U.S. Campaigns for Treaty to Ban Use of Embryo Stem Cells

As California voters are being asked to decide whether the state should fund embryonic stem cell research, the Bush administration is spearheading a campaign at the United Nations for a global treaty banning such research and all forms of human cloning.

Critics fear the U.S. move to create a U.N. treaty for a universal ban might undermine efforts to find cures for such afflictions as cancer, diabetes and spinal cord damage.

All countries at the U.N. oppose cloning to create a human being, but the international body is starkly divided on whether to ban cloning of human embryos for stem cell studies or other medical research, known as “therapeutic cloning.” The U.S., Costa Rica and 59 other mostly small nations with strong Catholic or Muslim majorities contend that medical research involving cloning results in the taking of human life. Their draft to ban all human cloning, which has been the subject of debate before a General Assembly committee this week, terms it “unethical and morally reproachable.”

Nearly 130 nations, including close U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and India, say that each nation should be allowed to decide for itself whether to regulate therapeutic cloning.

“No country has the right to seek to impose on the rest of the world a ban on therapeutic cloning, when its own legislature won’t impose the ban nationally,” said British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry.

Jones Parry noted that therapeutic cloning uses technology similar to in vitro fertilization, which has helped people create families. Unused embryos can be donated to science instead of being destroyed, and stem cell banks can be established to reduce the need for the creation of new lines, he said.

Roberto Tovar, Costa Rica’s minister of foreign affairs and worship, countered Thursday that “cloning reduces the human being to a mere object of industrial production and manipulation.” He warned that women could be exploited as egg-making “factories” and that the international community must not allow human embryos to be destroyed for scientific experiments.

The U.N. began considering a global convention banning human cloning in 2001, but has twice delayed a vote because the issue of stem cell research has been so emotional and divisive.

The controversy touches on philosophical and religious issues, involving arguments that can be highly technical as well as passionate and personal. Discussions center on when human life actually begins and whether it is ethical to sacrifice the life embodied in a bundle of undifferentiated cells less than 15 days old to pursue a cure for a living person.

The U.N.’s dispute over cloning mirrors the debates in the presidential campaign and in California about the morality of embryonic stem cell research.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a move at odds with the position of the state and national Republican Party, Monday endorsed a $3-billion ballot measure to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Bush has allowed limited federal funding for studies using a few dozen existing stem cell lines, but has prohibited the use of federal money for the creation of any new lines that would involve destruction of human embryos. In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly this year, Bush declared that “no human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another.”

Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry backs the aggressive pursuit of stem cell research, and Thursday received the endorsement of the widow of “Superman” actor Christopher Reeve, who said the research could lead to a cure for the spinal cord damage he suffered. The research has also received high-profile support from actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, who made her support public after President Reagan died of Alzheimer’s disease.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan weighed in on the debate Thursday.

“Obviously, it is an issue for the member states to decide,” he told reporters at the U.N. “But as an individual and in my personal view, I think I would go for therapeutic cloning.”

A convention against human cloning, if eventually adopted by the General Assembly, would not be legally binding.