Animal Cloning Agreement

Lo B et al. (2010) Catning of mice and men: prohibition of the use of iPS cells for human reproductive cloning. stem cells; 6 (1): 16–20. Based on current data and the fact that the primary DNA sequence of clones is not altered, there is no evidence that there are differences in food safety between healthy cattle and pig clones and their offspring compared to conventionally reared animals. The report addresses a number of issues related to the human genome and human rights banner, not just cloning. Yet cloning is a pre-eminent role. The summary contains an “open list” of recommended measures for states and governments. The first point is: “Produce a legally binding international instrument to prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes.” There are also recommendations for scientists and regulators who “must forego the pursuit of spectacular experiments that do not respect fundamental human rights” (UNESCO, 2015c: 3-4). The main text expands it to explain that such experiences must be deterred (for example. B not by the granting of public funds) and, in some cases, prohibited in the absence of medical justification and security risk. “Research on the possibility of human cloning for reproductive purposes remains the most striking example of what should remain banned worldwide” (UNESCO, 2015c: 26). In general, the report advocates a conservative approach to decision-making and legislation, which may be particularly relevant for embryonic stem cell research in humans or for “therapeutic cloning”. It supports the adoption, at international and national levels, of legislation “as uncontested as possible, particularly on the issue of modification of the human genome and the production and destruction of human embryos” in order to respect different sensitivities and cultures (UNESCO, 2015c: 3 and 6).

Footnote 2 With regard to developing countries, the report acknowledges that they may not have greater access to new genomic technologies in the near future, but recommends that LMIC (low- and middle-income) governments develop national genomic strategies “in the context of their national economic and socio-cultural specificity” (UNESCO, 2015c: 29). The report also contains recommendations for “all civil society actors,” including the media, educators and businesses. The former are supposed to “avoid any sensationalism”, while the latter should not chase after profit by operating in countries with weak regulations (UNESCO, 2015c: 3-4). The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible in the UK. You indicated that current legislation does not allow for changes to uk legal passports (used for individual identification and cattle movements) to indicate that an animal is a clone. The CWB held its next meeting in May/June 2011, at which the working group presented a draft “final declaration” and not a final version of the previous year`s draft report. This statement reiterated the recommendations made in the 2010 draft report and stressed that developing countries that do not have national rules on human cloning need, in particular, a binding international agreement or moratorium.