Protection of genetic heritage in the era of cloning

Abstract

Research with stem cells Advances in biotechnology and biomedical engineering gain substance and are projected in many healthcare areas, especially in genetic engineering, which started after the deciphering of DNA. There is an uncontrollable fascination of researchers to overcome all barriers in their way and to find conceptive technologies that are safe and feasible, which provide complete control over the genetic patrimony. If, on one hand, this opens up new alternatives for infertility so that citizens can exercise the right of procreation, on the other, due to the blurred manners of research, there is a need to draw boundaries to protect mankind. Man, by his own behavior and because of his intelligence, has an investigative nature, he is a researcher bent on knowing the mysteries that challenge and abound in his external world. He wants to penetrate the secrets of nature, dominate the seas, air, mountains, trees, animals and everything else, a real tug of war in which, what should prevail is man's conquest and superiority. But, not always man achieves his goals. Nothing can be done to stop an earthquake, a tsunami, a storm, a volcanic eruption, except, preventively, to guard against imminent danger. If man has gained benefits to improve and optimize his life, he has also accumulated losses, because he fails to restore and preserve nature that has its own immutable rules. For more than a decade man has been intensifying studies involving adult stem cells, which have been tentatively directed to replace and repair tissue. Research moved forward and man started studying embryonic cells, which have the capacity to differentiate into any cell due to their totipotent, multipotent and pluripotent characteristics. And with this the Brazilian Supreme Court was called upon to decide a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality brought by the General Attorney's Office regarding the use of human embryos for stem cell research and therapy purposes; the ruling was close but favorable (six votes to five) and thus brought a new ethical legal view in respect to the beginning of life. The action, in brief, embraced the idea that the embryo, since its inception, is representative of life and, as such, enjoys the privilege and right to have its dignity preserved. Thus, the legislative liberality afforded in the article in the law on biosafety (1) , which allows the use of non-viable embryos for research purposes, would be a way to counter the legal order and violate the principle of human dignity, which is one of the basic foundations of a democratic state of law. With this decision, the Supreme Court indirectly defined the beginning of human life, as in the womb and not in vitro. The defining locus changed to intra-uterus, the protective shell that supplies a refuge for the embryo, providing it all the conditions necessary for its development. Extra-uterus conditions, such as with in vitro fertilization, there is no life but rather a set of procreative cells. Research on human beings has expanded greatly due to progress and the evol...