International organizations had also campaigned for a ban on reproductive cloning. In 1998, for example, the Council of Europe published an amendment to its Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prohibition of Human Cloning prohibits “any intervention aimed at creating a human being genetically identical to another human being, living or dead”. The debate focused on three major scientific issues: human embryonic stem cells, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. For some, all three are equally unacceptable, but for others, they are different enough to merit separate scrutiny. 14. In January 2001, the UK Government passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001[73] to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 by extending the permissible grounds for embryo research to allow stem cell research and nuclear replacements to enable therapeutic cloning. However, on 15 November 2001, a pro-life group won a Supreme Court case that overturned the regulation and left all forms of cloning unregulated in the UK. They hoped that Parliament would fill this gap by passing prohibitive legislation. [74] [75] Parliament quickly passed the Human Reproductive Cloning Act, 2001, which explicitly prohibits reproductive cloning. The remaining gap with regard to therapeutic cloning was filled when the courts of appeal overturned the previous decision of the High Court. [76] Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and China have laws prohibiting reproductive cloning and regulating cloning for research purposes.

Human cloning is expressly prohibited by article 24 “Right to life” of the Serbian Constitution of 2006. [69] “The countries that supported the Belgian position have laws,” said a diplomat from a European country that supports the cloning of research results, referring to a Belgian proposal for the results of cloning research. “That`s a pretty big gap for the other group.” Restrictions on the results of cloning research are being challenged by a number of groups who claim they will close a promising area of research to cure the disease. In the Middle East, only Israel and Turkey have relevant legislation. Israel allowed therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research, while banning reproductive cloning. Turkey has virtually the same thing – although stem cell research is not explicitly allowed, it is simply not mentioned. Unfortunately, this result also means that no clear message has been sent to scientists that the whole world believes that reproductive cloning is unacceptable. The involvement of the scientific community at the UN level is unprecedented for any topic, said a diplomat from a Western European country that supports cloning research results. These intensive international lobbying efforts have highlighted issues such as “scientific freedom” and the “politicization of science.” This thesis focuses on the creation of functional embryos, either by nuclear transfer or by embryo division. As suggested, we will use “embryo” to refer to any human entity considered theoretically capable of implanting and developing in the uterus.

Many regulatory positions distinguish between the creation of a cloned embryo for reproductive and other purposes. The first is called reproductive cloning (RC for short) for our needs and the second is called non-reproductive cloning (NRC for short). This article examines the regulatory situation of the thirty countries for which we obtained reliable information (see Table 1).1). Where possible, we relied on copies of the original legislation or English translations of that legislation. In some situations, we have also found it necessary to rely on other published sources [6] and personal communications. Diplomats from countries that support cloning for research purposes also pointed out that many countries that are pushing for a complete ban on cloning do not themselves have laws or regulations, while many countries that advocate a limited ban do. However, there is a related procedure known as therapeutic cloning, in which the early embryo never develops beyond a microscopic ball of cells in the laboratory. Meanwhile, research is underway, mainly to extract stem cells, but it may also be to better understand the early development of genetic diseases. In February 1997, an article was published in Nature announcing the birth of the most famous sheep in history [1]. This sheep, known as Dolly, was the product of asexual reproduction.

As the world`s media proclaimed without hesitation, she was a clone. The prospect of a human clone led to immediate calls for regulatory controls on the technology. However, there were divisions, especially when it turned out that the uses of the technique were not limited to reproduction. Other applications came closer when it became known the following year that embryonic stem cells had been successfully extracted from uncloned human embryos [2]. Now, one year after Dolly`s death [3], the current regulatory position on the creation and use of cloned embryos around the world [4,5] needs to be reviewed – particularly in light of the public debate surrounding recent cloning experiments in Korea, the granting of the first licence for “cloning research” in the UK, and past and future UN debates on cloning. By contrast, in the United States, despite an influential religious lobby that systematically condemns all embryonic research, there is no primary federal legislation regulating all forms of human cloning. This reflects a split between those who firmly believe that cloning should be banned and those who only want reproductive cloning banned, and the inability to legislate properly despite numerous and sustained efforts.