Regulating the creation of novel beings. (2002)

Introduction (1) Bill C-l3, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, (2) proposes to regulate various elements of the creation of novel beings. Though the bill is directed primarily at the techniques and processes of human infertility intervention, it is concerned secondarily with some aspects of human experimentation. bill thus deals with the circumstances under which chimera- and hybrid-making would and would not be permitted, where the or is created in part from human biological materials. In this brief commentary, I focus on the proposed regulation of chimera- and hybrid-making. I probe some definitional oddities in the relevant portion the bill, assess possible scientific rationales for creating transgenic beings from human genes and cells, and touch on ethical and legal aspects of regulating the creation of these sorts of novel beings. I. Definitional Issues Bill C-13 distinguishes between chimeras and Creating either type of creature is, prima facie, prohibited under the bill, carrying a maximum penalty of a fine of $500,000 and/or a prison term of 10 years (though the actual penalty assessed may be less severe). Section 3 of Bill C-13 defines chimera as: 1. an into which a cell of any non-human life form has been introduced; or 2. an that consists of cells of more than one embryo, foetus or human Embryo, as defined in s. 3, refers exclusively to human embryos: embryo means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development following fertilization or creation, excluding any time during which its development is suspended, and includes any cell derived from such an organism that is used for the purpose of creating a human being. Hybrid is also defined in s. 3 and means: (a) a human ovum that has been fertilized by a sperm of a non-human life form; (b) an ovum of a non-human life form that has been fertilized by a human sperm; (c) a human ovum into which the nucleus of a cell of a non-human life form has been introduced; (d) an ovum of a non-human life form into which the nucleus of a human cell has been introduced; or (e) a human ovum or an ovum of a non-human life form that otherwise contains haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human being and a nonhuman life form. Section 5(1)(i) prohibits chimera-making: 5(1) No person shall knowingly (i)create a chimera, or transplant a into either a human being or a non-human life form; Section 5(1)(j) prohibits hybrid-making: 5(1) No person shall knowingly (j)create a for the purpose of reproduction, or transplant a into either a human being or a non-human life form. Are these definitions scientifically or legally adequate? Let us begin with hybrids. A vague definition of hybrid would not have sufficed, either legally or scientifically. An example of a vague definition is that provided by Genome Canada, and adopted from the Human Genome Project Information website: The offspring of different parents. (3) At least in the case of animals (including humans), unless the parents are identical twins, they will be genetically different. A regulation prohibiting the creation of hybrids so defined would prohibit reproduction except--per impossibile--between identical twins! Within the context of a bill concerning human reproduction and human reproductive materials, a scientifically adequate definition of hybrid (involving human genetic or cellular material) should capture at least the following possibilities: the fertilization of a human ovum with non-human sperm; the fertilization of a non-human ovum with human sperm; the insertion of a non-human cell nucleus into a human enucleated ovum; and the insertion of a human cell nucleus into a non-human enucleated ovum. …