Abstract
“By all accounts we have entered upon a golden age for biology, medicine and biotechnology”1. The President’s Council on Bioethics could hardly have been more emphatic. In an equally categorical manner the American National Science Foundation had only shortly before also spoken of a “unique moment in the history of technical achievement” at which an “improvement of human performance becomes possible” introducing “a golden age that would be a turning point for human productivity and quality of life.”2 No other technique has, indeed, since the early days of information technology raised so many hopes, stirred so many fantasies and instigated so emotional debates as biotechnology. The times in which ailments such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s were regarded as a terrible but unchangeable fate, or in which children were the result of “a random, unpredictable meeting of sperm and egg” seem to be definitely over. All in all, nothing appears more appropriate than a simple and unequivocal affirmative answer to James Watson’s question: “If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?”4.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beyond Therapy — Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness, A Report of The President’s Council on Bioethics (October 2003), 5.
National Science Foundation, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (2003), 6.
G. Stock, Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future (2002), 200.
Quoted in X Wheeler, Miracle Molecule, 50 Years On, Baltimore Sun, 4 February 2003, 8A.
German National Ethics Council, The Import of Human Embryonic Stem Cells (2001).
German National Ethics Council, Genetic diagnosis before and during pregnancy (2003).
Comité Consultatif National d’Éthique, Réponse au Président de la République au sujet du clonage reproductif, Avis No. 054, 22 April 1997.
Comité Consultatif National d’Éthique, À propos de l’obligation d’information génétique familiale en cas de nécessité médicale, Avis No. 076, 24 April 2003.
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, Opinion on the ethical aspects of genetic testing in the workplace, Opinion No.18, 28 July 2003.
Supra note 1,27, 101, 159.
Proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: “Integrating and strengthening the European research area” (2002–2006), 9 July 2003, COM (2003) 390 final.
Cf. especially the report on the 2550th Council meeting — Competitiveness — (Internal market, Industry and Research) Brussels, 3 December 2003, 15531/03 (Presse 355); but also Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Press Release No. 230/2003 of 3 December 2003.
Supra note 1, 40.
Ergänzende gemeinsame Erklärung des Nationalen Ethikrates und des Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique zu ihren Stellungnahmen über Biobanken, 24 July 2003.
Cf. Comité Consultatif National d’Éthique, Problèmes éthiques posés par les collections de matériel biologique et les données d’informations associées: “biobanques”, “biothèques” (Ethical problems caused by the collection of biological material and the associated data bases: “biobanks”, “biotheques”), Avis No. 077, 20 March 2003; Nationaler Ethikrat, Biobanken für die Forschung, Stellungnahme, 17 March 2004.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed on 4 April 1997, ETS No. 164, reprinted in the annex of this volume, under III 15.
Cf. R. Röspel (ed.), Biologie am Horizont der Philosophie. Der Entwurf einer europäischen Bioethik-Konvention (1997);
T. Degener, Chronologie der Bioethik — Konvention und ihre Streitpunkte, KritV 81 (1998), 7.
Council of Europe, Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI), Draft additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, on Biomedical Research, 23 June 2003, CDBI/INF 6.
Cf. Federal Ministry of Justice, Das Übereinkommen zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und der Menschenwürde im Hinblick auf die Anwendung von Biologie und Medizin — des Europarats vom 4. April 1997, Januar 1998/2, 18.
Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions of 6 July 1998 (OJ No. L 213/13).
Cf. the Judgement of the Court of Justice in Netherlands v. Parliament and Council, Case 377/98 (2001) ECR I-7079.
Draft Statute on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie über den rechtlichen Schutz biotechnologischer Erfindungen), Printed Matter (Bundestagsdrucksache) 15/1709, 15 October 2003.
Cf. also Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, 7 October 2002, COM (2002) 545 final, 7, 30.
Cf., for example, German Bundestag, Plenary Protocol of the 53rd session, 26 June 2003, Stenographic Report 15/53, 4456–4461.
Cf. United Nations, General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, Sixth Committee, Agenda item 162, International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, A/C.6/57/L.8, 18 October 2002, reprinted in the annex of this volume, under I 7.
Cf. United Nations, General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, Sixth Committee, Agenda item 162, International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, A/C.6/57/L.3/Rev.l, 18 October 2002, reprinted in the annex of this volume, under I 6.
Cf. United Nations, General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Sixth Committee, 23d Meeting, International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, Draft Resolutions A/C.58/L.2 (International Convention against Human Cloning) and A/C.6/58/L.8 (International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings), both reprinted in the annex of this volume, under I 3 and 4.
Cf. United Nations, Press Release GA/L//3246, 6 November 2003.
UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, Twenty-ninth Session, Vol. 1, Resolutions, Resolution 16.
Resolution 53/152, 9 December 1998.
Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-seventh Session, Supplement No 51 (A/57/51).
Cf. also the Resolution 2001/71 on “Human Rights and Bioethics”, adopted on 25 April 2001 by the Commission on Human Rights, Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2001, Supplement No. 8 (E/2001/23).
Cf. UN News Service of 22 October 2003.
The bitter reaction of the British representative, Ambassador Adam Thomson, in the ensuing debate of the General Assembly, cf. infra note 35, quoted in The New York Times of 10 December 2003, is therefore not at all surprising. In his opinion it “is clear that there is no consensus in respect to therapeutic cloning research, but by ignoring this fact and pressing for action to ban all cloning, supporters of the Costa Rican resolution have effectively destroyed the possibility of action on the important area on which we all agreed a ban of productive cloning”.
Cf. the Resolution of the 72nd Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on 9 December 2003, United Nations Press Release GA/10218, 9 December 2003.
Cf. L. Betten, International Labour Law (1993), 7 et seq.;
S. Simitis, Zur Internationalisierung des Arbeitnehmerdatenschutzes — Die Verhaltensregeln der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation, in Festschrift für T. Dieterich (1999), 606 et seq.
International Labour Office, Protection of Workers’ Personal Data, Code of Practice adopted at the 267th Session of the Governing Body in November 1996(1997).
Cf. supra note 12.
Cf. especially TV. Geisjen/ M. Horoschak/K. Kim/J. Gribnau/K. Eggan/ G. Daley, Nature AOP, published online 10 December 2003, doi: 10.1038/nature02247;
R. Jaenisch, The Biology of Nuclear Cloning and the Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells for Transplantation Therapy, Appendix N to Monitoring Stem Cell Research, A Report of The President’s Council on Bioethics (January 2004).
Supra note 1, 71.
Cf. supra notes 14, 15 and the opinion of the German National Ethics Council on Biobanks, sect. 6.5.
“Reproductive cloning must be condemned not only for obvious ethical reasons and common values, but also because it is about an utterly irresponsible practice from the scientific point of view.”, quoted by Reuters, 9 January 2003.
Cf. supra note 34.
Adopted by the Council on 7 December 2000 (OJ No. C 364/01).
Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, adopted unanimously by the European Convention on 13 June and 10 July 2003 (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2003).
Quite in line with these experiences Commissioner Busquin, supra note 42, spoke of a possible “new legislation by year end” and emphasised that the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights forbids cloning practices.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, of October 24, 1995 (OJ No. L 281, 23 November 1995).
Cf. supra note 12.
Cf. supra note 16.
Cf. supra note 47, Recital No 9.
Cf. S. Similis, in Falkenburg (ed.) Wem dient die Technik? (2004), 35 et seq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simitis, S. (2004). A Convention on Cloning — Annotations to an almost Unsolvable Dilemma. In: Vöneky, S., Wolfrum, R. (eds) Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6174-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6174-1_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-04-14233-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6174-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive