Search

Despite polls showing overwhelming public opposition to the cloning of human beings, several scientists have made it clear that they are on a quick path toward the birth of the […]

Back in the late 1990s, when cloning was about Dolly and not about stem cells, I had the privilege of attending an ancillary meeting of the International Association for Bioethics [...]

President's Council on Bioethics is debating on moral and scientific issues surrounding a number of potential scenarios for creating stem cells without destroying live embryos. The council considered four methods to possibly generate stem cells and gave ethical approval to only using dead embryos and cell dedifferentiation.

IN HIS RECENT BOOK OUR POST-HUMAN Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Francis Fukuyama writes, "Cloning is the opening wedge for a series of new technologies that will ultimately lead […]

Cloning and stem cells are once again on the nation's front burner after a 4-month hiatus in the aftermath of 11 September. Last week the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) [...]

RELIGIOUS AND political leaders, from President Bush to the Vatican, sharply criticized the announcement that scientists in Massachusetts had succeeded in creating the first cloned human embryo, pushing religion and […]

The White House, Congress and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission have not reacted very strongly to the news that scientists in Hawaii have produced large numbers of mouse clones. Congress has a tight legislative schedule, and this means that immediate action is unlikely. This situation has been welcomed by many biomedical research supporters, who believe that legislation would have a negative impact on research. The Biotechnology Industry Organization continues to oppose the use of cloning technology to clone human beings.

In his engagingly titled book, What's Wrong with the World, G. K. Chesterton argued that his fellow citizens could not repair the defects of the family because they had no [...]

The New England Journal of Medicine adds its support to the scientists and biotechnology companies who oppose bills in Congress that would ban all research on the cloning of human cells. These bills were introduced following the announcement of the cloning of a sheep. Many believe it would be immoral and unethical to clone a human, but medical researchers believe the cloning of human cells could have therapeutic benefits. The cloned cells could have specific genes inserted that would correct genetic deficiencies. A bill to protect this research but ban the implantation of a cloned embryo in a human uterus might be a better approach.

The question of when life begins has divided the scientific world over human cloning. Critics argue that the technology to clone human cells would generate an embryo that has the same moral status as any other human. However, supporters contend that the technology only produces a set of cells that may or may not develop into an embryo, and that is not equivalent to humans.

Laws aimed at preventing human cloning are insufficient in light of loopholes created by recent scientific developments. The US should set a national policy about the process and create an oversight group to license fertility clinics, assess the safety of reproductive technologies, and collect data on children created by such technologies.

The Feb 1997 cloning of an adult sheep by Scottish researchers has intensified the debate over the ethics of human cloning. While most scientists and politicians seem to overwhelmingly oppose the cloning of humans as immoral, theologians and philosophers are divided over the issue, with a vocal minority arguing that human cloning could be both ethically and morally acceptable. They agree, however, that the process is open to possible misuse. Both opponents and supporters of human cloning worry about its effects upon the clone and the clone's possible mistreatment by society.

Some 30 years before the birth of Dolly, the cloned sheep, and sometime near the beginnings of bioethics, Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg wrote an article for the American Naturalist (September-October […]

Questions still abound about the ethics of human embryo research and the true definition of cloning. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 effectively removed the requirement of an ethics review board for in vitro fertilization studies. The NIH's human embryo research panel will advise the NIH director on government-sponsored research and develop requirements for research proposals. The National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction will also meet to discuss the scientific and ethical issues of reproduction research, specifically those related to a cloning project conducted by scientists at George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC. To further confuse the matter, ethicists and scientist disagree on the definition of cloning. Many ethicists believe a clone is generally an identical copy. Scientists define cloning narrowly as destroying the genetic makeup of an unfertilized egg by transferring an adult cell nucleus into the egg and letting it develop with new genes.

The prospect of cloning human embryos conjures up visions of a Brave New World, in which masses of identical people become automatons functioning for the benefit of the state. Given [...]