Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:56:39.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal and Ethical Approaches to Stem Cell and Cloning Research: A Comparative Analysis of Policies in Latin America, Asia, and Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Rosario M. Isasi ,
Bartha M. Knoppers ,
Peter A. Singer  and
Abdallah S. Daar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Human reproductive cloning has become the most palpable example of the globalization of science. Throughout the world, events and conjectures in the media, such as the birth and death in the United Kingdom of the cloned sheep Dolly and projects to clone human beings by Korean scientists, by members of the Canadian-based Raelian cult, and by the Italian physician Antinori in an undisclosed country, have galvanized the political will of individual countries to ban human reproductive cloning.

Yet, international attempts to harmonize policies in the area of biomedical ethics and human research, such as the 1997 Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and most recently, the United Nations’ efforts to adopt an international convention against human reproductive cloning, have been insufficient to trigger a substantial global policy design process on issues relating to these new technologies.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 626 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A recent UNESCO-IBC report has highlighted this phenomenon: “The notion of ‘developed’ and ‘developing countries’ must itself be redefined in the context of biotechnology. Some countries, traditionally classified as developing, are playing an active part in research on the human genome, while others are not. Report of the IBC on Solidarity and International Cooperation Between Developed and Developing Countries Concerning the Human Genome, UNESCO (April 6, 2001).Google Scholar
Cook, G., “94 New Cell Lines Created Abroad Since Bush Decision,” The Boston Globe (May 23, 2004), available at <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/23/94_new_cell_lines_created_abroad_since_bush_decision/>. See also Cook, G., “US Stem Cell Research Lagging,” The Boston Globe, (May 23, 2004), available at <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/23/us_stem_cell_research_lagging/>..+See+also+Cook,+G.,+“US+Stem+Cell+Research+Lagging,”+The+Boston+Globe,+(May+23,+2004),+available+at+.>Google Scholar
Hwang, Woo Suk, et. al., “Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst,” Science 303 (2004): 1669–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Korean “Life Ethics Bill” was approved by the National Assembly on December 29, 2003, and promulgated by the President on January 29, 2004. The law will take effect in 2005.Google Scholar
For a discussion of the ethical controversy regarding the South Korean cloning research, see “Crunch Time for Korea’s Cloners,” Nature 429 (2004): 12–14; See also “South Korean Cloning Team Denies Improprieties,” Science 304 (2004): “Ethics of Therapeutic Cloning,” Nature 429 (2004): at 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Spain, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, and Zambia: The Draft Resolution, Doc. A/C.6/58/L.2, available at <http://www.un.int/usa/A-C6-58-L2-cloning.pdf> (last visited August. 10, 2004).+(last+visited+August.+10,+2004).>Google Scholar
Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, India, Japan, Singapore, China, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea.Google Scholar
Okarma, T.B., “Human Embryonic Stem Cells: A Primer on the Technology and Its Applications,” in Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., eds., The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001): at 53.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on Human Stem Cell Research (Brussels, April 3, 2003).Google Scholar
Capron, A.M., “Placing a Moratorium on Research Cloning to Ensure Effective Control over Reproductive Cloning,” Hastings Law Journal 53 (2000): 1057, at 1057.Google Scholar
Holm, S., “The Ethical Case Against Stem Cell Research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 12 (2003): 372–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras.Google Scholar
For example, Brazil, , Peru, , Argentina, .Google Scholar
Knoppers, B.M., “Reflections: The Challenge of Biotechnology and Public Policy,” McGill Law Journal 45 (2000): 545–566, at 545.Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., Some Choice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), at 7.Google ScholarPubMed
Wellman, C., “Moral Consensus and the Law” in The Concept of Moral Consensus, Bayer, K., ed., (Bieleveld: Bieleveld Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994): at 152.Google Scholar
Knoppers, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Gunning, J. and Szoke, H., eds., The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2003): at 121.Google ScholarPubMed
For example, instrumentalisation or commodification of potential human life.Google Scholar
Parliament of South Africa, Draft Bill: National Health Bill (June 3, 2003 version).Google Scholar
Sections 68 and 76.Google Scholar
Schuklenk, U., “Ethics, Politics and Embryo Stem Cell Research in South Africa,” South African Medical Journal 92 (2002): 779–781.Google Scholar
South Africa Human Tissue Act (Act No. 65 of 1983).Google Scholar
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law, no provision in this Act shall be so construed as to permit genetic manipulation outside of the human body of gametes or zygotes.”Google Scholar
