Executive Summary

For the past five years, the prospect of human cloning has been the
subject of considerable public attention and sharp moral debate, both in
the United States and around the world. Since the announcement in
February 1997 of the first successful cloning of a mammal (Dolly the
sheep), several other species of mammals have been cloned. Although a
cloned human child has yet to be born, and although the animal
experiments have had low rates of success, the production of functioning
mammalian cloned offspring suggests that the eventual cloning of humans
must be considered a serious possibility.

In November 2001, American researchers claimed to have produced the
first cloned human embryos, though they reportedly reached only a
six-cell stage before they stopped dividing and died. In addition,
several fertility specialists, both here and abroad, have announced
their intention to clone human beings. The United States Congress has
twice taken up the matter, in 1998 and again in 2001-2002, with the
House of Representatives in July 2001 passing a strict ban on all human
cloning, beginning with the production of cloned human embryos. As of
this writing, several cloning-related bills are under consideration in
the Senate. Many other nations have banned human cloning, and the United
Nations is considering an international convention on the subject.
Finally, two major national reports have been issued on human
reproductive cloning, one by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission
(NBAC) in 1997, the other by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in
January 2002. Both the NBAC and the NAS called for further consideration
of the ethical and social questions raised by cloning.

The debate over human cloning became further complicated in 1998 when
researchers were able, for the first time, to isolate human embryonic
stem cells. Many scientists believe that these versatile cells, capable
of becoming any type of cell in the body, hold great promise for
understanding and treating many chronic diseases and conditions. Some
scientists also believe that stem cells derived from *cloned* human
embryos, produced explicitly for such research, might prove uniquely
useful for studying many genetic diseases and devising novel therapies.
Public reaction to the prospect of cloning-for-biomedical-research has
been mixed, with some Americans supporting it for its medical promise
and others opposing it because it requires the exploitation and
destruction of nascent human life, which would be created solely for
research purposes.

***Human Cloning: What is at Stake?***

The intense attention given to human cloning in both its potential uses,
for reproduction as well as for research, strongly suggests that people
do not regard it as just another new technology. Instead, we see it as
something quite different, something that touches fundamental aspects of
our humanity. The notion of cloning raises issues about identity and
individuality, the meaning of having children, the difference between
procreation and manufacture, and the relationship between the
generations. It also raises new questions about the manipulation of some
human beings for the benefit of others, the freedom and value of
biomedical inquiry, our obligation to heal the sick (and its limits),
and the respect and protection owed to nascent human life.

Finally, the legislative debates over human cloning raise large
questions about the relationship between science and society, especially
about whether society can or should exercise ethical and prudential
control over biomedical technology and the conduct of biomedical
research. Rarely has such a seemingly small innovation raised such big
questions.

# **The Inquiry: Our Point of Departure**

As Members of the President's Council on Bioethics, we have taken up the
larger ethical and social inquiry called for in the NBAC and NAS
reports, with the aim of advancing public understanding and informing
public policy on the matter. We have attempted to consider human cloning
(both for producing children and for biomedical research) within its
larger human, technological, and ethical contexts, rather than to view
it as an isolated technical development. We focus first on the broad
human goods that it may serve as well as threaten, rather than on the
immediate impact of the technique itself. By our broad approach, our
starting on the plane of human goods, and our open spirit of inquiry, we
hope to contribute to a richer and deeper understanding of what human
cloning means, how we should think about it, and what we should do about
it.

On some matters discussed in this report, Members of the Council are not
of one mind. Rather than bury these differences in search of a spurious
consensus, we have sought to present all views fully and fairly, while
recording our agreements as well as our genuine diversity of
perspectives, including our differences on the final recommendations to
be made. By this means, we hope to help policymakers and the general
public appreciate more thoroughly the difficulty of the issues and the
competing goods that are at stake.

# **Fair and Accurate Terminology**

There is today much confusion about the terms used to discuss human
cloning, regarding both the activity involved and the entities that
result. The Council stresses the importance of striving not only for
accuracy but also for fairness, especially because the choice of terms
can decisively affect the way questions are posed, and hence how answers
are given. We have sought terminology that most accurately conveys the
descriptive reality of the matter, in order that the moral arguments can
then proceed on the merits. We have resisted the temptation to solve the
moral questions by artful redefinition or by denying to some morally
crucial element a name that makes clear that there is a moral question
to be faced.

On the basis of (1) a careful analysis of the act of cloning, and its
relation to the means by which it is accomplished and the purposes it
may serve, and (2) an extensive critical examination of alternative
terminologies, the Council has adopted the following definitions for the
most important terms in the matter of human cloning:

-   *Cloning***:** A form of reproduction in which offspring result not
    from the chance union of egg and sperm (sexual reproduction) but
    from the deliberate replication of the genetic makeup of another
    single individual (asexual reproduction).

