Asia's Stance on Therapeutic Cloning

Arlene Ducao

July 2005

That Asia looks to be pulling ahead of the west in terms of cloning technologies-- and that it has something to do with differing predominant religious values-- intrigues me. I would like to explore the generalized, collective position of Asia and see how the predominant religions of its most medically innovative countries leads to such different moral and ethical choices from those of the west.

This situation was first brought to my attention in a Science Magazine article detailing some of Asia's specific innovations and medical funding politics: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5710/660?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=south+korea+stem+cell&searchid=1122666401238_6937&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=7/31/2005. An 3 June 2005 article in USCF Today (http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/cache/news/200506023.html) says that when it comes to stem cells and cloning, the U.S. leads in its ethical feuding, whereas Asia seems stand outside the debate completely: "While Christianity is rooted in Asia, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism remain the most powerful traditions. And each tradition favors the living person over the unborn" (http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/news.php?news_id=200506023)

Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, who is making headlines today for heading the team to clone the first dog (http://nytimes.com/2005/08/03/science/03cnd-clone.html?hp#) and whose team earlier this year made the first 'tailor made' embryos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555023.stm), is perhaps an embodiment of the traditions that seem to be shaping a more 'Asian genethics.' He says of the ethical debate: "Maybe this 15 micrometers of skin cell can relieve and save the life of a human being next to me, someone who has suffered for 50 years or who must suffer for 50 years. Of the two, which do you think is ethically reasonable to save?" (UCSF Today / NY Times).

The Eubios Ethics Institute, based in Japan and hosted by UNESCO Bangkok(http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/), sponsored the conference ASIAN BIOETHICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY, a number of critical essays by Asian physicians, bioethicists, and scientists presenting at an Asian Bioethics Conference (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4.htm). In one essay, Dr. Benfu Li of Peking University, China, says that "Most Chinese scholars think that the embryo is human biological life, not human life. The embryo's value is not the same as another human. Therefore, they approve of human ES cell research for improving human's health, including using cloned embryos of less than 14 days" (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4/abc4058.htm). While the embryonic stem cell debate in America is mainly over the cells yield from in vitro fertilization (IVF), Li says that in China, neither embryonic cells from abortion nor IVF are cause for much contention-- the question is more over the embryonic stem cells yielded from cloning. But because of the prevailing belief that an embryo is the material for life without actually being a life-- primarily because embryos lack their own autonomy-- there is general agreement that cloning is ethical under strict government regulation. Sriram Chakravarthi, a Singaporean PhD law student, takes a look at the development of his country's "strict guidelines" in "Stem Cell Research and Development in Singapore: Commercial Promises v. Ethical Considerations" (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4/abc4073.htm). The Taiwanese law professors Wenmay Rei and Jiunn-Rong Yeh also put forth general recommendations for the general bioethics committees that nations are increasingly instituting in response to all these bioethics issues (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4/abc4363.htm).

Another essay by Zhang Xinqing examines "Germ-line Gene Therapy from the Lens of Confucian Ethics" (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4/abc4061.htm ). He takes on three arguments against germ-line gene therapy: 1) it's tantamount to playing god, 2) it violates the autonomy of future generations, and 3) it opens a Pandora Box / slippery slope. To the first argument, Xinqing says that to Confucians, there is no "predetermined pattern, no cosmic bluprint, against which to check one's progress," so gene therapy, as a way to make up for natural defects, is moral. To the second argument, Xinqing says that Confucians think a surrendering of a little autonomy can bring a great deal of benefit. He says that this concept is practiced even in the west under names like triage and parental consent. To the third argument, Xinqing agrees with Li in saying that stringent regulation can allow for that Pandora's box to be opened slowly and carefully, but the box should be opened nevertheless: "We cannot refrain from eating for fear of choking," as he quotes a Chinese adage.

Similar articles are published in the Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics. In volume 14 (2004), philosopher Somparn Promta of the Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, examines cloning through Theravada Buddhism. He proposes the notion of 'enforced donation' as it applies to rape in Buddhist Thailand. When one is raped there, she has the right to abort the child, so the child would become the 'enforced donor' for the benefit of another. To not allow the mother to have this right is socially immoral, and here Promta draws a parallel to therapeutic cloning. The creation of a clone and the harvesting of embryos may be 'unwholesome actions' according to Buddhist doctrine, but like abortion, they are not sins since they can be justified if they are taken to benefit another living creature. Promta says that the benefit that a patient may receive from therapeutic cloning can be enough justification.

