In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: Can we allow one while banning the other?

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is believed to be the next big breakthrough in reproductive medicine. The prima facie acceptance of this possible future technology is notable when compared to the general prohibition on human reproductive cloning. After all, if safety is the main reason for not allowing reproductive cloning, one might expect a similar conclusion for the reproductive application of IVG, since both technologies hold considerable and comparable risks. However, safety concerns may be overcome, and are presumably not the sole reason why cloning is being condemned. We therefore assess the non-safety arguments against reproductive cloning, yet most of these can also be held against IVG. The few arguments that cannot be used against IVG are defective. We conclude from this that it will be hard to defend a ban on reproductive cloning while accepting the reproductive use of IVG.

[Chapter 11. The impossible status of the embryo or the state withdrawal to the profit of vested interests]. / Chapitre 11. L?impossible statut de l?embryon ou le désengagement de l?État au profit des intérêts particuliers.

The hesitations on the legal classification of the embryo lead to the doctrinal realization, that there is a certainty about its status, or, that it hasn't got any which allows the creator of the standard to reify it.The access to the claims which are based on specific interests seem to be at the heart of justifications to new legal rules concerning the embryo, even if It seems there are underlying specific interests.Confronted to the state disengagement in favour of these interests, the embryo, as far as French law is concerned, the embryo falls only under a limited protection which is destined to lose authority.

Potential of human twin embryos generated by embryo splitting in assisted reproduction and research.

BACKGROUND: Embryo splitting or twinning has been widely used in veterinary medicine over 20 years to generate monozygotic twins with desirable genetic characteristics. The first human embryo splitting, reported in 1993, triggered fierce ethical debate on human embryo cloning. Since Dolly the sheep was born in 1997, the international community has acknowledged the complexity of the moral arguments related to this research and has expressed concerns about the potential for reproductive cloning in humans. A number of countries have formulated bans either through laws, decrees or official statements. However, in general, these laws specifically define cloning as an embryo that is generated via nuclear transfer (NT) and do not mention embryo splitting. Only the UK includes under cloning both embryo splitting and NT in the same legislation. On the contrary, the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine does not have a major ethical objection to transferring two or more artificially created embryos with the same genome with the aim of producing a single pregnancy, stating that 'since embryo splitting has the potential to improve the efficacy of IVF treatments for infertility, research to investigate the technique is ethically acceptable'. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Embryo splitting has been introduced successfully to the veterinary medicine several decades ago and today is a part of standard practice. We present here an overview of embryo splitting experiments in humans and non-human primates and discuss the potential of this technology in assisted reproduction and research. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out using PUBMED and Google Scholar databases to identify studies on embryo splitting in humans and non-human primates. 'Embryo splitting' and 'embryo twinning' were used as the keywords, alone or in combination with other search phrases relevant to the topics of biology of preimplantation embryos. OUTCOMES: A very limited number of studies have been conducted in humans and non-human primates. The published material, especially the studies with human embryos, is controversial. Some reports suggest that twinning technology will find clinical use in reproductive medicine in the future, whereas others conclude the opposite that human twin embryos created in vitro are unsuitable not only for clinical, but also for research, purposes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The blastomere biopsy technique of embryo splitting seems to be unsuitable for either clinical or research purposes; however, embryo bisection, a preferable method of cloning in veterinary medicine, has not yet been tested on human embryos.

FDA Regulation of Clinical Applications of CRISPR-CAS Gene-Editing Technology.

Scientists have repurposed an adaptive immune system of single cell organisms to create a new type of gene-editing tool: CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas technology. Scientists in China have reported its use in the genome modification of non-viable human embryos. This has ignited a spirited debate about the moral, ethical, scientific, and social implications of human germline genome engineering. There have also been calls for regulations; however, FDA has yet to formally announce its oversight of clinical applications of CRISPR-Cas systems. This paper reviews FDA regulation of previously controversial biotechnology breakthroughs, recombinant DNA and human cloning. It then shows that FDA is well positioned to regulate CRISPR-Cas clinical applications, due to its legislative mandates, its existing regulatory frameworks for gene therapies and assisted reproductive technologies, and other considerations.

Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds.

Two genetic technologies capable of making heritable changes to the human genome have revived interest in, and in some quarters a very familiar panic concerning, so-called germline interventions. These technologies are: most recently the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes in non-viable IVF zygotes and Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) the use of which was approved in principle in a landmark vote earlier this year by the United Kingdom Parliament. The possibility of using either of these techniques in humans has encountered the most violent hostility and suspicion. However it is important to be aware that much of this hostility dates back to the fears associated with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other reproductive technologies and by cloning; fears which were baseless at the time concerning both IVF and cloning the use of both of which have proved to be highly beneficial to humanity and which have been effectively regulated and controlled. This paper argues that CRISPR should by pursued through researh until it is safe enough for use in humans but there is no reason to suppose at this stage that such use will be unsafe or unethical (Collins 2015).

