About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


7 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 169 (1997-1998)
The Sheep Heard 'Round the World: Legislation vs. Self-Regulation of Human Cloning

handle is hein.journals/kjpp7 and id is 525 raw text is: The Sheep Heard 'Round the World: Legislation vs. Self-regulation of Human Cloning Matthew M. Merrill L Introduction - The Sheep Heard 'Round the World You are probably familiar with who (or what) Dolly is by now, but if not, here is what you've been missing. Dolly is the name of the sheep cloned in July, 1996 by Scottish scientists,' the news being announced to the press in early 1997. Although clones have been produced before in a limited sense, this sheep represents the first time a clone has been created via a new process in which the donated genetic material, DNA, came from an adult cell.2 This huge leap in technology raises new concerns, now apparent and sprouting through- out society, dealing first with whether human cloning is scientifically possible, and second, to what extent it should be allowed.3 The field of biotechnology is producing questions the legal community has never before been called upon to answer.4 The technology introduced by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Scotland has sparked new and exciting possi- bilities for human reproduction.5 However, the growth of these new reproductive opportunities has been paralleled by growth of opposition from various sources.6 Dolly raises the prospect that the creation of an individual genetically identical to an existing person is possible. This person might be better referred to as a delayed genetic twin; i.e. one that is identical, but lags behind in age. Not surpris- ingly this image has been the source of heated societal concern.7 The cloning of Dolly has fueled new debate as to what kinds of regulation, if any, should be placed on scientific research pertain- ing to human cloning. As has often been the case with technological biomedical advances, the evolution of enforceable legal regulations and the formulation of widely understood and accepted ethical policies has lagged behind rapid developments [in scienceJ.s There is similar debate as to whether society's best interest would better be served through possi- ble legislation at the governmental level, or through industry-wide self-regulation. This article will weigh the pros and cons that both self-regulation and governmental regulation have to offer, concluding that the ban on feder- al funding, and the self-imposed moratorium on cloning should remain for now. However, no federal or state laws need be enacted ban- ning human cloning research at this time. A moratorium, as used in this sense, may best be defined as a pause in action, or a sus- pension of activity pending further analysis or other action.9 Research moratoria generally work well despite isolated violations (whether deliberate or not) in rare instances,1 but admit- tedly will always be vulnerable to those per- sons willing to deviate from them. For exam- ple, it was announced in early January this year that a doctor in Chicago seems ready and will- ing to commence the first clinic for reproduc- tive assistance utilizing human cloning as its primary technique. Although assisted repro Matthew M. Merrill is a third-year law student at The University Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas.