Chapter Two

###### Historical Aspects of Cloning

The previous chapter located human cloning in its human context; this
chapter provides historical background.[^1] Here we offer a brief
history of human cloning, both as a scientific matter and as a subject
of public discussion, debate, and legislation. Although we present only
selected highlights, rather than a comprehensive account, we seek to
enable the reader to place the present debate about cloning and this
report into their proper historical setting. Until recently, all
discussion of human cloning concentrated exclusively on the prospect of
clonal reproduction, the production of individuals genetically virtually
identical to previously existing ones. Our historical account here
reflects that emphasis. Yet we will also consider the emerging interest
in cloning-for-biomedical-research, a prospect connected to the recent
isolation of embryonic stem cells and their potential for the
understanding and treatment of human disease and disability.

# ***Scientific Milestones***

As a scientific and technical possibility, human cloning has emerged as
an outgrowth of discoveries or innovations in developmental biology,
genetics, assisted reproductive technologies, animal breeding, and, most
recently, research on embryonic stem cells. Assisted reproductive
techniques in humans accomplished the in vitro fertilization of an egg,
yielding a zygote and developing embryo that could be successfully
implanted into a woman's uterus to give rise to a live-born child.
Animal breeders developed and refined these techniques with a view to
perpetuating particularly valuable animals and maintaining laboriously
identified genomes. Most recently, the isolation of embryonic stem cells
and their subsequent in vitro differentiation into many different cell
types has opened up possibilities for repairing and replacing diseased
or nonfunctioning tissue.

The German embryologist Hans Spemann conducted what many consider to be
the earliest "cloning" experiments on animals. Spemann was interested in
answering a fundamental question of biological development: does each
differentiated cell retain the full complement of genetic information
present initially in the zygote? In the late 1920s, he tied off part of
a cell with its nucleus from a salamander embryo at the sixteen-cell
stage and allowed the single cell to divide, showing that the nucleus of
that early embryo could, in effect, "start over." In a 1938 book,
*Embryonic Development and Induction*, Spemann wondered whether more
completely differentiated cells had the same capacity and speculated
about the possibility of transferring the nucleus from a differentiated
cell---taken from either a later-stage embryo or an adult
organism---into an enucleated egg. As he explained it: "Decisive
information about this question may perhaps be afforded by an experiment
which appears, at first sight, to be somewhat fantastical. This
experiment might possibly show that even nuclei of differentiated cells
can initiate normal development in the egg protoplasms." But Spemann did
not know how to achieve such an experiment.

Experiments with frogs fourteen years later encouraged progress toward
the "fantastical experiment." In 1952, the American embryologists Robert
Briggs and Thomas J. King first successfully transferred nuclei from
early embryonic cells of leopard frogs to enucleated leopard frog eggs.
The "activated egg" began to divide and develop, became an embryo, and
then became a tadpole. Embryologists in other laboratories successfully
repeated these initial experiments on different species of frogs. But
additional experience also showed that the older and more differentiated
a donor cell becomes, the less likely it is that its nucleus will be
able to direct development.

In 1962, the British developmental biologist John Gurdon reported that
he had produced sexually mature frogs by transferring nuclei from
intestinal cells of tadpoles into enucleated frog eggs. The experiments
had a low success rate and remained controversial. Gurdon continued this
work in the 1970s, and he was able to produce tadpoles by transferring
the nucleus of adult frog skin cells into enucleated frog eggs. Later
experiments established that many factors in addition to the intact
nucleus are crucial to success (see Chapter Four for further
discussion). In retrospect, it is surprising that any of these earlier
experiments produced positive results.[^2] Experiments with amphibians
did, however, show that the nucleus retained its full complement of
genetic information and encouraged later investigators to explore
mammalian cloning.

The birth of Louise Brown in 1978, the first baby conceived through in
vitro fertilization (IVF), was also an important milestone, because it
demonstrated that human birth was possible from eggs that were
fertilized outside the body and then implanted into the womb. As for the
possibility of cloning animals from adult cells---especially
mammals---the work in the intervening years focused largely on the
reprogramming in gene expression of somatic cells, the transfer of
nuclei taken from embryos in mammals (beginning with mice in the 1980s),
and finally the work of Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin
Institute with adult nuclei, which led to the birth of Dolly on July 5,
1996. Since then, similar success has been achieved in cloning other
mammalian species, including cattle, goats, pigs, mice, cats, and
rabbits (see Chapter Four).