Animal breeding in the age of biotechnology: the investigative pathway behind the cloning of Dolly the sheep.

This paper addresses the 1996 cloning of Dolly the sheep, locating it within a long-standing tradition of animal breeding research in Edinburgh. Far from being an end in itself, the cell-nuclear transfer experiment from which Dolly was born should be seen as a step in an investigative pathway that sought the production of medically relevant transgenic animals. By historicising Dolly, I illustrate how the birth of this sheep captures a dramatic redefinition of the life sciences, when in the 1970s and 1980s the rise of neo-liberal governments and the emergence of the biotechnology market pushed research institutions to show tangible applications of their work. Through this broader interpretative framework, the Dolly story emerges as a case study of the deep transformations of agricultural experimentation during the last third of the twentieth century. The reorganisation of laboratory practice, human resources and institutional settings required by the production of transgenic animals had unanticipated consequences. One of these unanticipated effects was that the boundaries between animal and human health became blurred. As a result of this, new professional spaces emerged and the identity of Dolly the sheep was reconfigured, from an instrument for livestock improvement in the farm to a more universal symbol of the new cloning age.

[Cloning and law in Hungary]. / Klónozás és jog Magyarországon.

Reproductive human cloning is prohibited in Hungary, as in many other countries. Therapeutic human cloning is not prohibited, just like in many other countries. Stem cell therapy is also allowed. Article III, paragraph (3) of the Hungarian basic law (constitution) strictly forbids total human cloning. Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (1998) stipulates that any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited. In Hungary, according to Article 174 of the Criminal Code, total human cloning constitutes a crime. Article 180, paragraph (3) of the Hungarian Act on Health declares that embryos shall not be brought about for research purposes; research shall be conducted only on embryos brought about for reproductive purposes when this is authorized by the persons entitled to decide upon its disposal, or when the embryo is damaged. Article 180, paragraph (5) of the Hungarian Act on Health stipulates that multiple individuals who genetically conform to one another shall not be brought about. According to Article 181, paragraph (1) of the Hungarian Act on Health, an embryo used for research shall be kept alive for not longer than 14 days, not counting the time it was frozen for storage and the time period of research.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should solidify the legal basis for its authority over reproductive cloning.

The promise and potential of stem cell research is apparent. However, ethical questions still linger. There is as yet no consensus in the U.S. Congress on how to address the issue of reproductive cloning and media confusion of this and the quite separate issue of therapeutic cloning inhibits therapeutic advance. This paper outlines the need for the FDA to undertake a deliberate process, with input from all stakeholders, to authoritatively establish its jurisdiction over human reproductive cloning so as to foster the life-saving potential of therapeutic cloning.

What justifies the United States ban on federal funding for nonreproductive cloning?

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I challenge the latter premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy.

[The embryonic stem cells research. Example of biotechnology progress under extra-scientific pressure]. / La Investigación con Células Troncales Embrionarias. Ejemplo de Progreso Biotecnológico bajo Presiones Extracientíficas.

The possibility to isolate, cultivate, preserve, characterize and differentiate Human Embryonic Stem Cells (ES) discovered by James Thomson and his colleagues in 1998 was a milestone in the history of Stem Cell Research. Immediately after this discovery many speculations were made about the therapeutic possibilities of ES, motivated by ideological, political and economic aspects. The episode made clear the lack of scientific rationality and ethics when assessing realities as meaningful as those of human embryos obtained by in vitro fertilization techniques (IVF) or human eggs. Therapeutic Cloning as a promise to produce ″tailored″ Stem Cells reported by Hwang and his team in 2004, ended up being a scandal within the scientific community. The technical difficulties and ethical controversies that arose from obtaining ES were insurmountable. In 2010 only two clinical trials were reported using these cells. Those trials were abandoned in late 2011 arguing financial reasons. The discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPS) in 2006 in mice and in 2007 in humans, represented the possibility of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without the need to destroy embryos. Today, the absence of clinical trials using ES, caused by financial difficulties as a result of its ineffectiveness, anticipates that the use of ES will be limited to certain experimental controls. Probably, the main contribution of Embryonic Stem Cells will be the understanding that biomedical research should follow an ethically and rationally based rigorous method that cannot be ignore.