that cloned embryos are needed to achieve medical advances. Others vehemently deny this. The issue has even reached the United Nations. In March, the General Assembly passed a non-binding ban on all forms of human cloning, including research, or "therapeutic", cloning, by a vote of 84 to 34.
More than half of the 155 nations who voted supported the resolution, giving a moral victory to opponents of therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The resolution states that "member states are called upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life".
At the forefront of the UN campaign against human cloning was the Central American nation of Costa Rica. One of its top diplomats, José Joaquín Chaverri, explains to MercatorNet the significance of the historic decision.
MercatorNet: How did Costa Rica become the leader of the group pushing for a ban on human cloning?
Chaverri: Due to its historical experience as a peaceful nation, Costa Rica is highly committed to the promotion of human dignity. In fact, the promotion of human rights is the cornerstone of our foreign policy. In this sense, my government could not remain silent on such a transcendental issue as human cloning.

On the other hand, my country did not bring the question of human cloning to the United Nations. It was originally raised there by Germany and France, who sought to legitimise so-called “therapeutic cloning” by banning only reproductive cloning. Thus we were forced to voice our objections to legitimising some forms of cloning under the pretext of banning other forms and to argue that the only valid option is to ban all forms of human cloning. The President of Costa Rica, Dr Abel Pacheco, and the Foreign Minister, Mr Roberto Tovar Faja, were personally committed to this position.
Costa Rica’s leading role developed slowly from our strong commitment to ban all forms of human cloning and from our willingness to serve as a focal point of all the other governments that shared our point of view.
MercatorNet: The obstacle to an agreement at the UN on cloning has always been “therapeutic cloning”. What are the most convincing reasons for opposing cloning of human embryos?
Chaverri: Before answering, let me note that there is no substantive difference between the so-called “reproductive cloning” and “therapeutic cloning”. There is only one cloning technique – somatic nuclear cell transfer – by which you create a new embryo genetically identical to a pre-existing human organism. The difference lies in what is done with the resulting embryo after you have finished the cloning process. If you implant him, or her, in a womb and wait until a baby is born, you have “reproductive cloning”. If you destroy the human embryo to exploit his stem cells in scientific experiments, you have “therapeutic cloning”.
Moreover, from a scientific point of view, a human embryo is unquestionably a human being at an early stage of its development. The only difference between an embryo, a six-month-old foetus, a baby, a child and adult is their respective stages of development. Bearing these facts in mind, we believe that there are two strong arguments to oppose all forms of human cloning.
First, human cloning violates human dignity by creating a new human being through industrial processes, treating him as a mere object of production and manipulation. So-called “therapeutic” human cloning is even more worrisome because the new human being is destroyed to perform scientific experiments. Second, human cloning would require the exploitation of women. Cloning techniques require an enormous number of eggs. If cloning were to be widely used, there would be a market for poor women to sell their eggs, which is a painful and dangerous procedure requiring heavy dosages of hormones. Are we willing to create conditions that would push women to sell their bodies?
MercatorNet: Many countries who voted against the declaration claim that therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell are needed for cures for dread diseases. How do you respond to that?
Chaverri: So far, human cloning has not proved effective in curing any diseases. Its advocates have made wide-ranging promises but they have yet to show any concrete evidence. On the other hand, there is a promising alternative to human cloning that does not raise the ethical and philosophical questions that cloning does: ie, research on adult stem cells and on umbilical cord stem cells. In clinical tests, adult stem cells have already proved effective in treating some medical conditions. Costa Rica is fully committed to research in this area.
MercatorNet: Why it has been so difficult to persuade UN Members that embryos are human and deserve to be treated with the utmost respect?
Chaverri: Because of both politics and economics. On the political side, some countries, like the People's Republic of China, have made the destruction of embryos a key element of their population politics. Others, like the Scandinavian countries, see the destruction of embryos as a right of women and fear that recognising the dignity of human embryos in the context of cloning would put into question their abortionist policies. On the economic side, countries like the Republic of Korea and Singapore believe that a biotechnology industry based on cloning would be a good source of income.
MercatorNet: Why do you think that human dignity should prevail over the demands of scientists?
Chaverri: Human dignity must always prevail. It is the basic condition for living in society. Thus, while we support science and research, we believe that it should always be carried within ethical limits. Scientific curiosity must be weighed against the impact that research would have upon the human participants.
MercatorNet: In March, several leading stem cell scientist went to the UN to lobby for votes. Do the opinions of scientists carry much weight in diplomatic circles?
Chaverri: In the negotiations scientists were heard as advocates for both sides. In fact, several important scientists argued for banning all forms of human cloning. The views of all of them were respected and, indeed, they served to inform the discussion. However, the question of banning human cloning is a political decision that requires a consideration of not only scientific evidence but also the philosophical, ethical and legal aspects.
Moreover, the diplomatic community was keenly aware that those scientists were not necessarily impartial or objective. Most of them were personally involved in this line of research. Many of them had private motives that went beyond scientific curiosity: some were competing for grants and professorships, some were aspiring to Nobel Prizes, and others were promoting their own private biotech companies.
MercatorNet: Is there disagreement among UN member states about the meaning of fundamental concepts like “human life” and “human dignity”? Is this a worrying development?
Chaverri: Yes. It is extremely troubling that there is a substantial disagreement among member states on the value of human dignity and human life. This divergence has become more acute as some developed countries embrace a radical utilitarian philosophy that is prepared to sacrifice human lives on the altar of convenience, privacy or private gain. On the other hand, the recent adoption of the declaration on human cloning is an encouraging sign that, in time, we will be able to develop a new consensus on the value of human life.
MercatorNet: Nearly everyone appears to oppose reproductive cloning. But if countries do not enact bans on therapeutic cloning, is the door open to reproductive cloning?
Chaverri: This is true. As the technique used for both for forms of cloning is the same, research on “therapeutic" cloning would prepare the ground for reproductive cloning. Moreover, cloned embryos are indistinguishable from normally conceived embryos, so that they could be easily implanted in a womb, either by accident or intentionally, in IVF clinics. It must be stressed that the cloning technique is comparatively simple. It has been used with animals for over 40 years and the leading South Korean researchers on human cloning are veterinarians working in their veterinary facilities.
MercatorNet: Many Muslin countries supported Costa Rica’s declaration that cloning of any kind is inconsistent with human dignity. They seem to have a more humane stand on this issue that many European countries. Why is this so?
Chaverri: It is difficult to say that one region or group supported our initiative. Several Muslim countries supported the ban on all forms of human cloning, but others objected strongly to our proposal. Meanwhile in Europe some countries like Italy and Norway supported our efforts while Belgium and the United Kingdom opposed us. In the end, we believe that those nations that supported the ban on all forms of human cloning have a deeper understanding of human dignity than those who did not.
MercatorNet: The resolution that passed in March is not binding and a large number of countries are going to ignore it. Do you think the effort to bring the issue to a vote has been worthwhile?
Chaverri: Indeed, it would have been preferable for the declaration to be adopted unanimously. It would have been an even stronger message. Regrettably, as you noted before, there was a fundamental disagreement that could not be resolved without a vote. Nevertheless, the declaration is worthwhile. It sends a clear political message to all potential researchers and governments that the international community condemns human cloning and urges member states to adopt measures to ban this kind of research.
MercatorNet: What is the next step? Can anything more be done in the UN to stop the spread of therapeutic cloning?
Chaverri: The next step is the implementation of the declaration at the domestic level. All states must consider the declaration and adopt measures, either legislative or administrative, to prevent any kind of human cloning. In this sense, the work of the UN on cloning has concluded. It has given a clear guide for member states to follow when considering how to regulate scientific research in their territories. On the other hand, the UN still must continue to promote human dignity in all areas of scientific research, mainly through the work of UNESCO.