Is there a moral weakness to these arguments? I don't think you can pass moral judgement on them without passing judgement on Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism themselves as they compare with the Abrahamic religions.

Apart from these arguments but tangential to them, Business Week says that "another concern is what some critics see as a lax approach to oversight and ethics in some labs, including the use of stem cells drawn from fetuses aborted in the second trimester in China" (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915052.htm). Critics of the Confucian-, Taoist-, and Buddhist-based arguments could associate those argument with this 'lax approach.' While South Korea recently passed a Bioethics and Safety Law (http://asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2510), there is a lagging approach to bioethics in other countries. At the Asian Bioethics Conference, Dr. Yanguang Wang professed his frustration with the Chinese government for its slowness to instill bioethics government regulations (http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/ABC4/abc4074.htm). Another Eubios article examines how there are very few bioethics requirement for medical students in Japan (http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/asiae/biae144.html).

It seems that the best chance that Asia has for combating charges of ethical laxness is to institute effectual, bioethics advisory committees in addition to legislation. In their paper examining the case studies of bioethics committees in Taiwan and the U.S and how they can help form a model for functional, effectual bioethics committees, Wenmay Rei and Jiunn-Rong Yeh and note that the U.S. President's Commission on bioethics "helped government officials to deflect personal responsibility and potential vulnerability on highly controversial issues." But more than this, a productive bioethics committee, especially if it has a plural membership with many kinds of professionals, can help a society reach a moral consensus. In Taiwan, the bioethics committee has concerns that extend beyond those of western bioethics committee: the ethics of traditional medicine alone and in tandem with cutting-edge genetic innovation. Perhaps this is another reason why therapeutic cloning is not as divisive of an issue in Asia-- the range of medicine is much broader already, both in

terms of practice and in terms of history.

In and of themselves, I think that the major weakness of the Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist arguments as they pertain to our course and to geneticists and genethicists here is that of relavancy-- they are the argument of people on the other side of the planet, arguments that have little bearing on the ethical debate unfolding here in America. Why even consider it then?

The unavoidable reason is economic: Asia is becoming extremely competitive. The Asian brain drain is lessening and lessening each year. Asian science students coming to study in America, who ten years had better opportunities in America and thereby would be more likely to stay, are finding that their home governments are directing more and more of their budgets towards scientific and medical innovation, and that these governments have increasingly large, stable finances to direct. Asian universities are joining in this innovation, meaning that a student doesn't even have to necessarily leave Asia to study cutting-edge science.

With many American scientists feeling constricted by America's current scientific and political policies, there is nothing to say that the brain drain could reverse. In fact, Business Week says that it is beginning to reverse: "Some governments have focused on importing talent. China, for instance, has recruited scientists from top universities in the U.S. to run research centers on the mainland" (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915052.htm). The potential of an American brain drain and the potential of Asia becoming the first "Cloning Superpower" (Wired Magazine)-- Asian embryonic genethics have a strong chance of becoming embryonic international genethics in the future.

-----

Arriving at the 'generalized, collective Asian approach' made me realize that an ethical debate can be rendered less fractious if a marginalized (at least at this point, and at least in America) viewpoint is addressed. With the media in the U.S. being more self-centered than the media in other countries, it's sometimes it's easy to forget that America is not the only site of scientific innovation-- in fact, most of the world's cloning developments of recent years have taken place outside of America. The ethical debate as it unfolds in America is important and it will impact how we will live our lives as Americans, but the debate (or lack thereof) as it unfolds in the rest of the world will impact how America will survive in an increasingly global economy.

Examining non-Abrahamic religions as they pertain to science was also a refreshing process, mainly because Abrahamic religions are so dominant here, representatives of those religions are much more vocal, and the vocal representatives these days often hold the most polarized views. I was glad to examining/taking the non-Abrahamic Asian position because the Asian viewpoint is rather marginalized here and the rest of the west, and because the influence of religion on its bioethics seems to be more subtle and less polarized than it is here.