Bioethics and Cloning, Part 1

Bioethics Research Library The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics Box 571212, Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057-1212 202-687-3885; fax: 202-687-8089 [email protected] http://bioethics.georgetown.edu

Bioethics and Cloning, S Part 1 Susan Cartier Poland C Laura Jane Bishop September, 2002

O This is Part 1 of a two-part Scope Note on Bioethics and Cloning. The two parts were published consecutively in the September and December 2002 issues of the P Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. Introduction

“Clone” is a collective noun (I, Stewart 1997, p. 771). A collective noun names E a group and is composed of individual members, such as “herd” or “flock.” Derived from the Greek klôn for twig or slip, “clone” was first used in biology to describe the aggregate of asexually produced progeny of an individual, either naturally occurring or man-made; the definition later expanded to mean a group of genetically identical members who originate from a single ancestor. Thus, a N clone is a group that results from the process of asexual reproduction.

In nature, cloning occurs either by parthenogenesis (reproduction without O fertilization) or by fission (embryo splitting). In a pioneering experiment in 1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King (I, 1952), cancer researchers at the Institute for Cancer Research (today part of the Fox Chase Cancer Center) in Philadelphia, demonstrated on frogs another method of cloning by transplanting nuclei into T enucleated cells, a technique called “nuclear transplantation,” which John B. E Gurdon and colleagues (I, 1958, 1975) used to create clones of frogs. 41

1 Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, two back- to-back frauds in cloning occurred. First, the TABLE OF CONTENTS cloning of a human described by American science journalist David Rorvik in the 1978 book Introduction...... 1 In His Image was called a hoax by a court in I. History of the Science...... 4 1982. Second, the cloning of three mice, II. Historical Commentary...... 7 announced by German wunderkind Karl Illmensee III. Animal Welfare...... 9 (I) to scientific circles in 1979 (and to the public IV. Laws and Legal Literature...... 11 in 1981), could not be proven to be true, A. United States...... 11 according to convincing evidence by McGrath and B. International...... 12 Solter (I) published in 1984. C. Other...... 14 D. Legal Literature...... 14 With their pronouncement that mammalian cloning was impossible, McGrath and Solter essentially stopped cloning research and funding theology and philosophy. It fosters questions for such biological research. So by the mid-1980s, about the meaning and purpose of life, the limits instead of further investigating cloning, of human powers to intervene in research and developmental biologists studied embryology therapy, and what it means to be human and related to in vitro fertilization, while molecular animal. In addition, environmentalists and organic biologists studied recombinant DNA under the farmers raise concerns about the effect of novel newly relaxed NIH guidelines. These two strands animals and plants on the environment, while of scientific investigation came together in the nutritionists and the lay public wonder about the work of Ian Wilmut, (I) who created in vitro health implications of cloning and consuming embryos using nuclear transplantation to mass quantities of bioengineered plants. reproduce genetically engineered cattle. Wilmut was seeking a way to increase the successful birth Keeping in mind at least four distinctions may rate when, in the 1990s, he produced identical help in understanding media reports of scientific twin sheep, Megan and Morag, cloned from an developments in cloning technology, in evaluating embryonic cell, followed by another sheep, Dolly, claims about the promise of cloning technologies, cloned from an adult cell. The birth of a mammal and in being clear about ethical and theological from an embryo whose genetic material came arguments for and against cloning. First, one must from an adult cell firmly re-established the distinguish the purpose of the cloning: Is it being possibility of cloning from adults. Prior to Dolly’s done purely for research or for research to birth, scientists believed that adult cells lost the understand and develop treatments or cures for ability to dedifferentiate—i.e., to become diseases or disorders (optimistically called unspecialized—and so could not direct the therapeutic cloning) or for reproductive purposes? development of an embryo through to birth. An often discussed focus of “therapeutic cloning” is the creation of cells, tissues, or fully formed The 1997 announcement of Dolly’s birth initiated organs for transplantation into humans to the present widespread discussion of cloning. regenerate or replace damaged, diseased, Because of its potentially vast applications across deformed, or worn-out parts. These resources, human health, medicine, agriculture, and cloned from a person’s own cells, would have a business/economics, cloning raises a host of common genetic identity, helping to avoid issues including those concerning: genetics and rejection based on genetic incompatibility. In genetic engineering, patenting, animal rights addition, such cloned cells, tissues, or organs and/or animal welfare (especially for transgenic, would help to alleviate the present shortage of research, or cloned animals), organ organs and tissues available for transplant. The transplantation, reproduction, eugenics, goal of reproductive cloning would be to produce pharmacology (drug production using transgenic an entire organism—animal or human. The animals), research practices, informed consent, genetic makeup of such “offspring” would be stem cell research, women’s rights, children’s virtually identical to that of the individual from rights, parental rights and responsibilities, and whom the genetic material is obtained. Questions

2 might also arise about the purpose for which the whether more than one species is involved also cloned individual was produced—e.g., to replace must be discerned. For example, the cells to be a dead or dying individual; to serve as an organ, cloned can be embryonic or fetal or adult. They tissue, or blood resource for its already existing can be germ cells or somatic (body) cells. The genetic progenitor; or simply to create offspring. source of the somatic cells can vary—mammary tissue (as with Dolly) or cumulus cells, which Second, one should distinguish among multiple surround and nurture the oocyte during maturation cloning techniques: Does the cloning occur by of the egg in the female ovary (as with CC, a parthenogenesis (oocyte division without cloned cat) or skin cells, and so forth. Cloning fertilization), blastomere separation (embryo efforts may combine genetic material from a splitting or twinning), or somatic cell nuclear single species or from different species—the latter transfer (SCNT), in which the nucleus of a process results in a transgenic animal. somatic cell, from an adult, is transferred into an already enucleated egg? In addition, which of the Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning different procedures available is used to combine the nucleus with the enucleated egg The cloning of animals as part of an emergent (ooplasm)—e.g., microsurgical injection or technology for reproducing farm, companion, and electrofusion? In all cases, although the host egg research animals often is taken for granted. contributes its mitochondrial DNA (about 2 Despite this acceptance, animal cloning raises percent of the total DNA), the vast majority of the concerns about the pain and suffering that may be genetic material of the developing embryo comes caused them by purposely tinkering with their from the transplanted nucleus. It is possible that genetic makeup and the way in which they are the technique itself may influence the success and conceived. Potential physical concerns are low post-birth health of offspring. success rates, problems with gestation and delivery, concerns about fetal anomalies, and Third, cloning must be distinguished from stem worries over increased vulnerability of clones to cell research. The same technique, SCNT, may be aging, disease, or disability. Deeper philosophical used to create embryos either for the purpose of issues require consideration, such as the developing in vitro stem cell lines or for the acceptability and implications of altering the purpose of in vivo gestation. SCNT is, however, genetic makeup of animals, especially in a world only one method of producing stem cells. Stem dominated by humans, as do practical concerns cells also can be obtained from surplus embryos that efforts to create “ideal” animals will diminish from IVF treatments for infertility, from embryos genetic diversity (with implications for hardiness created by IVF specifically for research purposes, and disease resistance), more rapidly, than will the from embryonic germ cells from aborted fetuses, selective breeding practices already in use. from umbilical cord blood, and from some adult Concern encompasses not only the animals born tissues—e.g., bone marrow or skin or blood—that of the cloning procedure, but also the animals have been reprogrammed to be totipotent without whose oocytes and genetic material are used, the use of the nuclear transfer technique (Danish those who serve as in vivo incubators, and those Council of Ethics, Cloning: Statements from the who gestate the embryos. Animals providing the Danish Council of Ethics, Copenhagen: The eggs into which the DNA will be transplanted Council, 2002, Part 2, I). Although this Scope generally are stimulated to force superovulation Note focuses on cloning, not on stem cell and then killed in order to retrieve the oocytes. At research, it is important to note that SCNT does one time, in sheep, the only existing method for open new research possibilities and therapeutic culture of oocytes after nuclear transfer was in potentials. SCNT is a faster and more predictable vivo. The ewes that incubated SCNT embryos way to reproduce nearly identical stem cells than were subjected to surgery, and often to slaughter, is repeated re-engineering of the nuclei. to retrieve the developed blastocysts for transfer Understandably, cloning and stem cell research to the gestational mother (III, FAWC). The often are linked together and often are confused. animals who gestate and give birth to cloned embryos also are subjected to foreseeable risk, Fourth, the nature of the cells to be cloned and such as the hazard of gestating and delivering

3 oversized offspring. Additional concerns lie in the commercial, scientific, and altruistic pressures women might face either to be sources for oocytes or to be Ethical Issues in Human Reproductive Cloning gestators. Some commentators see these issues when associated with cloning to be of a distinct The prospect of human cloning engenders strong nature, while others view them as an extension of feelings and debate. The risks that surround issues associated with other reproductive animal cloning suddenly seem to take on greater technologies. significance when human reproductive cloning is suggested. The potential that human cloning also Policy and Legislation might result in low success rates, gestational problems, and long-term health concerns or Government reports, like that of the National shortened life spans for the cloned offspring are Bioethics Advisory Commission (Part 2, I) or that troubling to many. In addition to the purely of the California Advisory Committee on Human physical issues, a variety of ethical and Cloning (IV, A), although comprehensive, are theological concerns have been discussed. Often, simply advisory; they are not legally enforceable. a central concern focuses on the fact that the cell Some existing laws ban human reproductive created by SCNT is human in nature and has the cloning, yet the way in which they define cloning potential to develop into a human being. varies widely. The President’s Council on Objections to research or reproductive efforts Bioethics (Part 2, I) abandons the ambiguity of the using cloned cells may assert that human life terms reproductive cloning and therapeutic begins at the moment of conception (by whatever cloning, instead defining cloning in sensible terms means that occurs), is worthy of respect, and as “cloning-to-produce-children” and “cloning- should not be used in ways that contain the for-biomedical-research.” Most jurisdictions in potential for waste, destruction, or unnecessary the United States specify the nuclear transfer creation of, or harm to, cells with human cloning technique, but Rhode Island law also potential. Even in the absence of religiously- includes embryo splitting. The United Kingdom grounded objections to experimental use of bans all reproduction methods other than embryos based on the sanctity of human life, fertilization. Japan classifies the resulting product concerns exist that these “persons” are being of cloning as either human or animal, and subjected to research without consent. Some Australia bans clones of clones. Generally all religious traditions that understand personhood or jurisdictions describe both the biological ensoulment to occur later in development permit components used in cloning and the resulting some forms of embryo use and research, while cloned offspring as property by proscribing objecting to other types of embryo research or use particular property rights, such as sale, purchase based on their purpose. Other ethical or or commerce, possession, and especially use. The theological issues involve objections to changing focus both of legislation and of government the fundamental nature of the human race, viewed reports advising legislative or executive bodies, by some as God’s creation; opposition to however, remains the intended end use or purpose separating the creation of persons from the of cloning. procreative relationship; misgivings about furthering the sense that children may be designed Scientific developments in cloning happen for our own purposes, rather than received as gifts rapidly. To find resources in addition to those born for their own purposes; concerns about the mentioned in this Scope Note and to keep abreast potential loss of individuality or the clone-born of the corresponding ethical and religious person’s inability to live an authentic life or to discussion, we recommend searching the have an open future; worries about permitting databases of the National Reference Center for cloning of persons without their consent; the B i o e t h i c s L i t e r a t u r e a t potential for discriminatory treatment or overly http://bioethics.georgetown.edu. explicit expectations of clone-born persons (or animals); and the need either to establish or to prevent limits on reproductive freedom. I. History of the Science

4 Gurdon conclusively proves the work begun (Citations are arranged chronologically.) by Briggs and King in amphibians.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Species as Natural McKinnell, Robert Gilmore. Cloning: A Biologist Units. In his Genetics and the Origin of Species, Reports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota pp. 303-21. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. 130 p. Press, c1937, 1982. McKinnell states that reproduction by cloning Dobzhansky synthesized two traditions: the is not desirable because greater diversity evolutionary focus of experimental genetics (necessary for survival of species) can be and the emphasis on taxonomy and obtained through sexual reproduction. classification in natural history. To Cloning is appropriate to gain insight into Dobzhansky, separation (or survival) of some biological phenomena, but no such species has a genetic basis; it is not based on insight would come from cloning a human reproduction, sexual or asexual. being.

