On May 19, a group of South Korean scientists published in Science magazine the results of research that for the first time isolated human embryonic stem cell lines specifically tailored to match the DNA of male and female patients of various ages. The next day, British scientists at Newcastle University announced that they had successfully produced a cloned human embryo using donated eggs and genetic material from stem cells.
Both breakthroughs constitute a stunning advance in stem-cell research. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning that they have the ability to develop into any type of human tissue. This carries great promise, in particular, for sufferers of spinal cord injuries and diseases. Years of studies, and the passionate pleas of patients worldwide, are finally opening the way to a technique -- somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as "therapeutic cloning" -- that may bring about epochal changes for the health of us all.
No less remarkable than the latest discoveries was the timing of their announcement, which came on the eve of a vote in the US Congress to expand federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells created during in vitro fertilization (but never implanted in a womb). Both announcements also came a month ahead of an Italian referendum -- the largest popular consultation on the matter ever held anywhere -- that seeks to change a law adopted last year that prohibits both in vitro fertilization and stem-cell research.
The debate over therapeutic cloning is, of course, hardly limited to the US and Italy. The UN General Assembly ended a two-year debate on the matter in March by approving a non-binding declaration that calls upon states to "prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life." The declaration passed with 84 votes in favor, 34 against and 37 abstentions.
Last summer, in response to the UN decision, 78 Nobel laureates signed a petition discouraging the adoption of an international ban on human cloning, because "it would condemn hundreds of millions of individuals afflicted by debilitating diseases to a life deprived of hope."
The petition started by the Luca Coscioni Association, a non-governmental organization devoted to the promotion of the freedom of scientific research, called on governments to reject bans in favor of "rules that protect the right to life and health by ensuring freedom of research, choice and knowledge."
There is, of course, widespread consensus against cloning devoted to the reproduction of human beings, and most of the world has outlawed the technique. So this is not the issue. The Nobelists' point is that, as far as therapeutic cloning is concerned, rather than attempting global prohibition, it would be much wiser, and possibly more effective, to promote an international regulatory regime through ample legalization of stem-cell research.
But, as the UN declaration -- and the long debate surrounding its adoption -- illustrate, scientific arguments are not at the center of national and international debates, which revolve around questions concerning the beginning of "human life."
As we know, science and religion offer different answers. Some Christian theologians, for example, believe that life begins at conception, while scientists maintain that nerve and brain cells emerge around 14 days after conception. Scientists generally agree that research should be done within that period -- and always allowed on spare embryos that will never be implanted.
In such a crucially important debate, the quality of the information offered is paramount, and it is no coincidence that those who oppose stem-cell research prefer to avoid a public debate that would force them to confront scientific arguments. They know all too well that whenever a secular and scientific debate has been permitted and encouraged, the general public -- regardless of nationality and religious or political affiliation -- has overwhelmingly expressed itself in favor of stem-cell research.
We saw a clear example of this last November in California, where 60 percent of the electorate voted in favor of Proposition 71 on state funding for stem-cell research. Similarly, the latest polls in Italy suggest that the overwhelming majority of those who intend to vote is in favor of therapeutic cloning. However, the referendum in Italy required a 50 percent turnout to validate the outcome. Revealingly, the Vatican, knowing that it could not win, campaigned successfully for mass abstention.
More than the advancement of science is at stake here. The Vatican's stance on the Italian vote was emblematic of a broader threat to the very foundation of modern liberal democracy: the constitutional separation of Church and State.
In an era of growing concern about religious fundamentalism, liberal democratic institutions must reaffirm their role in protecting individual rights for all. And, in order to enable the full enjoyment of our freedoms -- be they of worship or scientific research -- the state must reassert its secular nature. We need mechanisms to address violations of moral or religious beliefs, but we cannot place restrictions on individuals' ability to contribute to the public welfare.
Emma Bonino is a former EU commissioner and member of the European parliament. Marco Cappato is a former member of the European parliament and secretary of the Luca Coscioni Association.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS