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

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).

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/>.

Hwang Woo Suk , “Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst,” Science 303 (2004): 1669–74.

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.

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.

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).

Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, India, Japan, Singapore, China, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea.

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.

Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on Human Stem Cell Research (Brussels, April 3, 2003).

Capron A.M. , “Placing a Moratorium on Research Cloning to Ensure Effective Control over Reproductive Cloning,” Hastings Law Journal 53 (2000): 1057, at 1057.

Holm S. , “The Ethical Case Against Stem Cell Research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 12 (2003): 372–83.

For example, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras.

For example, Brazil Peru Argentina .

Knoppers B.M. , “Reflections: The Challenge of Biotechnology and Public Policy,” McGill Law Journal 45 (2000): 545–566, at 545.

Annas G.J. , Some Choice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), at 7.

Wellman C. , “Moral Consensus and the Law” in The Concept of Moral Consensus, Bayer K. , ed., (Bieleveld: Bieleveld Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994): At 152.

Knoppers , supra note 14.

Gunning J. and Szoke H. , eds., The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Burlington, VT, Ashgate, 2003): at 121.

For example, instrumentalisation or commodification of potential human life.

Parliament of South Africa, Draft Bill: National Health Bill (June 3, 2003 version).

Sections 68 and 76.

Schuklenk U. , “Ethics, Politics and Embryo Stem Cell Research in South Africa,” South African Medical Journal 92 (2002): 779–781.

South Africa Human Tissue Act (Act No. 65 of 1983).

“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.”

Medical Research Council of South Africa, MRC, Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: Reproductive Biology and Genetic Research (2002).

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).

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).

For example, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Argentina, and South Korea do not define the term embryo (although a reading of the Korean Bioethics Advisory Committee guidelines makes clear that they are referring to the pre-implantation embryo). South Africa's Medical Research Council guidelines define the “pre-embryo as product of gamete union from the time of fertilization to the appearance of the embryonic axis. The pre-embryonic stage is considered to last for 14 days,” and in their National Health Bill “embryo means a human offspring in the first eight weeks from conception.” Singapore's Bioethics Advisory Committee Report defines the term embryo as “the beginning of any organism in the early stages of development; a stage (between the ovum and the fetus) in the prenatal development of a mammal,” while the draft Regulation of Biomedical Research Bill does not contain a definition of the term. Nevertheless, the draft Regulations define hES research as “any research involving the use of stem cells which originate from early human embryos created by in-vitro fertilization (IVF), cloning techniques or from existing embryonic stem cell lines.” In turn, India's Council for Medical Research defines “the embryonic state between 15 days and 8 weeks post-conception of a pregnancy. In the absence of more precise information (i.e. menstrual cycle length), conception is presumed to have taken place two weeks after the beginning of the woman's last menstrual period. The distinction of the 15-day stage as the beginning of the embryonic stage is not arbitrary: the pre-embryo is not isomorphic with the later developmental stages, since cells cannot yet be defined as contributing to the embryo or to the extra-embryo tissue, and complete implantation has not yet been accomplished. At 8 weeks, the rudiments of nearly all the main structures have been laid down giving a general appearance of a mammal-to-be with four limbs and head.” Other Indian CMR and National Academy of Medical Sciences Reports (on Assisted Reproductive Technologies) define the term “embryo” as “the fertilized ovum that has begun cellular division and continued development up to the blastocyst stage till the end of eight weeks.” In contrast, Mexico's law understands by embryo “the product of conception from fertilization to the end of the 12th week of gestation.” Finally, the Japanese law concerning Regulation relating to Human Cloning Techniques (2000) defines in a more comprehensive fashion the term “embryo,” distinguishing from the “human embryonic cell,” “human embryonic clone embryo” and “human somatic clone embryo.” According to the law, a Tniman fertilized embryo” is an “embryo produced by fertilization between a human spermatozoon and a human fertilized egg” (including each embryo which is produced successively by not less than one split of such an embryo and is not a human split embryo).

Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica,” Organization of American States (November 22, 1969).

See, e.g., Constitutions adopted in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru.

Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Exp. No. 95-0012734-0007-CO (March 15 2000).

Decree No. 24029-S, The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (March 3, 1995).

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.

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.

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.”

Constitution of Ecuador, Article 49, paragraph I (June 5, 1998).

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).

Law No. 26842, General Health Law (July 9, 1997) and Law No. 27636, Criminal Code: Genetic Manipulation.

Criminal Code Law No. 599 (July 24, 2000).

Law No. 3 on the Prohibition of All Forms of Cloning (January 25, 2004).

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.

Jimenez-Sanchez G. , “Developing a Platform for Genomic Medicine in Mexico,” Science 300 (2003): 295–296.

Acuerdo por el que se crea con carâcter permanente la Comisión Nacional de Bioética (October 19, 2000).

General Health Law of 7 May 1997 (amended May 26, 2000).

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).

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).

“Ley para Regular la Investigation y Aplicación Clínica de las Denominadas Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida,” Gaceta Oficial 1097, (2002):727–739.

“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).

Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988.

Article 8, Law No. 8974 on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms of January 5 1995.

Draft Law No. 2.401-A (2003), text available at <http://www.scidev.net/misc/lei.doc> (in Portuguese).