Briggs, R., and King, T. J. Transplantation of Illmensee, K., and Hoppe, P. C. Transplantation Living Nuclei from Blastula Cells into in Mus musculus: Developmental Potential of Enucleated Frogs’ Eggs. Proceedings of the Nuclei from Preimplantation Embryos. Cell 23 National Academy of Sciences of the United States (1): 9-18, January 1981. of America 38 (1): 455-63, 15 May 1952. Illmensee and Hoppe claim to have cloned the Briggs and King report the first cloning by first mammals, mice. Their work comes into nuclear transplantation, a year before Crick doubt when others are unable to duplicate and Watson publish their work on the helical their claimed achievement. structure of DNA. They continue turn-of-the- century experimental embryology McGrath, J., and Solter, D. Nuclear investigation into the role of the nucleus in Transplantation in the Mouse Embryo by embryonic differentiation. Microsurgery and Cell Fusion. Science 220 (4603): 1300-1302, 17 June 1983. Gurdon, J. B.; Elsdale, T. R.; and Fischberg, M. McGrath and Solter publish the first Sexually Mature Individuals of Xenopus laevis description of a reliable nuclear transfer from the Transplantation of Single Somatic technique, fusion between the nucleus and Nuclei. Nature 182 (4627): 64-65, 5 July 1958. cytoplasm, not the surgical implantation Gurdon is the first published scientist to technique of Illmensee and Hoppe, to be used follow the nuclear transplantation work of on a mammal, the mouse. Briggs and King. McGrath, J., and Solter, D. Inability of Mouse Haldane, J. B. S. Biological Possibilities in the Blastomere Nuclei Transferred to Enucleated Next Ten Thousand Years. In Man and His Zygotes to Support Development In Vitro. Future, ed. G. Wolstenholme, pp. 350-55. Science 226 (4680): 1317-19, 14 December 1984. London: J. & A. Churchill, c1963, 1967. McGrath and Solter conclusively prove the Haldane is credited with coining the term claims of Illmensee and Hoppe to be false. “clone” in a 1962 speech published in this Their concluding suggestion—“that the book. In his prescient essay he discusses cloning of mammals by simple nuclear cloning, cell lines, and genetic engineering. transfer is biologically impossible” He also brings up the idea of a Hitler clone. —effectively ends further investigation into cloning until Willadsen, Campbell, Wilmut, Gurdon, J. B.; Laskey, R. A.; and Reeves, O. R. and others. The Developmental Capacity of Nuclei Transplanted from Keratinized Skin Cells of Willadsen, S. M. Nuclear Transplantation in Adult Frogs. Journal of Embryology and Sheep Embryos. Nature 320 (6057): 63-65, 6-12 Experimental Morphology 34 (1): 93-112, August March 1986. 1975. Willadsen produces the first clones of a large

5 domestic animal, the sheep, with nuclei from embryos. Stewart, Colin. An Udder Way of Making Lambs. Nature 385 (6619): 769, 771, 27 February Hall, J. L.; Engel, D.; Gindoff, P. R.; et al. 1997. Experimental Cloning of Human Polyploid Stewart points out that the birth of Dolly Embryos Using an Artificial Zona Pellucida. resulted from solving the scientific problem The American Fertility Society Conjointly with the of compatibility between the development Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, stage of the donor nuclei and the recipient Program Supplement, 1993. Abstracts of the oocyte cytoplasm. He concludes: “Maybe, in Scientific Oral and Poster Sessions, Abstract 0- the future, the collective noun for sheep will 001, S1. no longer be a flock—but a clone.” Hall and his team report in a poster presentation on research in which polyploid Wakayama, T.; Perry, A. C. F.; Zuccotti, M.; human embryos were split using a technique Johnson, K. R.; Yanagimachi, R. Full-term traditionally called “blastomere separation.” Development of Mice From Enucleated Oocytes Injected with Cumulus Cell Nuclei. Kahl, G. Dictionary of Gene Technology. New Nature 394 (6691): 369-74, 23 July 1998. York: VCH, 1995. 550 p. Wakayama produces the first cloned mice by This reference work lists two different SCNT almost 20 years after the claim by definitions of “clone:” cells or organisms in Illmensee and Hoppe. the first definition and DNA molecules in the second one. Cibelli, J. B.; Grant, K. A.; Chapman, K. B.; et al. Parthenogenetic Stem Cells in Nonhuman Campbell, K. H. S.; McWhir, J.; Ritchie, W. A.; Primates. Science 295 (5556): 819, 1 February and Wilmut, I. Sheep Cloned by Nuclear 2002. Transfer from a Cultured Cell Line. Nature 380 Cibelli and colleagues induce unfertilized (6569): 64-66, 7 March 1996. female oocytes from monkeys to divide by This is the first published report of placing them into a chemical mixture similar mammalian cloning by nuclear transplantation to sperm. The resulting embryos, called using embryonic stem cells (inner mass cells parthenotes, have unknown development established in tissue culture) as the source for potential for birth. But Cibelli’s team took donor nuclei, with implantation by fusion into cells from the inner cell mass of the enucleated eggs. developing blastocysts and plated them in tissue culture, as if creating a stem cell line, Solter, D. Lambing by Nuclear Transfer. Nature for more than 10 months. 380 (6569): 24-26, 7 March 1996. Solter, reversing his 1984 position, comments American Association for the Advancement of that “[c]loning mammals from adult cells . . . Science. Statement on Human Cloning. 14 can no longer be considered impossible.” February 2002 [Online]. Printed from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/Cloning.shtml, Wilmut, I.; Schnieke, A. E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A. 10 April 2002. J.; and Campbell, K. H. S. Viable Offspring AAAS endorses a ban on “efforts to implant Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian a human cloned embryo for the purpose of Cells. Nature 385 (6619): 810-13, 27 February reproduction” based on the risks identified in 1997. animal studies. It supports nuclear trans- Wilmut’s achievement of generating an adult plantation for stem cell research, but urges mammal from another adult mammal federal oversight of this research in public establishes cloning and results in an explosive and private sectors. AAAS suggests that new worldwide reaction. The donor nuclei come regulations specific to cloning research may from a cell line established in tissue culture be necessary. from an adult mammary gland. The offspring sheep’s name is Dolly. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on

6 Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [and] is extremely unbalanced from the standpoint Division on Earth and Life Studies. Board on Life of its human impact and (2) that precedents Sciences. Panel on Scientific and Medical Aspects affecting the long-term rationale of social of Human Cloning. Scientific and Medical policy [with regard to human cloning] will be Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. set, not on the basis of well-debated Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002. principles, but on the accidents of the first 296 p. [Available at http://www.nap.edu.] advertized examples” (p. 531). This joint panel of the National Academies recommends that human reproductive cloning Ramsey, Paul. Shall We Clone a Man? In his should not be practiced currently due to its Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control, danger and high failure rate and that this pp. 60-103. New Haven: Yale University Press, position should be affirmed by a legally 1970. enforceable ban. Reconsideration of this ban Chapter 2 is Ramsey’s response to in five years should occur only if “(1) a new Lederberg’s argument in favor of clonal scientific and medical review indicates that reproduction. Ramsey argues that our goal in the procedures are likely to be safe and searching for genetic knowledge ought always effective and (2) a broad national dialogue on to be the treatment and benefit of real patients the societal, religious, and ethical issues rather than the exertion of human control over suggests that a reconsideration of the ban is our species or its evolution. He objects to warranted” (pp. ES-1–ES-2). The panel does cloning because it replaces God’s dominion support biomedical research using nuclear with the “dominion of man over man” and a transplantation to produce stem cells as paradoxical seeking of “boundless recommended in the National Academies determinism and boundless freedom” against report Stem Cells and the Future of which no values are exempt. This path will Regenerative Medicine (2002). [Available at lead to concomitant violations of human http://www.nap.edu.] nature, procreation, and parenthood.

Fletcher, Joseph. Ethical Aspects of Genetic II. Historical Commentary Controls. New England Journal of Medicine 285 (14): 776-83, 30 September 1971. (Citations are arranged chronologically.) Can the goals and methods of genetic engineering and cloning be justified by their Lederberg, Joshua. Experimental Genetics and therapeutic and nontherapeutic benefit? As an Human Evolution. American Naturalist 100 alternative to strict consequentialist or a (915): 519-31, September-October 1966. priori (deontological) reasoning, Fletcher Nobel laureate geneticist Lederberg explores suggests his “pragmatic” method of ethical human cloning and other genetic engineering decision making, what he calls situational or techniques within the framework of the clinical consequentialism: reason from the potential eugenic advantages that could be data of each actual case or problem to the derived—e.g., elimination of unpredictability course of action that offers the optimum or and perpetuation of select genetic traits in maximum of desirable consequences, which is reproduction. From a strictly biological human well-being. He argues that “laboratory standpoint, “tempered cloning” would best reproduction is radically human compared to permit determination of whether sufficient conception by ordinary heterosexual genetic variability remains to deal with intercourse” because it is “willed, chosen, changing environmental conditions and other purposed, and controlled.” Needs, not rights contingencies and evaluation of the claimed are moral stabilizers, such that if the need to benefits of cloning. A “clonish group” could protect from or ameliorate disease or threaten a pluralistically dedicated species deformity or to cure and prevent genetic because of its potential for introversion and disorders requires research on embryos and narrow-mindedness. He foresees two risks: fetal tissues or the sacrifice of some (1) that the “scientific position [perspective] conceptuses, let rights take the back seat to

7 needs. Fletcher states that, “If the greatest millionaire, identified only as Max, requests good for the greatest number were served by Rorvik’s help to assemble the team that it, it would be justifiable, not only to eventually successfully clones him. The baby specialize the capacities of people by cloning is brought to term by a surrogate mother. The or by constructive genetic engineering, but book generated a great wave of discussion also to bio-engineer or bio-design parahumans about the ethical implications of human or “modified men”—as chimeras (part cloning, and its publication as a work of non- animal) or cyborg-androids (part prosthetes).” fiction was the target of criticism.

Watson, James D. Moving Toward the Clonal Hellegers, André E. Book on Cloning Is a Hoax. Man. The Atlantic Monthly 228: 50-53, May Washington Post, B3, 4 June 1978. 1971. Hellegers denounces Rorvik’s book as a hoax, In light of Edwards and Steptoe’s prediction suggesting the alternate title “In His that in 1972 their research would result in the Fantasy—The Clowning of Man.” He dissects birth of the first baby conceived in a test tube, the book based on its scientific errors Watson urges widespread public involvement (“obstetrical nincompoops”) and lists the in decisions about the scientific possibilities ethical concerns with the imaginary account he foresees, namely, routine use of test-tube that should have troubled Rorvik. [In conception, surrogate motherhood, sex testimony before a Congressional Committee determination, and human cloning. Effective in 1978, Hellegers stated, “I think public policy must be international in scope, fundamentally the problem is that too many and decisions of such importance should not people believe that cloning is an end, namely, be left to the scientific and medical to production of an individual. Factually, communities because “the possibility of our cloning is a means. It is a means of cell study [the public] having a free choice will one day and an enormously important one” (see I, suddenly be gone.” McKinnon 1979, pp. 5-6).]

Jonas, Hans. Biological Engineering—A Ebon, Martin. The Cloning of Man: A Brave Preview. In his Philosophical Essays; From New Hope—or Horror? New York: New Ancient Creed to Technological Man, pp. 141-67. American Library, 1978. 201 p. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974. Ebon provides a history of scientific Jonas offers an existential critique of cloning discovery related to cloning, offers several that consists of four thoughts: the chapters on cloning in literature and contemporaneity of identical twins; the mythology, negatively assesses Rorvik’s uniqueness of genotype and the uniqueness of truthfulness, summarizes the ethical debate, being; non-contemporaneity and the right to and discusses popular concerns associated ignorance; and knowledge, ignorance, and with cloning humans. freedom. Based on the last thought, he offers the ethical norm that we ought “never to Callahan, Daniel. Cloning: Then and Now. violate the right to that ignorance which is a Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (2): condition for the possibility of authentic 141- 44, Spring 1998. action” or, in other words, “to respect the Callahan states that no substantially new right of each human life to find its own way arguments about cloning have been advanced and be a surprise to itself.” in the current debate that were not anticipated in the discussion of the 1970s; however, in Rorvik, David. In His Image: The Cloning of a comparison, Callahan observes three Man. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1978. qualitative differences. He notes a much more 239 p. favorable attitude toward scientific and Rorvik, a freelance science and medical technological developments, the development reporter, recounts the “true” story of events of reproductive rights arguments giving rise to that allegedly led to the birth of the first an almost absolute moral right to procreate cloned human in 1979. Eager for an heir, a (including rights to have any kind of child by

8 any kind of means), and the powerful behind pet-keeping and reduces the advocacy alliance of scientists with pro- experience to one of selfishness.” People research lay persons that can effectively ought to realize and accept that in most cases counter ethical objections to research based we outlive our pets. solely on predictions of potential scientific and clinical benefits, even if the benefits will Commission of the European Community. Group be available to a very few. of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology (GAIEB). Ethical Aspects of Verhey, Allen. Cloning: Revisiting an Old Cloning Techniques [Opinion No. 9]. Brussels: Debate. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 4 (3): GAIEB, 28 May 1997. 7 p. [Reprinted in Journal 227-34, September 1994. of Medical Ethics 23 (6): 349-52, May 1997.] Verhey examines the theological debate about GAIEB examines the ethical concerns arising cloning between Protestant theologians John from animal cloning and the implications for Fletcher and Paul Ramsey over Lederberg’s humans. The Group concludes that animal 1966 essay. Fletcher took a utilitarian stance cloning is only ethically acceptable if carried that approved cloning if it maximized out with strict regard to animal welfare; to the happiness, while Ramsey, a nonutilitarian, need to maintain genetic diversity; and to focused his negative evaluation on concerns honoring the public’s rights to protection about families and relationships and questions from risk, to adequate information, and to of distributive justice. Verhey also describes benefit from any reduced costs of animal Ramsey and Fletcher’s thinking on freedom, production. Human cloning is unacceptable embodiment, human relationship with nature, for reproductive purposes because of concerns and the meaning of being a parent as they about instrumentalization, eugenics, and apply to cloning. safety. Nontherapeutic research on human embryos must be for the purposes of understanding the causes of disease or III. Animal Welfare alleviating suffering and should never include placing a manipulated embryo in a uterus. (Citations are arranged alphabetically.) GAIEB also urges the European Commission to educate the public, stimulate debate about Bulfield, Grahame. Biotechnology and Farm cloning, and to foster further ethical research Animals. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, No. 131: 13- on cloning and related areas. 17, September 1997. Director of the Roslin Institute where Dolly Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (Great was cloned, Bulfield states that animal Britain). Report on the Implications of Cloning welfare and other ethical issues raised about for the Welfare of Farmed Livestock. Surbiton, new animal breeding and production Surrey: FAWC, 1998. 29 p. [Available at techniques were also raised with past http://www.fawc.org.uk/ clone/clonetoc.htm.] scientific advances in these areas. He Requested by the U.K. Ministry of attributes the current concern to the rapid Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to study the pace of developments and responds to a issue, FAWC, an independent advisory body, number of ethical issues as untroubling or reported that “no aspect of cloning by nuclear well-regulated. transfer is intrinsically objectionable to the extent that it might be considered something Cat Cloning Is Wrong-Headed States the that should not be done at all,” but that Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), 14 safeguards are needed to protect the welfare February 2000. 1 p. [Available at http://www. of farm animals. FAWC further refines the hsus.org.] general ethical principles outlined by the Against the backdrop of an overpopulation of Banner Committee (see Great Britain, pet animals without homes, Wayne Pacelle, Ministry of Agriculture, below) as it focuses HSUS senior vice president, says “[c]loning on mammalian species common to animals strips away the altruistic component agricultural practice—e.g., sheep, cattle, and

9 pigs—and the question of livestock breeding. should never be done; (2) some harms, FAWC states that procedures that inflict very although allowable, require justification severe or lasting pain on animals, involve an —usually expressed in terms of balancing the unacceptable violation of a living being’s degree of harm done to the animals against integrity, mix kinds of animals to an the benefits either to animals or to humans unacceptable extent, and generate living that might result from the research or testing; beings whose sentience has been reduced to and (3) efforts should be made to minimize the extent they may be considered mere any harm justified by the second principle. instruments or artifacts are never acceptable This committee builds on the “Five and are always intrinsically objectionable. Freedoms” identified in the 1965 Brambell They urge a moratorium on the use of cloning Report on livestock welfare as those that must by nuclear transfer in commercial agricultural be assured to animals, namely, freedom from practice until physical and gestational hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury, or problems are satisfactorily resolved. To disease; and fear or distress, as well as the ensure adequate animal protections and freedom to express normal behavior. oversight and effective control of cloning technology and its introduction into Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. agricultural practice, FAWC calls for a Committee on Science and Technology. The national standing committee. Cloning of Animals from Adult Cells, Fifth Report. Volume I: Report, together with the Franklin, Sarah. Dolly: A New Form of Proceedings of the Committee [and] Volume II: Transgenic Breedwealth. Environmental Values Witnesses, Memoranda, Appendices, Unprinted 6 (4): 427-37, November 1997. Memoranda. 20 March 1997. 23 p. and 39 p. Franklin states, “[i]n my own mind, it is an This Committee justifies animal cloning insufficient argument to say that animal based on its potential benefits, but cloning is acceptable simply because it brings recommends that Parliament reaffirm its medical benefits to humans” (p. 429) and intention to ban human cloning and confirm neglects other important questions. Franklin that the authority of the Human Fertilisation argues that Dolly represents a new form of and Embryology Act (HFEA) extends to culturally-invented property, which she terms regulation of embryos created by cloning breedwealth.” Dolly’s importance rests in the techniques even though “fertilisation” does possibility of “more rapid dissemination of not take place in the traditional sense. genetic progress from elite herds to the commercial farmer”and the ability to carry Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. out precise replication in compressed time. Committee on Science and Technology. Cloning Franklin suggests that we are mistaken to of Animals from Adult Cells, Fourth Report. 4 “treat this new form of reproductive property August 1998. in a distinct ethical domain simply because The Committee applauds the government’s [animals] are not human.” continued prohibition of human cloning (December 1997, reprinted here), but seeks Great Britain. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries further guidance on the HFEA (1990) and Food. Report of the Committee to Consider authority, plans for public consultation on the Ethical Implications of Emerging Tech- cloning, supports the idea of an international nologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. (The agreement on bioethics, and questions Banner Committee.) London: HMSO, 1995. whether the current structure for considering In this pre-Dolly work, comments on cloning the ethics of genetic modifications in animals are limited to concerns about overlarge will be matched for humans. calves, calving difficulties, and the loss of genetic diversity. The Committee identified Hawthorne, Lou. A Project to Clone Companion three principles that have influenced more Animals; Bok, Hilary. Cloning Companion recent assessment of cloning: (1) some [Nonhuman] Animals Is Wrong; Greene, Mark. treatments of animals are so harmful that they New Dog: Old Tricks; Hawthorne, Lou.

10 Hawthorne’s Rebuttal. Journal of Applied view of animals” (treats them as instruments Animal Welfare Science 5 (3): 229-246, 2002. not sentient beings with their own intrinsic In this set of papers, Hawthorne, CEO of value, dignity, and rights); (2) “cloning Genetic Savings and Clone (GSC), describes renders animals liable to harm;” (3) “cloning the project’s program and goal to clone pets intensifies a morally reductionist view of and livestock and its two governing codes of animals” (reduces them, even in their very bioethics, reflective of our society’s divergent nature, to mere tools for human use); (4) values toward pets and livestock, while “cloning involves the commercial degradation philosophers Greene and Bok assess the of animal life” (manipulates them for strength and ethical acceptability of GSC’s consumer satisfaction); and (5) “cloning endeavor and justification. Hawthorne holds represents a spiritually impoverished view of that if animal suffering is not increased by animals.” cloning, then it is ethically acceptable. Greene says that this consequentialist stance does not Missyplicity Project [Available at capture all ethical concerns, but that it places http://www.missyplicity.com/, 14 March 2002] and the onus on critics to develop ethical reasons its financing agent, Genetic Savings and Clone why GSC should not clone animals and to (GSC) [Available at http://geneticsavings distinguish it in type from already accepted andclone.com/, 17 March 2002] practices in livestock husbandry and pet Privately funded by a couple who want to breeding. Bok argues that cloning is not safe clone their dog, Missy, these entities are and has unknown risks and that animals suffer involved in an effort to clone traditional high rates of real genetic and health dangers. companion animals. Operation CopyCat, a In light of these concerns and because no subproject, achieved success in February extremely compelling reason exists to justify 2002 with the birth of a kitten named CC cloning animals, she asserts, “. . . people who created at the lab at Texas A& M University want to clone their pets must be either affiliated with the Project. Both projects have mistaken about what cloning is or immoral.” codes of bioethics (posted online). Involving egg donors, genetic donors, and surrogate Humane Society of the United States. HSUS mothers, the research is similar to IVF and Statement on the Cloning of Pets. [Available at other reproductive technologies used in http://www.hsus.org.] 1 p. humans and raises similar questions. The HSUS condemns the commercial cloning Adoption for animals used or created by the of companion animals because of its potential projects is possible. GSC has commercial dangers for animals, the pet overpopulation gene banking services for pet owners and will problem, and the fact that persons seeking to offer cloning services after Missy is recreate a companion animal will be successfully cloned. disappointed because even more so than in humans, genetic makeup in animals can only Straughan, Roger. Ethics, Morality and Animal influence, but not determine or guarantee, Biotechnology. Swindon: Biotechnology and physical appearance, attributes, and Biological Sciences Research Council, 1999. 25 p. personality. [Available at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/.] Straughan addresses the ethical, moral, and Linzey, Andrew. Ethical and Theological social issues surrounding recent developments Objections to Animal Cloning. Bulletin of that involve genetic modification, including Medical Ethics No. 131: 18-22, September 1997. the direct manipulation of an animal’s genetic Asserting that “the stark moral truth must be makeup and nuclear transfer. unmasked: not satisfied with simply exploiting animals, we now presume to change their nature in order to do so more IV. Laws and Legal Literature profitably” and conveniently (p. 20), Linzey objects to cloning for five reasons: (1) (Citations are arranged alphabetically within “cloning represents an ethically regressive subsections.)

11 A. United States Missouri. Revised Statutes. Section 1.217. Missouri’s law, added in 1998, states, “No California Codes. Business and Professional state funds shall be used for research with Code. Section 2260.5. respect to the cloning of a human person.” Violation of the above prohibition constitutes Cloning means replication of a human person. “unprofessional conduct.” The five year moratorium (1997-2003) relates only to Rhode Island. General Laws. Sections 23-16.4- cloning a whole human being and does not 1–23.16.4-4. apply to cloning human cells, tissues, or Rhode Island’s 1998 statute bans both organs. “somatic cell nuclear transfer” for human pregnancy and the division of zygote, California Codes. Health and Safety Code. blastocyst, or embryo for the creation of Sections 24185–24189. identical human beings. The legislature The first state law in the United States to intended the law not to apply to cloning of prohibit nuclear transplantation cloning of human genes, cells, tissues, or organs that humans, California’s 1997 law actually only would not result in an “entire human being” prohibits the selling or buying of an “ovum, nor to apply to assisted reproductive zygote, embryo, or fetus” for the purpose of technologies as long as the purpose is not to cloning. It expires 1 January 2003. create a child genetically identical to another. The law expires in 2003. California. State Senate. Final Report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Virginia. Code. Sections 32.1-162.21–31.1- Cloning. Sacramento, 11 January 2002. 162.22. [Available at www.law.stanford.edu/features/ Virginia’s 2001 law prohibits human cloning greely.] by nuclear transplantation, attempts at The Committee makes five main rec- pregnancy with human cloning, possession of ommendations to the legislature: (1) ban the product of human cloning, and commerce human reproductive cloning; (2) reasonably for the purpose of human cloning. regulate human nonreproductive cloning; (3) monitor federal action; (4) define statutory B. International terms with care and delegate implementation to a state agency; and (5) establish an ongoing Australia. Commonwealth of Australia Acts. advisory group to the governor and Gene Technology Act 2000. Section 192B. legislature. Knowingly or recklessly acting to clone “a whole human being” is an offense, with Louisiana. Revised Statutes. Sections 1299.36– cloning defined as “the use of technology” for 1299.36.6. production of genetically identical Louisiana’s 1999 law prohibits cloning and descendants. Australia’s definition covers attempts at cloning a human being by persons serial or successive cloning, meaning cloning and by health facilities or agencies, but it also from a clone. states that it “does not prohibit scientific research or a cell based therapy not Australia. National Health and Medical Research specifically prohibited” elsewhere in this law. Council. Australian Health Ethics Committee. Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Michigan. Compiled Laws. Sections 333.26401– Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human 333.26406. Beings. 16 December 1998. 74 p. [Available at Michigan’s 1999 Human Cloning Funding http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/issues/clone.pdf.] Prohibition Act “does not prohibit the use of The Committee makes a noteworthy state funds for scientific research or cell- recommendation on primate resources for based therapies not specifically prohibited by reproductive research. It distinguishes cloning that section.” a human being from cloning human parts, such as DNA or cells.