The animal cloners did not set out to develop techniques for cloning
humans. Wilmut's goal was to replicate or perpetuate animals carrying a
valuable genome; for example, sheep that had been genetically modified
to produce medically valuable proteins in their milk. Others, such as
the cloners of the kitten CC, were interested in commercial ventures for
the cloning of pets.[^3] Yet the techniques developed in animals have
encouraged a small number of infertility therapists to contemplate and
explore efforts to clone human children. And, following the announcement
in 1998 by James Thomson and his associates of their isolation of human
embryonic stem cells, there emerged an interest in cloned human embryos,
not for reproductive uses but as a powerful tool for research into the
nature and treatment of human disease.

# ***Human Cloning from Popular Literature to Public Policy:***

# ***From* Brave New World *to the Birth of Dolly***

Technological novelties are often imagined and discussed in literature,
especially in science fiction, before they are likely or even possible
in practice. This has certainly been the case with human cloning, whose
place in the popular imagination precedes the earliest successful
cloning experiments. Perhaps the most famous early modern account of
human cloning is Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World* (1932), where natural
human procreation has become a thing of the past, and where babies are
produced in identical batches through "Bokanovsky's Process." As the
novelist tells it:

> One egg, one embryo, one adult---normality. But a bokanovskified egg
> will bud, will proliferate, will divide . . . becoming anywhere from
> eight to ninety-six embryos---a prodigious improvement, you will
> agree, on nature. Identical twins---but not in piddling twos and
> threes . . . Standard men and women; in uniform batches.

The relevance or irrelevance of Huxley's vision to the dilemmas of the
present is of course a matter of serious disagreement. Some believe that
fears of a "Brave New World" are fantasy divorced from both the
political realities of modern liberal democracy and the facts of
science. Others believe the book remains a prescient warning of where
biological self-manipulation could take us---which is to say, to a world
where family is obsolete, life is engineered to order in the laboratory,
and human beings have reduced themselves to well-satisfied human
animals. In either case, however, the exploration of our concepts of
what makes a life human, of individuality, and of relations between
individuals and generations has been pursued broadly in literature
through the idea of cloning, and that has certainly influenced the
public policy discussions.[^4]

In the late 1960s, following John Gurdon's successful cloning
experiments, a more focused debate on both the likelihood and the
ethical and social implications of human cloning began among scientists,
theologians, and ethicists. At this time, the still hypothetical
possibility of cloning humans was considered as a part of a broader
eugenic project to improve the genetic stock of humans as a species. In
a famous article published in *The American Naturalist* in 1966,
entitled "Experimental Genetics and Human Evolution," Nobel laureate
biologist Joshua Lederberg described what he took to be the prospects of
"clonal reproduction." "Experimentally," he wrote, "we know of
successful nuclear transplantation from diploid somatic as well as
germline cells into enucleated amphibian eggs. There is nothing to
suggest any particular difficulty about accomplishing this in mammals or
man, though it will rightly be admired as a technical tour-de-force when
it is first implemented." He also predicted "there will be little delay
between demonstration and use."

While Lederberg concluded his essay by exhorting his readers not to
"mistake comment for advocacy," he clearly believed that clonal
reproduction might offer a number of human benefits or improvements. "If
a superior individual (and presumably then genotype) is identified, why
not copy it directly, rather than suffer all the risks of
recombinational disruption, including those of sex," he asked. "The same
solace is accorded the carrier of genetic disease: why not be sure of an
exact copy of yourself rather than risk a homozygous segregant;[^5] or
at worst copy your spouse and allow some degree of biological
parenthood." He described other possibilities---such as "the free
exchange of organ transplants with no concern for graft rejection" and
more efficient communication between individuals in "stressed
occupations."

