The debate has not addressed whether humans, both living and future, have a collective right to live in a world that is genetically diverse. This new question imports policy concerns from international environmental law concerning biodiversity and applies them to human genetics. That is, genetic technology has the potential to jeopardize human genetic diversity, and international human rights organizations should respond by recognizing that human genetic diversity is both intrinsically valuable and instrumental to the cultural, scientific and social development of the human race. Essentially, the biodiversity argument reconceptualizes the right to life in terms of the genetic diversity expressed throughout the human species. Conclusion Further development of genetic technology is inevitable.
Governments continue to postpone regulation on the assumption that it is a distant reality.
Recent developments, however, including the successful cloning of a sheep and rhesus monkeys, bring this reality closer. As scientists overcome technical problems and the future looms nearer, governments will have to rethink the ethical implications of genetic technology and rewrite existing laws accordingly. Regulation requires language, language requires definitions, and definitions change with technological capability. Whether governments employ human rights principles to restrict or widen access to genetic technology, they need a human rights language that accommodates the spacial and temporal dimensions of technological advancement. Genetic technology allows human rights organizations to play an active role in preventing human rights violations.