12 http://www.ccne-ethique.org/english/start.htm.] Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. For the first time, CCNE considers the ethical Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional issues on cloned human embryos through cell Affairs. Human Cloning: Scientific, Ethical and nuclear replacement (or CNR, the British Regulatory Aspects of Human Cloning and Stem term). Not only does CCNE adopt British Cell Research. 17 September 2001. 267 p. terminology, but the Committee also In what is also known as “The Andrews recommends creation of a Human Report,” the Committee recommends that the Reproduction, Embryology, and Genetics Council regulate and license human embryo Authority, such as already exists in the U.K. research and the Parliament ban human The Committee emphasizes its unanimous cloning. favor for an explicit prohibition of reproductive cloning; although opinions differ Canada. Institutes of Health Research. Working on therapeutic cloning, the majority favors Group on Stem Cell Research. Human controlled authorization. P l u r i p o t e n t S t e m C e l l R e s e a r c h : Recommendations for CIHR-Funded Research; Great Britain. Department of Health. Chief Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Stem Medical Officer’s Expert Group Reviewing the Cell Research. January 2002. 19 p. [Available at Potential of Developments in Stem Cell Research http://www.cihr.ca/about_cihr/ethics/stem_cell/ and Cell Nuclear Replacement to Benefit Human stem_cell_intro_e.shtml.] Health. Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress The recommendations within this report are with Responsibility. June 2000. 54 p. [Available the basis for practice guidelines, which took at http://www.doh.gov.uk/cegc/stemcellreport. effect 4 March 2002, that prohibit the use of pdf.] human stem cells for either therapeutic or The Expert Group recommends permitting reproductive cloning. Under the Tri-Council basic research using cloned human embryos. Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for The report covers the scientific possibilities Research Involving Humans, however, of human embryo research, along with ethical Canada, like Britain, allows research on and legal considerations, within the existing human embryos up to 14 days after regulatory framework in the U.K. fertilization. Great Britain. Human Reproductive Cloning Act France. National Consultative Ethics Committee 2001. 2001. Chapter 23. [Available at for Health and Life Sciences (CCNE). Reply to http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts the President of the French Republic on the 2001/ 20010023.htm.] Subject of Reproductive Cloning. 22 April 1997. This law, which took effect 4 December 2001, 27 p. [Available at http://www.ccne- is intended to make cloning a crime. It makes ethique.org/english/ start.htm.] placement “in a woman” of a human embryo The Committee’s Reply is based on a human “which has been created otherwise than by rights concept of dignity. The Committee fertilisation” an offense. reaffirmed the distinction between human cloning for reproductive and nonreproductive Great Britain. House of Lords. Select Committee purposes. Its concluding statement suggested on Stem Cell Research. Report from the Select that France lead an international initiative “to Committee on Stem Cell Research. 27 February uphold Human Rights” from the danger of 2002. 2 vol. (Report and Evidence [Available at cloning, but leaves to the legislature whether http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office. to make the 1994 French Civil Code revisions co.uk/pa/ld/ldstem.htm.]) more explicit to ban cloning. In Chapter 5, the Committee discusses therapeutic and reproductive cloning in the France. National Consultative Ethics Committee context of the 1990 Act and 2001 Regulations for Health and Life Sciences (CCNE). Opinion on on human embryology and fertilization. The the Preliminary Draft Revision of the Laws on Committee also looks at oocyte nucleus Bioethics. 18 January 2001. 19 p. [Available at transfer, which is both therapeutic and

13 reproductive because the donor nucleus html/168.htm.] comes from a female seeking to reproduce The first binding international agreement on without the possibility of mitochondrial cloning human beings, the Protocol does not disease from her oocyte. In Chapter 7, the apply to cells and tissues used for research Committee recommends national support for purposes. The Protocol is silent on the an international ban or moratorium on definition of “human being,” thus allowing cloning. the domestic law of signatory states to define that term. The Protocol does define Israel. Academy of Sciences and Humanities. “genetically identical” to mean “sharing with Bioethics Advisory Committee. Report on the another the same nuclear gene set.” Use of Embryonic Stem Cells for Therapeutic Research. August 2001. 27 p. [Available at United Nations Educational, Scientific, and http://www.academy.ac.il/ bioethics.html.] Cultural Organization (UNESCO). General The Academy finds that cloned human Conference. Universal Declaration on the embryos, those created by nuclear transfer, Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris: are acceptable to use in biomedical research UNESCO. 11 November 1997. [Available at and as sources for stem cells. Israeli law already p r i n t e d ( 2 7 M a r c h 2 0 0 2 ) f r o m prohibits reproductive cloning. http://www.unesco.org/human_ rights/hrbc.htm.] 7 p. Japan. The Law Concerning Regulation Relating This landmark document represents the moral to Human Cloning Techniques and Other commitment of all UNESCO Member States Similar Techniques. (Provisional Translation). 14 to adhere to this set of ethical principles in p . I n E n g l i s h . [ A v a i l a b l e a t genetics and genetics research. Adopted by h t t p : / / w w w . b i o l . t s u k u b a . a c . the General Conference in 1997, it was jp/~macer/eclone.pdf.] endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly in Enacted by the Japanese Diet or Parliament 1998. Article 11 states that the reproductive on 30 November 2000, this law bans cloning of human beings is not permitted reproductive cloning. because it is a practice contrary to human dignity. Member states should adopt Sweden. Swedish Research Council. The Swedish appropriate national and international Research Council’s Guidelines for Research– legislation to enforce this principle. Ethical Review of Human Stem-Cell Research. 4 December 2001. 16 p. United Nations. General Assembly. Request for [Available at http://www.vr.se/fileserver/index. the Inclusion of a Supplementary Item in the asp?fil=I83HIDEU49LZ.] Agenda of the Fifty-Sixth Session; International The Swedish Research Council specifically Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of recommends that “[c]reation of embryos Human Beings. Letter dated 7 August 2001 from through somatic cell nuclear transfer may be the Permanent Missions of France and Germany. ethically defensible but cannot be allowed in [Available at http://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/56/ the present legal situation,” meaning Sweden english/a_56_192e.pdf.] must request an exemption from the Council The joint letter from France and Germany is of Europe’s ban on production of embryos the first step in an international ban against solely for research. human cloning. It has two appendices, one, an explanatory memorandum about the approach C. Other to drafting such a ban, and the other, the draft resolution itself. Council of Europe. The Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and D. Legal Literature Biomedicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. Effective 1 March 2001. Centre for Ethics and Law. On Cloning: [ A v a i l a b l e a t European and International Instruments, http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/ National Legislation: Bibliography. Copenhagen:

14 Centre for Ethics and Law, 1998. 104 p. 4-5 and 11-12 April 1978. Gathered by the Centre, this document Clones, cyborgs, and chimeras are, provides reference to national and respectively, copies, human-machine hybrids, international documentation, including legal and human-animal hybrids. Tribe’s lectures and political instruments, reports, scientific look at these prospects through the lenses of journal articles, and newspaper articles science, art, and law. In his first lecture, Tribe (mainly Danish) available before April 1998. compares a decision on cloning to the Supreme Court decision on abortion in Roe v. Macklin, Ruth. Cloning and Public Policy. In A Wade, where the Court focused on a Companion to Genethics, ed. Justine Burley and definition, viability, in determining a John Harris, pp. 206-15. Malden, MA/Oxford: woman’s right to choose. He points out that Blackwell Publishers, Ltd. 2002. “no ‘definition’ can avoid the need to choose” Macklin reviews the international public and concludes “[w]hen bio-fantasy becomes policy response to cloning, analyzes the bio-technology, biology thus becomes a reason for strong and rapid adverse reactions, branch of politics.” and argues for the need to clarify what the oft- cited concept of human dignity means and for Tribe, Laurence H. Cloning a Child. In his a public policy based on reason, not intuition Channeling Technology Through Law, pp. 186- or emotion. She asserts that any such policy 303. Chicago, IL: Bracton Press, 1973. should require prior consent to clone from the In a legal textbook predating the 1973 adult person to be cloned and should include Supreme Court abortion decision (Roe v. laws prohibiting commercial transactions Wade), Tribe looks at procedure and power in involving cloned human beings sufficient to decision making. In one of his notes, he protect people’s rights, to prevent harmful describes a hierarchy—compensable interests, commercial and scientific applications, and to exchangeable rights, inalienable punish violators. Macklin points to a key rights—addressed by the legal process. question about cloning, namely, “whether public policy prohibitions should be based on What Is Cloning? In Mapping Public Policy for a relative absence of prospective benefits or Genetic Technologies: A Legislator’s Resource on a demonstration of probable harms” (p. Guide, ed. Brenda Trolin. Washington, DC: 213). She acknowledges that any answer is National Conference of State Legislatures further complicated because the same result is ( N C S L ) , 1 9 9 8 . [ A v a i l a b l e a t viewed alternatively as a benefit or harm by h t t p : / / 2 0 4 . 1 3 1 . 2 3 5 . 6 7 / people of different opinions. programs/health/Genetics/BOOK/ chapt04.htm.] This chapter forms part of a useful overview Senoff, Shirley K. Canada’s Fetal-Egg Use of genetic technologies and the variety of Policy, The Royal Commission’s Report of New associated legislative issues—e.g., the Reproductive Technologies, and Bill C-47. challenge of drafting legislation to cover Manitoba Law Journal 25 (1): 1-30, Fall 1997. genetic technologies, federal legislation, This article concerns the use of fetal eggs, as insurance, employment, privacy, criminal opposed to fetal tissue, in the context of justice issues, agriculture, and family issues. assisted reproductive technologies. Senoff’s See also NCSL’s Genetics Technologies conclusion, that the policy’s name is a Project homepage at http://www.ncsl.org/ misnomer, comes from the fact that she programs/health/genetics.htm and, for lists of believes the use of fetal eggs is not the issue, current state and federal legislation on human the issue is how society chooses to use them. cloning, see http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ health/Genetics/rt-shcl.htm and http://www. Tribe, Laurence H. Clones, Cyborgs and ncsl.org/programs/health/Genetics/01clone. Chimeras: A Series of Lectures on Science htm, respectively. Fiction and Legal Thought in Modeling of Life. Unpublished, given at the Kennedy Institute of Wright, R. George. Second Thoughts: How Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, Human Cloning Can Promote Human Dignity.

15 Valparaiso University Law Review 35 (1): 1-38, Fall 2000. Wright takes a Kantian approach based on freedom and autonomy in his support of This Scope Note was prepared by Susan Cartier human cloning. His title on “Second Poland, J.D., Legal Research Associate, and Thoughts” indirectly responds to a special Laura Jane Bishop, Ph.D., Research Associate, at issue on cloning in the Spring 1998 the National Reference Center for Bioethics Valparaiso University Law Review. [Other Literature, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, special issues on legal aspects of cloning are Georgetown University, Box 571212, Washington, the Fall 1997 issue of Jurimetrics, the Spring DC 20057-1212. 1999 issue of Hofstra Law Review, the Summer 1999 issue of Louisiana Law Review, The National Reference Center for Bioethics and the Symposium Issue on Legislating Literature, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Morality: The Debate Over Human Cloning Georgetown University, operates on Contract N01 published in the New York University Journal LM73529 from the National Library of Medicine, of Legislation and Public Policy 4 (1): 1-79, National Institutes of Health. Additional support 2000-2001.] is provided by Grant P4 1 HG01115 from the ELSI Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, and by other public and private sources.