In the end, Lederberg argued that "tempered clonality"---a mix of clonal
and sexual reproduction---might, at least from a biological standpoint,
"allow the best of both worlds---we would at least enjoy being able to
observe the experiment of discovering whether a second Einstein would
outdo the first one." Nevertheless, he acknowledged the possibility for
"social frictions" and ethical dilemmas that might result from clonal
reproduction---including whether "anyone could conscientiously risk the
crucial experiment, the first attempt to clone a man." He suggested that
the "mingling of individual human chromosomes with other mammals assures
the gradualistic enlargement of the field and lowers the threshold of
optimism or arrogance, particularly if cloning in other mammals gives
incompletely predictable results." And he feared that social policy
might become based on "the accidents of the first advertised examples"
rather than "well-debated principles."

In 1970, the theologian and ethicist Paul Ramsey responded to
Lederberg's portrait of human cloning---and, more generally, the
prospects for human self-modification---in a book called *Fabricated
Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control*. He argued that human cloning would
violate the ethical responsibilities of both science and parenthood: it
would involve experiments on the child-to-be; it would transform
parenthood into manufacture; and it would burden children with the
genetic predisposition of their "maker" and so deny the cloned child a
unique independence in the very act of bringing him or her to life. "To
attempt to soar so high above an eminently human parenthood," Ramsey
wrote, "is inevitably to fall far below---into a vast technological
alienation of man .... The entire rationalization of procreation---its
replacement by replication---can only mean the abolition of man's
embodied personhood."

Ramsey believed that such a willingness to experiment on human life---or
to create sub-humans---showed how the effort to perfect and improve
humankind through genetic control leads in fact to an ethical coarsening
and to disregard for actual human beings for the hypothetical sake of
the species. "In the present age," he wrote, "the attempt will be made
to deprive us of our wits by comparing objections to schemes of
progressive genetic engineering or cloning men to earlier opposition to
inoculations, blood transfusions, or the control of malaria. These
things are by no means to be compared: the practice of medicine in the
service of life is one thing; man's unlimited self-modification of the
genetic conditions of life would be quite another matter."

The debate over human cloning and genetic manipulation continued in the
early 1970s. The Nobel laureate geneticist James D. Watson testified
before Congress in 1971 on the subject of human cloning. He described
the science that was taking us there, including John Gurdon's success in
cloning frogs and the work of R. G. Edwards and P. S. Steptoe "in
working out the conditions for routine test-tube conception of human
eggs."

"Human embryological development," Watson observed, "need no longer be a
process shrouded in secrecy. It can become instead an event wide-open to
a variety of experimental manipulations." Watson called for the creation
of national and international committees to promote "wide-ranging
discussion ... at the informal as well as formal legislative level,
about the manifold problems which are bound to arise if test-tube
conception becomes a common occurrence."

"This is not a decision for the scientists at all," he said. "It is a
decision of the general public---do you want this or not?" and something
that "if we do not think about it now, the possibility of our having a
free choice will, one day, suddenly be gone."

In 1972, Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist and co-founder of the newly
formed Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences (later called
the Hastings Center), made James Watson's warnings about cloning even
more dramatic---with a *New York Times Magazine* article titled "The
Frankenstein Myth Becomes a Reality---We Have the Awful Knowledge to
Make Exact Copies of Human Beings." Gaylin hoped that the prospect of
human cloning would awaken the public---and the scientific
community---to the larger ethical implications of the life sciences. The
same year, biologist and ethicist Leon R. Kass published an essay in
*The Public Interest* called "Making Babies---The New Biology and the
'Old' Morality," which addressed the prospect of both in vitro
fertilization and human cloning, and wondered whether "by tampering with
and confounding \[our\] origins, we are involved in nothing less than
creating a new conception of what it means to be human."

In stark contrast to Gaylin and Kass, ethicist Joseph Fletcher argued
that human cloning would not be dehumanizing at all, but would, in a
number of circumstances, serve the good of both society and individuals.
In his 1974 book *The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive
Roulette*, he argued that "Good reasons in general for cloning are that
it avoids genetic diseases, bypasses sterility, predetermines an
individual's gender, and preserves family likenesses. It wastes time to
argue over whether we should do it or not; the real moral question is
when and why." For Fletcher---unlike Ramsey, Gaylin, and Kass---genetic
control would serve the human end of self-mastery and self-improvement,
it would improve the quality of life for individuals, and it would aid
the progress of the human species. Gunther Stent, a molecular biologist
at the University of California at Berkeley, echoed this view that human
cloning would contribute to human perfection. As he wrote in a 1974
article in *Nature*: "To oppose human cloning is to betray the Western
dream of the City of God. All utopian visionaries, from Thomas More to
Karl Marx, think of their perfect societies as being populated not by
men but by angels that embody all of the best and none of the worst
human attributes." With cloning, he suggested, such a city might one day
be possible.

For several years, cloning remained a topic for fiction and philosophy,
but fantasy had yet to turn into fact. In 1978, in a book titled *In His
Image: The Cloning of a Man*, science writer David Rorvik claimed that
he was involved in a secret project to clone a millionaire in Montana
named "Max." The book caused a flurry of reaction---ranging from horror
to amusement to nearly universal skepticism and denunciation in the
scientific community---and eventually led to hearings before Congress on
May 31, 1978. Robert Briggs, who with Thomas King cloned the first frog
embryo from blastula frog cells in 1952, declared that the work in frogs
demonstrated not that human cloning is now or imminently possible, but
that "cloning in man or any other animal is not just a technical problem
to be solved soon but may, in fact, never occur." James Watson, who just
a few years earlier had urged a national conversation and possible
legislation on human cloning because of the rapid advances in the
science, declared that we would "certainly not \[see the cloning of a
man\] in any of our lifetimes. I wouldn't be able to predict when we
might see the cloning of a mouse, much less a man." Rorvik eventually
admitted that the book was a hoax.

In the years that followed, claims and counter-claims of scientific
advances in mammalian cloning---including the controversy beginning in
1981 over whether any of several independent laboratories had actually
cloned mice---prompted more public reaction and discussion about the
issue. But there was no sustained or widespread public interest, and
cloning lost its prominent place within the bioethics literature. The
President's Bioethics Commission, in its 1982 report *Splicing Life,*
briefly discussed human cloning as well as IVF, but held that both were
beyond the scope of that report because they could be considered
reproductive technologies that did not necessarily involve modifying the
genome (pp. 9-10). With regard to human cloning in particular, the
report added that the possibility had received a good deal of public
attention and it was therefore important to emphasize that even if it
ever did become possible in humans, it would not result in an identical
being.

The National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research Panel, which
issued a report in 1994 on federal funding for research involving
preimplantation human embryos, deemed research involving nuclear
transplantation, without transfer of the resulting cloned embryo to a
uterus, as one type of research that was acceptable for federal support.
The report noted that the majority on this point was narrow, with nearly
as many panel members concluding that the ethical implications of
nuclear transplantation should be studied further before any such
research could be acceptable for federal funding (Exec. Summ., p. xvii).
In its discussion of cloning techniques, the panel noted that many
different procedures are all called "cloning," and said in a footnote
(on page 28 of the report), "Popular notions of cloning derive from
science fiction books and films that have more to do with cultural
fantasies than actual scientific experiments."

Of course, there had been, in the meantime, continued scientific work in
nuclear transplantation in animals---including mammals. And with the
1997 announcement of the cloning of Dolly, the prospect of human cloning
once again became a prominent issue in public discussion, debate, and
public life.

# ***The Human Cloning Debate: From Dolly to the Present***

In late February 1997, Ian Wilmut and his team at the Roslin Institute
in Scotland announced that they had, by means of somatic cell nuclear
transfer, successfully cloned the first mammal from an adult somatic
cell---Dolly the sheep. President Bill Clinton and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair immediately denounced any attempts to clone a human
being, and the President asked his National Bioethics Advisory
Commission (NBAC) to report within ninety days on the scientific,
ethical, and legal questions surrounding the prospect of human cloning.
Congress likewise held a series of hearings---the first one on March 12,
1997. A widespread---though not universal---consensus emerged that
attempts to clone a human being would at present be irresponsible and
immoral. As Wilmut explained before Congress, "Our own experiments to
clone sheep required us to produce 277 'reconstructed' embryos. Of
these, twenty-nine were implanted into recipient ewes, and only one
developed into a live lamb. In previous work with cells from embryos,
three out of five lambs died soon after birth and showed developmental
abnormalities. Similar experiments with humans would be totally
unacceptable."

Most ethicists agreed, though for different reasons. All agreed that
cloning attempts on human beings "at this time" would be reckless
experiments on the child-to-be and therefore totally unjustified. Many
stressed, as Ramsey, Gaylin, and Kass had done in the 1970s, the ways
that human cloning would undermine the human meaning of parenthood and
identity; that it would mean a giant step toward genetic engineering,
creating the first children whose genetic predisposition was known and
selected in advance; and that it would turn procreation increasingly
into a form of manufacture. In contrast, some bioethicists, including
John Robertson and Ruth Macklin, believed that human cloning presented
no inherent threat to public or private morality, that government had no
legal authority or justification for banning clonal reproduction, and
that it must be judged in terms of its particular uses, not dismissed
outright.

In June 1997, NBAC released its report *Cloning Human Beings*, which
concluded that

> At present, the use of this technique to create a child would be a
> premature experiment that would expose the fetus and the developing
> child to unacceptable risks. This in itself might be sufficient to
> justify a prohibition on cloning human beings at this time, even if
> such efforts were to be characterized as the exercise of a fundamental
> right to attempt to procreate.[^6]

NBAC also pointed to other moral concerns "beyond the safety of the
procedure," including "the potential psychological harms to children and
effects on the moral, religious, and cultural values of society" that
"merit further discussion." NBAC recommended a three-to-five-year
federal moratorium on human cloning---stating that the consensus came
from the fact that technique was not yet safe---to be revisited and
reevaluated after that time. "Whether upon further deliberation our
nation will conclude that the use of cloning techniques to create
children should be allowed or permanently banned is, for the moment, an
open question."

In early 1998, the United States Senate considered legislation, proposed
by Republican Senators Christopher Bond of Missouri, Bill Frist of
Tennessee, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, to ban all human cloning
permanently. Nearly all senators denounced clonal reproduction, but many
believed that the proposed ban, which would have made it illegal to
create human embryos by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer, would
undermine potentially valuable scientific research. Democratic Senators
Edward Kennedy of Mas- sachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa led the
opposition, with the widespread support of patient advocacy groups,
scientific and medical organizations, and the biotechnology industry. As
Senator Kennedy put it:

> Every scientist in America understands the threat this legislation
> poses to critical medical research. Every American should understand
> it, too. . . . Congress can and should act to ban cloning of human
> beings during this session. But it should not act in haste, and it
> should not pass legislation that goes far beyond what the American
> people want or what the scientific and medical community understands
> is necessary or appropriate.

The legislation died after heated debate, and the concern over human
cloning temporarily lost urgency and subsided.

In November of that year, a new scientific discovery was unveiled that
would soon provoke a different public policy debate, one that would
become entangled with the next cloning controversy. James Thomson and
John Gearhart separately announced the isolation of human embryonic stem
cells---multipotent cells (see Glossary of Terms) derived from human
embryos that they believed hold great promise for curing or treating
many diseases and injuries. The discovery led to another wave of
hearings on, and interest in, the ethics of biological science. It also
renewed debate over whether embryo research should be eligible for
public funding (since 1996, Congress had prohibited federal funding of
research involving the destruction of human embryos). One subject under
consideration was the possible future use of cloned human embryos for
stem cell research, which some scientists believed might be uniquely
useful for understanding embryological development and genetic disease
and for possible use in stem cell therapies.

In August 2000---after another NBAC study---President Clinton unveiled
new guidelines that would have altered the ban on federal funding of
embryo research. The new guidelines, proposed by the National Institutes
of Health, stipulated that the agency would fund research on embryonic
stem cells so long as public funds were not used to destroy the embryos,
the embryos were left over from IVF clinics, and donors of the embryos
consented to the research.

In early 2001, President George W. Bush announced that he would review
the guidelines proposed by his predecessor rather than implement them
immediately. Around the same time, a num-ber of pro-cloning groups and
fertility doctors---including the Raelians, who believe that humans are
the products of cloning by aliens---announced their intention to clone
human beings by the end of the year. Other individuals and scientific
organizations worked to protect possible research from future
restrictions, opposing legal bans, though there were also scientists
(such as Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut[^7]) who argued against
cloning-to-produce-children. A flurry of hearings on human cloning soon
followed---the first one in the House of Representatives on March 28,
2001, and continuing in both the House and the Senate throughout the
summer. The hearings addressed cloning-to-produce-children as well as
issues related to cloning-for-biomedical-research.