-   *Human cloning***:** The asexual production of a new human organism
    that is, at all stages of development, genetically virtually
    identical to a currently existing or previously existing human
    being. It would be accomplished by introducing the nuclear material
    of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg) whose own
    nucleus has been removed or inactivated, yielding a product that has
    a human genetic constitution virtually identical to the donor of the
    somatic cell. (This procedure is known as "somatic cell nuclear
    transfer," or SCNT). We have declined to use the terms "reproductive
    cloning" and "therapeutic cloning." We have chosen instead to use
    the following designations:

-   *Cloning-to-produce-children***:** Production of a cloned human
    embryo, formed for the (proximate) purpose of initiating a
    pregnancy, with the (ultimate) goal of producing a child who will be
    genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or
    previously existing individual.

-   *Cloning-for-biomedical-research***:** Production of a cloned human
    embryo, formed for the (proximate) purpose of using it in research
    or for extracting its stem cells, with the (ultimate) goals of
    gaining scientific knowledge of normal and abnormal development and
    of developing cures for human diseases.

-   *Cloned human embryo*: (a) A human embryo resulting from the nuclear
    transfer process (as contrasted with a human embryo arising from the
    union of egg and sperm). (b) The immediate (and developing) product
    of the initial act of cloning, accomplished by successful SCNT,
    whether used subsequently in attempts to produce children or in
    biomedical research.

## Scientific Background

Cloning research and stem cell research are being actively investigated
and the state of the science is changing rapidly; significant new
developments could change some of the interpretations in our report. At
present, however, a few general points may be highlighted.

-   *The technique of cloning*. The following steps have been used to
    produce live offspring in the mammalian species that have been
    successfully cloned. Obtain an egg cell from a female of a mammalian
    species. Remove its nuclear DNA, to produce an enucleated egg.
    Insert the nucleus of a donor adult cell into the enucleated egg, to
    produce a reconstructed egg. Activate the reconstructed egg with
    chemicals or electric current, to stimulate it to commence cell
    division. Sustain development of the cloned embryo to a suitable
    stage in vitro, and then transfer it to the uterus of a female host
    that has been suitably prepared to receive it. Bring to live birth a
    cloned animal that is genetically virtually identical (except for
    the mitochondrial DNA) to the animal that donated the adult cell
    nucleus.

-   *Animal cloning: low success rates, high morbidity*. At least seven
    species of mammals (none of them primates) have been successfully
    cloned to produce live births. Yet the production of live cloned
    offspring is rare and the failure rate is high: more than 90 percent
    of attempts to initiate a clonal pregnancy do not result in
    successful live birth. Moreover, the live-born cloned animals suffer
    high rates of deformity and disability, both at birth and later on.
    Some biologists attribute these failures to errors or incompleteness
    of epigenetic reprogramming of the somatic cell nucleus.

-   *Attempts at human cloning*. At this writing, it is uncertain
    whether anyone has attempted cloning-to-produce-children (although
    at least one physician is now claiming to have initiated several
    active clonal pregnancies, and others are reportedly working on it).
    We do not know whether a transferred cloned human embryo can
    progress all the way to live birth.

-   *Stem cell research*. Human embryonic stem cells have been isolated
    from embryos (produced by IVF) at the blastocyst stage, or from the
    germinal tissue of fetuses. Human adult stem (or multipotent) cells
    have been isolated from a variety of tissues. Such cell populations
    can be differentiated in vitro into a number of different cell
    types, and are currently being studied intensely for their possible
    uses in regenerative medicine. Most scientists working in the field
    believe that stem cells (both embryonic and adult) hold great
    promise as routes toward cures and treatments for many human
    diseases and disabilities. All stem cell research is at a very early
    stage, and it is too soon to tell which approaches will prove most
    useful, and for which purposes.

-   *The transplant rejection problem*. To be effective as long-term
    treatments, cell transplantation therapies will have to overcome the
    immune rejection problem. Cells and tissues derived from *adult*
    stem cells and returned to the patient from whom they were taken
    would not be subject (at least in principle) to immune rejection.

-   *Stem cells from cloned embryos*. Human embryonic stem cell
    preparations could potentially be produced by using somatic cell
    nuclear transfer to produce a cloned human embryo, and then taking
    it apart at the blastocyst stage and isolating stem cells. These
    stem cells would be genetically virtually identical to cells from
    the nucleus donor, and thus could potentially be of great value in
    biomedical research. Very little work of this sort has been done to
    date in animals, and there are as yet no *published* reports of
    cloned *human* embryos grown to the blastocyst stage. Although the
    promise of such research is at this time unknown, most researchers
    believe it will yield very useful and important knowledge, pointing
    toward new therapies and offering one of several possible routes to
    circumvent the immune rejection problem. Although some animal
    experimental results are indeed quite encouraging, they also
    demonstrate some tendency even of cloned stem cells to stimulate an
    immune response.

-   *The fate of embryos used in research*. All extractions of stem
    cells from human embryos, cloned or not, involve the destruction of
    these embryos.

## The Ethics of Cloning-to-Produce-Children

Two separate national-level reports on human cloning (NBAC, 1997; NAS,
2002) concluded that attempts to clone a human being would be unethical
at this time due to safety concerns and the likelihood of harm to those
involved. The Council concurs in this conclusion. But we have extended
the work of these distinguished bodies by undertaking a broad ethical
examination of the merits of, and difficulties with,
cloning-to-produce-children.