Author's translation.

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).

Bine, La Academia Universitaria en Linea, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico – UNAM, available at <http://bine.izta-cala.unam.mx/>.

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).

The principle of “respect for embryos” does not mean that they could never be destroyed or used in research, but rather it means than the interests or goals to be accomplished by using them in research must be shown to be compelling or unreachable by other means. In addition, it requires the implementation of certain restrictions (if no prohibitions) and safeguards. Callahan D. , “The Puzzle of Profound Respect,” Hasting Center Report 25, no. 1, (1995); 39–40. The principle is present across the restrictive-pragmatic policy design continuum, though is most compatible with a restrictive policy design. Perhaps the most clear examples of its application are contained in India's and South Africa's Medical Research Council statements: “respect for embryos moral status can be shown by accepting limits on what can be done in embryo research,” Medical Research (ICMR), “Consultative Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects,” (2000), or “a human embryo is special because of its potential for human life. The recognition of this potential has traditionally limited experimentation on human embryos, regardless of the legal determinations of when life begins,” Medical Research Council of South Africa,” Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: Reproductive Biology and Genetic Research,” (2002). The cited principle (however interpreted), is also enshrined in policies adopted in other countries. For instance, the Brazilian law on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms recognizes the principle of respect for embryos by prohibiting the storage and manipulation of embryos for use as biological material. Paradoxically, even in countries that have a pragmatic approach, vague reference is made to this principle of respect. South Korea and Singapore recommend that “embryos should be protected, “respect for human life is a basic principle” (South Korea) or “such respect is however, not absolute and may be weighed against the recognized benefits arising from the proposed research” (Singapore), while Chinese provincial guidelines highlight the general principle of “respect for human life at all stages.” “China's leading bioethicist, Qiu Renzong, has explained that China advocates the peculiar value of the human embryo. The destruction, even of an early human life form, needs to be justified by high-ranking medical purposes, which are not expected to be achievable otherwise.” Doring O. , “Searching for Advances in Biomedical Ethics in China: Recent Trends. China Analysis,” (Germany: Center for East Asian and Pacific Studies, Trier University, 27 (October 2003). Japanese guidelines are more precise as they assert that “human embryos and hES cells shall be handled carefully and conscientiously without violating human dignity, taking into consideration that a human embryo is the beginning of a human life and that human ES cells have the potential to differentiate into any type of human cells.” Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Guidelines for the Derivation and Utilization of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, (September 25, 2001).

Steinbock B. , “Respect for Human Embryos,” in Lauritzen P. , ed., Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2000).

Régnier M.E. and Knoppers B.M. , “International Initiatives” Health Law Review 11, no. 1, (2002): 67–71.

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).

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>.

Adopted by the World Medical Assembly in 1964 and amended in October 2000.

Adopted by UNESCO in 1997.

Indian Council of Medical Research, Consultative Document on Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects (2000).

“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.

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>.

Jayaranaman K.S. , “News: India Shuts Door on Embryo Export Market,” Nature 419 (2002): 238.

“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.

Lai S. , “The Singapore Patents Act 1994: Whither Biotechnology Patent Law?” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 7 (1995): 397–98.

Bioethics Advisory Committee, Human Stem Cell Research Consultation Paper (Singapore, November 8, 2001).

Bioethics Advisory Committee of Singapore (BAC), Consultation Paper “Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning” (June 2002).

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).

“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/>.

“U-turn on Penalty for Cloning Humans,” The Straits Times (June 25, 2004), available at <http://straitstimes.asial.com.sg/>.

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>.

“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>.

“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.

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).

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).

The Chosun Ilbo, Daily Newspaper, “Seoul Finalizes Framework on Life Ethics,” February 6, 2003 <http://english.chosun.com/w2ldata/html/news/200302/200302060001.html> (last visited Septemebr 27, 2004).

South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare, Guidelines on the Safety of Biotechnology Research (December 2000).

Um Young-Rhan , “South Korea: Human Embryo Research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 12 (Special Section: Bioethics Now: International Voices 2003) 268–78.

South Korean Bioethics Advisory Commission (KBAC), Recommendations for Biotechnological Research and Application (May 18, 2001).

Um Young-Rhan , supra note 81.

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.

Xiaomei Z. , “ABA Country Report for China 2003,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14, no. 1 (2004): 5–10.

The same prohibition is contained in the “Ethical Principles of Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies” adopted by the Chinese Ministry of Health in July 2003.

Xiaomei , supra note 85.

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.

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).

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).

Statement by the Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, presented at the United Nations Sixth Committee -1 Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (New York, February 26, 2002).

Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Public Health, Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (June 10, 1998).

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.”

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.

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).

“China Plans ‘Hybrid’ Embryonic Stern Cells,” Nature 413 (2001): 339.

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).

“Stem-cell Research Guidelines Unveiled,” The Nation (Thailand) (March 12, 2004).

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.

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).

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).

Taiwan Medical Ethics Panel of the Department of Health, Opinion Regarding Human Embryo Research (February 21, 200).

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Institute for Civil Society, Stem Cell Research and Applications – Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research (November 1999).

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.

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).

Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, supra note 74.

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.”