Medical Research Council of South Africa, MRC, Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: Reproductive Biology and Genetic Research (2002).Google Scholar
There is very serious disagreement on the ethical questions raised by embryonic stem cell research. One view is that the use of human embryos for deriving embryonic stem cell research is intrinsically unethical: to use embryos in this way is to instrumentalise human life and seriously to weaken the respect which is accorded to a vulnerable category of persons, namely human embryos. Another view is that such use is ethically acceptable for certain medical purposes and subject to rigorous safeguards: although the human embryo has a unique status because of its individual potential to develop into a person, it does not entail the respect and protection which goes with personhood. Finally, a mid-way view can be identified according to which, taking into account the present risks linked with this research and its possible ethical drifts, embryonic stem cell research should not be allowed. UNESCO, The Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Therapeutic Research (April 6 2001).Google Scholar
There are different perspectives and assessments regarding the moral status of the embryos among the major monotheistic religions in the world, such as Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Greek Orthodox, Islam, and Judaism. The predominant view in Catholicism is that the human embryo should be treated as a human person. Protestantism in turn, does not have an official position on the moral status of the embryo; some regard pre-embryos as persons while others believe they have an important but lesser value than personhood. The view of the Orthodox Church on this issue is that the process toward authentic personhood begins with the zygote, which is committed to a developmental course that will ultimately lead to a human person. In Islam the embryo’s journey to personhood occurs over time developmentally, and according to the rules of ensoulment, it takes place 120 days after fertilization. Finally, Judaism upholds that the embryo reaches moral status as a person after the fortieth day of gestation, when “quickening” occurs. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Volume III: Religious Perspectives (Rockville, MD: US Government Printing Office, 2000).Google Scholar
Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica,” Organization of American States (November 22, 1969).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Constitutions adopted in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru.Google Scholar
Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Exp. No. 95-0012734-0007-CO (March 15 2000).Google Scholar
Decree No. 24029-S, The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (March 3, 1995).Google Scholar
In late March 2004, the U.S. Senate passed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which represents the first time federal law recognizes an embryo or fetus as a “human being” distinct from the woman/mother. Notwithstanding that the act is of very limited scope (restricted to criminal acts that cause death or bodily injury to the unborn), it is a important achievement for President Bush who is seeking to cement into legislation his religious views on the personhood status of the human embryo.Google Scholar
Costa Rica, United States, Italy, Spain, and a coalition of other countries strongly advocated for a comprehensive ban on both therapeutic and research cloning. See, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Agenda No. 158, A/C.6/58/L.2.Google Scholar
See generally, Zegers-Hochschild, F., “Attitudes Towards Reproduction in Latin America. Teaching From the Use of Modern Reproductive Technologies,” Human Reproduction Update 5, no. 1 (1999): 21–25. See also “Comunicato Finale su ‘La Dignitá della Procreazione Umana e le Tecnologie Reproduttive. Aspetti Antropologici ed Etici’,” Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (February 2004) in which the Vatican condemns all treatments used to created life without sexual intercourse between a married-heterosexual couple and states that the “natural act of conception cannot be replaced by technological intervention.” Regarding research on embryos the Vatican called the “destruction or loss of embryos in the in-vitro process a massacre of the innocents in our time.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constitution of Ecuador, Article 49, paragraph I (June 5, 1998).Google Scholar
Decree No. 200/97, A Prohibition on Human Cloning Research (March 7, 1997) (author’s translation). In April of 2004 the Argentinean Committee of Ethics and Technology urged the government to overturn its current ban on human cloning, allowing the cloning of human embryos for research purposes while maintaining its prohibition on reproductive cloning. The Committee further recommended the government to revise the country’s official position regarding the United Nations’ International Convention Against Human Reproductive Cloning, by supporting a prohibition limited to human reproductive cloning. See Comité de Etica en la Ciencia y la Tecnología, “informe y Recomendaciones sobre Clonación Humana, No. 04.020.008” (March 8, 2004). See also “Argentina Urged to Support ‘Therapeutic Cloning,’” SciDev.Net <http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm7fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1380&language=1> (last visited September 27, 2004).+(last+visited+September+27,+2004).>Google Scholar
Law No. 26842, General Health Law (July 9, 1997) and Law No. 27636, Criminal Code: Genetic Manipulation.Google Scholar
Criminal Code Law No. 599 (July 24, 2000).Google Scholar
Law No. 3 on the Prohibition of All Forms of Cloning (January 25, 2004).Google Scholar
The Law on Science and Technology (Ley de Ciencia y Tecnología), adopted in June 2002–pursuant to Article 3 of the Mexican Federal Constitution, established as an objective of the federal government the development and strengthening of scientific and technological research in Mexico. Article 2 of the law states that it is state policy to increase the scientific and technological capabilities and the training of researchers in order to solve fundamental national problems that in turn will contribute to the country’s development and the increase of the population’s well being.Google Scholar
Jimenez-Sanchez, G., “Developing a Platform for Genomic Medicine in Mexico,” Science 300 (2003): 295–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuerdo por el que se crea con carâcter permanente la Comisión Nacional de Bioética (October 19, 2000).Google Scholar
General Health Law of 7 May 1997 (amended May 26, 2000).Google Scholar
Regulation to the General Health Law on Sanitary Control of Tissues, Organs and Cadavers and Regulation to the General Health Law on Scientific Health Research (1985).Google Scholar
Health Committee, Chamber of Deputies, Draft Law Amending the Law on National Health Institutes and the General Health Code (December 2, 2003). See also “Cloning Can Lead to a New Slavery, Warn Mexican Doctors After Senate Backs Stem Cell Research on Human Embryos,” Zenit News Agency (May 04, 2004).Google Scholar
“Ley para Regular la Investigatión y Aplicación Clínica de las Denominadas Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida,” Gaceta Oficial 1097, (2002):727–739.Google Scholar
“Proyecto de Ley que reforma la Ley General de Salud en material de Investigación para la Salud (Clonación Terapéutica)” (April 15, 2003). “Proyecto de Ley para Prohibir la Clonación Terapéutica” (April 28, 2003). “Proyecto de Ley para regular la investigación y aplicación clínica de las denominadas técnicas de reproducción asistida” (September 27, 2002).Google Scholar
Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988.Google Scholar
Article 8, Law No. 8974 on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms of January 5 1995.Google Scholar
Draft Law No. 2.401-A (2003), text available at <http://www.scidev.net/misc/lei.doc> (in Portuguese).+(in+Portuguese).>Google Scholar
Author’s translation.Google Scholar
See “Brazil’s Quandary on Bioethics,” (editorial) Science and Development Network, SciDev Net, (March 9, 2004), available at <http://www.scidev.net/editorials/index.cfm?fuseaction=readed-itorials&itemid=107&language=1> (last visited September 27, 2004).+(last+visited+September+27,+2004).>Google Scholar
Bine, La Academia Universitaria en Linea, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico – UNAM, available at <http://bine.izta-cala.unam.mx/>..>Google Scholar
Statement by the Brazilian Delegation, United Nations Sixth Committee – II Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, September 24, 2002).Google Scholar
Steinbock, B., “Respect for Human Embryos,” in Lauritzen, P., ed., Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2000).Google Scholar
Régnier, M.E. and Knoppers, B.M., “International Initiatives” Health Law Review 11, no. 1, (2002): 67–71.Google ScholarPubMed
This is what happened recently in Italy when after decades of enjoying a laissez-faire model the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) law was passed, shifting the model to one of the most prohibitive or conservative regulatory approaches in place in the world. The ART law prohibits embryo research, embryo cryop-reservation (freeze), and gamete donation. It also restricts access to fertility treatments to “stable heterosexual couples who live together and are of childbearing age.” Italy Medical Assisted Procreation Law, no. 40 (2004).Google Scholar
Genetic Research & Services, National Bioethics Committee, Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Ethical Policies on the Human Genome, available at <http://dbtindia.nic.in/ethicall.html>..>Google Scholar
Adopted by the World Medical Assembly in 1964 and amended in October 2000.Google Scholar
Adopted by UNESCO in 1997.Google Scholar
Indian Council of Medical Research, Consultative Document on Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects (2000).Google Scholar
“Every transplantation or research project involving the use of embryonic or fetal tissue must be approved by the local scientific committee and ethics committee and referred to National or Central Ethics Committee for final approval.” Id.Google Scholar
Indian Council of Medical Research & National Academy of Sciences (India), Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India, Draft National Guidelines for Accreditation (September 4, 2002), available at <http://icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm>..>Google Scholar
Jayaranaman, K.S., “News: India Shuts Door on Embryo Export Market,” Nature 419 (2002): 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Singapore has made considerable progress in research on embryonic stem cell research. For instance, Singapore has six of the estimated sixty embryonic stem cell lines. Though this figure trails some countries, such as Sweden with nineteen.” Oriola, T., “Ethical and Legal Issues in Singapore Biomedical Research,” Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 11 (2002): 497.Google Scholar
Lai, S., “The Singapore Patents Act 1994: Whither Biotechnology Patent Law?” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 7 (1995): 397–98.Google Scholar
Bioethics Advisory Committee, Human Stem Cell Research Consultation Paper (Singapore, November 8, 2001).Google Scholar
Bioethics Advisory Committee of Singapore (BAC), Consultation Paper “Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning” (June 2002).Google Scholar
Statement by Ambassador Mahbubani, Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations, presented at the United Nations Sixth Committee – II Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, September 22, 2002).Google Scholar
“Explaining the need for the new bill, Professor Tan Chorg Chuan, MOH’S Director of Medical Services, said: “Clear and stringent regulations are critical as more research using stem cells and tissues is carried out in Singapore because they will ensure that all the work being done is ethically sound” Singapore’s Ministry of Health (MOH) Press Releases, Draft Bill to Regulate Research on Human Stem Cells and Tissues (October 30, 2003). See also “U-turn on Penalty for Cloning Humans,” The Straits Times (June 25, 2004), available at <http://straitstimes.asial.com.sg/>..>Google Scholar
“U-turn on Penalty for Cloning Humans,” The Straits Times (June 25, 2004), available at <http://straitstimes.asial.com.sg/>..>Google Scholar
Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, The Guidelines for Derivation and Utilization of Human Embryonic Stem Cells (September 25, 2001), available at <http://www.mextgo.jp/a_menu/shinkou/seimei/2001/es/020101.pdf>..>Google Scholar
“Japan Gives Green Light to Human Cloning,” Cordis News *July 26, 2004), available at <http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:22371>..>Google Scholar
“Because biotechnology is considered essential for national and economic social development, Korea has taken great strides to set up an efficient institutional system related to this field. Twelve attempts were made to legislate bioethics from 1997 to March 2003.” Han, Sung-Goo, “New Cloning Technologies and Bioethical Issues: The Legislative Process in Korea,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 13 (2003): 216–19.Google Scholar
Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, Press Release “Biological Ethics Bill Passed by National Assembly” (January 14, 2004). See also “Bill Passed Banning Human Cloning,” The Korean Times (December 30, 2003); “South Korea to Ban Human Cloning,” The Washington Times (December 30, 2003).Google Scholar
The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare has launched the “Bioethics and Safety Task Force Team,” in charge of providing an institutional framework on stem cells and cloning in relation to the biological ethics law that will take effect early next year. Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, Press Release “Bioethics and Safely Task Force has Been Launched” (March 4, 2004).Google Scholar
The Chosun Ilbo, Daily Newspaper, “Seoul Finalizes Framework on Life Ethics,” February 6, 2003 <http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200302/200302060001.html> (last visited Septemebr 27, 2004).+(last+visited+Septemebr+27,+2004).>Google Scholar
South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare, Guidelines on the Safety of Biotechnology Research (December 2000).Google Scholar
Um, Young-Rhan, “South Korea: Human Embryo Research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 12 (Special Section: Bioethics Now: International Voices 2003) 268–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South Korean Bioethics Advisory Commission (KBAC), Recommendations for Biotechnological Research and Application (May 18, 2001).Google Scholar
Um, Young-Rhan, supra note 81.Google Scholar
The fact that the domains of biotechnology, biomedical research and advanced clinical medicine in China are still seriously underdeveloped in infrastructural, legal and ethical terms has prompted different explanations. Some argue that this lag can be understood as expressing the need for reforms, supporting Chinese efforts to implement policy of modernization […] Others refer to the technological imperative that is deeply ingrained in China’s politics and ideology, especially in the areas of population policy and biomedicine […] Others go as far as to claim, in the context of discussions of biopolicy in the West, that human cloning, including reproductive cloning and positive embryo selection, would be performed anyway, “if not America, China will do it inevitably” […]. In spite of such biased assumptions, Chinese policy makers have adopted a view that regards a sound system of legal regulations and ethical guidelines as a strategic advantage in the competitions of the global and regional markets of biomedicine. O. Doring, supra note 56.Google Scholar
Xiaomei, Z., “ABA Country Report for China 2003,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14, no. 1 (2004): 5–10.Google Scholar
The same prohibition is contained in the “Ethical Principles of Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies” adopted by the Chinese Ministry of Health in July 2003.Google Scholar
Xiaomei, , supra note 85.Google Scholar
Yang, Xiangzhong, “An Embryonic Nation,” Nature 428 (2004): 210–12; Yang, Xiangzhong, “China’s Struggle for Practical Regulations in Medical Ethics,” Nature Reviews Genetics 4 (2003): 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance, An Ordinance No. 47 (Amended 2002); China, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Gazette, Legal Supplement No. 1 to No. 26, 4, (30 June 2000), pp. A1691–A1777).Google Scholar
The Ordinance prescribes that it “shall come into operation on the day appointed by the Secretary of Health, Welfare and Food by notice in the Gazette” (Amended L.N. 106 of 202).Google Scholar
Statement by the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, presented at the United Nations Sixth Committee - I Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, February 26, 2002).Google Scholar
Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Public Health, Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (June 10, 1998).Google Scholar
Article 2 of the Interim Measures defines human genetic resources as “human organs, tissues, cells, blood specimens, preparations of any types or recombinant DNA constructs, which contains human genome, genes or gene products as well as the information related to such genetic materials.”Google Scholar
In December 2001, the Chinese Minister for Health announced the first state-run stem cell bank. The center will operate in the city of Tianjin under the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and is expected to be completed in 2010. The data bank will be the largest stem cell bank in Asia, which is in accordance with the Chinese government’s ambitions of becoming a leader in biotechnology and genomics; the government hopes that its investment in genomics will help in the fight of disease as well as foster economic growth.Google Scholar
Nevertheless, most recently, it has been reported that the Ministry of Health has enacted a directive (in effect since October 1, 2003) banning both research and reproductive human cloning, available at <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/finance/markets/031013_china2.htm> (last visited September 27, 2004).+(last+visited+September+27,+2004).>Google Scholar
“China Plans ‘Hybrid’ Embryonic Stem Cells,” Nature 413 (2001): 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statement by the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, presented at the United Nations Sixth Committee – II Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, September 23, 2002); Statement by the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations, presented at the United Nations Sixth Committee – I Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, February 26, 2002).Google Scholar
“Stem-cell Research Guidelines Unveiled,” The Nation (Thailand) (March 12, 2004).Google Scholar
In Mexico, the export of embryos and germ cells is subject to the approval of the government authority. (General Health Law of 7 May 1997, amended May 26, 2000). In contrast, since in Costa Rica and Peru the manipulation of embryos is prohibited by the constitution, the importation of embryos should also be regarded as prohibited.Google Scholar
The BAC notes than in Singapore today, surplus embryos less than 14 days old can be used for research purposes provided they meet the stringent regulatory stipulations set out under the Guidelines for Private Healthcare Institutions Providing Assisted Reproduction Services: Regulation 4 of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Regulations (Cap. 248, Rg.1). The BAC also observes that there is a fair amount of public acceptance of such research. Bioethics Advisory Committee of Singapore (BAC), Consultation Paper “Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning” (June 2002).Google Scholar
Recommendation 5 of the Singapore Bioethics Advisory Committee guidelines states that “the creation of human embryos specifically for research can only be justified where (1) there is strong scientific merit in, and potential medical benefit from, such research; (2) no acceptable alternative exists, and (3) on a highly selective, case-by-case basis, with specific approval from the proposed statutory body.” Bioethics Advisory Committee of Singapore (BAC), Consultation Paper “Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning” (June 2002).Google Scholar
Taiwan Medical Ethics Panel of the Department of Health, Opinion Regarding Human Embryo Research (February 21, 200).Google Scholar
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Institute for Civil Society, Stem Cell Research and Applications – Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research (November 1999).Google Scholar
South Korean Bioethics Advisory Commission provisions covering human embryo research state that stem cell research using supernumerary embryos and fetal tissue could be allowed up to a certain period of time. A later report from the South Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs further stated that the use of surplus embryos should be limited to the appearance of the primitive streak or to five years after their storage.Google Scholar
Research is prohibited on embryos more than 14 days after fertilization, excluding the period during which the embryo was frozen, with a maximum storage period often years and a five-year review of semen and embryo deposits as practiced in other countries (such as the U.K.). Indian Council of Medical Research, Consultative Document on Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects, Statement of Specific Principles for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (2000).Google Scholar
Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, supra note 74.Google Scholar
Article. 6 of the Chinese “Ethical Guidance on Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” adopted by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Technology in 2004, stipulates that “when a blastula is obtained by IVF, somatic cell nucleus transfer technique, monosexual reproduction technique or genetic modification, the culture period in vitro cannot be more than 14 days since fertilization or nucleus transfer.”Google Scholar