Consideration by the United Nations of a Declaration on Human Cloning for Therapeutic Reasons

We, the undersigned, urge the United Nations to establish a timetable for a declaration on human cloning for therapeutic reasons. As you are aware, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 59/280, containing the UN Declaration on Human Cloning, on 8 March 2005, by a recorded vote of 84 to 34, with 37 abstentions. The Declaration culminated an effort that had commenced in 2001 with a proposal by France and Germany for a convention against reproductive cloning of human beings. For three-and-a-half years a major confrontation took place at the United Nations between those states favouring a narrow ban limited to cloning for reproductive purposes, and those insisting on prohibiting all forms of human cloning, including for 'therapeutic' purposes.

Not only was the Declaration adopted by a vote, it was carried only by a plurality (84 states), not even a majority, of states members of the United Nations. Moreover, the text of the Declaration is ambiguous in terms of calling upon states both to adopt all necessary measures to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences and to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.

What started as a seemingly straightforward proposal soon ran into the cross-winds of the broader debate on the ethical and legal appropriateness of human embryonic stem cell research (including through the active participation of the Holy See), and there is no denying that the proposal of supporters of the comprehensive ban was based on the central idea that the destruction of a human embryo, even at its earliest stages of development and regardless of its purpose, amounted to 'killing' a human being.

Although UN declarations have a formal status as being non-binding, this is not to say that they are devoid of normative content, and such formalism is not always perceived in practice as the limiting factor that it is claimed to be in theory. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which voted in favour of the Declaration, said: 'This is a step forward towards a future convention that would prohibit all forms of human cloning.'

In our respectful view, the Declaration makes no distinction between the fundamental and well-known differences that exist between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning, and its wording can be interpreted as a UN call for a total ban on all forms of human cloning (noted by, among others, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, India, Japan and South Africa).

With respect to therapeutic cloning we believe that, in the interest of science and the well-being of humankind, the correct option is to let states adopt at the national level moratoriums, prohibitions or strict regulations and controls in accordance with their moral, ethical and legal beliefs. We regret that the Declaration fails to reflect the stated positions of many states. Accordingly, we urge the establishment of a reasonable timetable for a UN declaration which would draw a distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning while specifically leaving it to UN member states to decide for themselves on therapeutic cloning within a regulation framework.