Two general approaches to banning human cloning emerged. The first
approach, proposed in a bill sponsored by Republican Representative
David Weldon of Florida and Democratic Representative Bart Stupak of
Michigan in the House, and Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
and Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana in the Senate, called
for a ban on all human cloning, including the creation of cloned embryos
for biomedical research. The second approach, proposed in a bill
sponsored by Republican Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Orrin
Hatch of Utah and Demo-cratic Senators Diane Feinstein of California and
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, sought to prohibit human reproductive
cloning, while allowing the use of cloning tech-nology to produce stem
cells, by making it illegal to implant or attempt to implant the product
of nuclear transplantation "into a uterus or the functional equivalent
of a uterus."

On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed the Weldon-Stupak
bill (the ban on human cloning) by a vote of 265 to 162. In November
2001, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., of Worcester,
Massachusetts, one of the leading commercial advocates of
cloning-for-biomedical-research, reported what they claimed were the
first cloned human embryos. The announcement---along with continued
debate on the possible use of cloned human embryos for stem cell
research---left the issue in the United States Senate, where it stands
as of this writing.

Meanwhile, the general public has consistently expressed the view that
human cloning is wrong---most recently, a Gallup poll from May 2002 that
showed opposition to cloning to produce a child at 90 percent, and
opposition to "cloning of human embryos for use in medical research" at
61 percent. Asked about medical research using stem cells obtained from
human embryos (with no mention of how the embryo was generated), 52
percent found it morally acceptable, while 51 percent found acceptable
the "cloning of human cells from adults for use in medical
research."[^8]

In addition to activity at the federal level, many states have been
active. As of this writing, twenty-two states have considered various
policy alternatives on cloning, and six have passed legislation.[^9]

Several nations, including Denmark, France, Norway, Spain, and Canada
have passed or sought either partial or total bans. For example, in the
United Kingdom, cloning-to-pro-duce-children is forbidden but cloned
embryos up to fourteen days old may be used in biomedical research. In
Germany, all human cloning is forbidden by law. There are also efforts
now at the United Nations and other international organizations to pass
a world-wide ban on human cloning---with many of the same disagreements
internationally as there are nationally about what kind of ban to pass.

#### ENDNOTES

[^1]: Since the birth of Dolly, several volumes including history
    pertinent to that event have been published, including *Clone*,
    Kolata, G., New York: Morrow and Company, 1998, and *Cloning Human
    Beings*, National Bioethics Advisory Commission \[NBAC\]: Bethesda,
    MD, 1997. In addition, several valuable anthologies have been
    edited, including *The Future is Now*, Kristol, W. and E. Cohen ,
    Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, and *Clones and Clones*,
    Nussbaum, M. and C.R. Sunstein, New York: Norton, 1998.

[^2]: A fact also noted by NBAC in *Cloning Human Beings,* p. 18.

[^3]: Regalado, A. "Only Nine Lives for Kitty? Not if She Is Cloned"
    *Wall Street Journal*, February 14, 2002, p. B1. Kluger, J. "Here
    Kitty Kitty!" *Time*, February 17, 2002.

[^4]: Annas, G.J. "Human Cloning: A Choice or an Echo?" *University of
    Dayton Law Review,* 23 (2): 1-19, Winter 1998.

[^5]: *Homozygous segregant*: an individual carrying two copies of the
    same mutant gene, one inherited from each parent, and thus destined
    to suffer from a genetic disease.

[^6]: NBAC, *Cloning Human Beings,* 1997, p. 104.

[^7]: Jaenisch, R., and I. Wilmut, "Don't clone humans!" *Science* 291:
    5513, March 30, 2001.

[^8]: Saad, L. "Cloning Humans Is a Turn-Off to Most Americans" *Gallup
    Poll Analyses,* May 16, 2002.

[^9]: As of June 2002 three states (Iowa, Michigan, and Virginia) ban
    both cloning-to-produce-children and
    cloning-for-biomedical-research. Two states (Louisiana and Rhode
    Island) ban cloning-to-produce-children, but also have
    embryo-research laws that appear to prohibit
    cloning-for-biomedical-research. One state (California) has banned
    cloning-to-produce-children, until Dec. 31, 2002, but has no
    embryo-research law and thus effectively permits
    cloning-for-biomedical-research.