Cloning-to-produce-children might serve several purposes. It might allow
infertile couples or others to have genetically-related children; permit
couples at risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease to avoid
having an afflicted child; allow the bearing of a child who could become
an ideal transplant donor for a particular patient in need; enable a
parent to keep a living connection with a dead or dying child or spouse,
or even to try to "replicate" individuals of great talent or beauty.
These purposes have been defended by appeals to the goods of freedom,
existence (as opposed to nonexistence), and well-being---all vitally
important ideals.

A major weakness in these arguments supporting
cloning-to-produce-children is that they overemphasize the freedom,
desires, and control of parents, and pay insufficient attention to the
well-being of the cloned child-to-be. The Council holds that, once the
child-to-be is carefully considered, these arguments are not sufficient
to overcome the powerful case against engaging in
cloning-to-produce-children.

First, cloning-to-produce-children would violate the principles of the
ethics of human research. Given the high rates of morbidity and
mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that
cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts
to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical. Indeed, our moral
analysis of this matter leads us to conclude that this is not, as is
sometimes implied, a merely temporary objection, easily removed by the
improvement of technique. We offer reasons for believing that the safety
risks might be enduring, and offer arguments in support of a strong
conclusion: that conducting experiments in an effort to make
cloning-to-produce-children safer would itself be an unacceptable
violation of the norms of research ethics. *There seems to be no ethical
way to try to discover whether cloning-to-produce-children can become
safe, now or in the future*.

If carefully considered, the concerns about safety also begin to reveal
the ethical principles that should guide a broader assessment of
cloning-to-produce-children: the principles of freedom, equality, and
human dignity. To appreciate the broader human significance of
cloning-to-produce-children, one needs first to reflect on the meaning
of having children; the meaning of asexual, as opposed to sexual,
reproduction; the importance of origins and genetic endowment for
identity and sense of self; the meaning of exercising greater human
control over the processes and "products" of human reproduction; and the
difference between begetting and making. Reflecting on these topics, the
Council has identified five categories of concern regarding
cloning-to-produce-children. (Different Council Members give varying
moral weight to these different concerns.)

-   *Problems of identity and individuality*: Cloned children may
    experience serious problems of identity both because each will be
    genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already
    lived and because the expectations for their lives may be shadowed
    by constant comparisons to the life of the "original."

-   *Concerns regarding manufacture*: Cloned children would be the first
    human beings whose entire genetic makeup is selected in advance.
    They might come to be considered more like products of a designed
    manufacturing process than "gifts" whom their parents are prepared
    to accept as they are. Such an attitude toward children could also
    contribute to increased commercialization and industrialization of
    human procreation.

-   *The prospect of a new eugenics*: Cloning, if successful, might
    serve the ends of individualized eugenic enhancement, either by
    avoiding the genetic defects that may arise when human reproduction
    is left to chance, or by preserving and perpetuating outstanding
    genetic traits, including the possibility, someday in the future, of
    using cloning to perpetuate genetically engineered enhancements.

-   *Troubled family relations*: By confounding and transgressing the
    natural boundaries between generations, cloning could strain the
    social ties between them. Fathers could become "twin brothers" to
    their "sons"; mothers could give birth to their genetic twins; and
    grandparents would also be the "genetic parents" of their
    grandchildren. Genetic relation to only one parent might produce
    special difficulties for family life.

-   *Effects on society*: Cloning-to-produce-children would affect not
    only the direct participants, but also the entire society that
    allows or supports this activity. Even if practiced on a small
    scale, it could affect the way society looks at children and set a
    precedent for future nontherapeutic interventions into the human
    genetic endowment or novel forms of control by one generation over
    the next. In the absence of wisdom regarding these matters, prudence
    dictates caution and restraint.

***Conclusion: For some or all of these reasons,*** ***the Council is in
full agreement that cloning-to-produce-children is not only unsafe but
also morally unacceptable, and ought not to be attempted.***

## The Ethics of Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research

Ethical assessment of cloning-for-biomedical-research is far more
vexing. On the one hand, such research could lead to important knowledge
about human embryological development and gene action, both normal and
abnormal, ultimately resulting in treatments and cures for many dreaded
illnesses and disabilities. On the other hand, the research is
controversial because it involves the deliberate production, use, and
ultimate destruction of cloned human embryos, and because the cloned
embryos produced for research are no different from those that could be
used in attempts to produce cloned children. The difficulty is
compounded by what are, for now, unanswerable questions as to whether
the research will in fact yield the benefits hoped for, and whether
other promising and morally nonproblematic approaches might yield
comparable benefits. The Council, reflecting the differences of opinion
in American society, is divided regarding the ethics of research
involving (cloned) embryos. *Yet we agree that* *all parties to the
debate have concerns vital to defend, vital not only to themselves but
to all of us.* *No human being and no society can afford to be callous
to the needs of suffering humanity, or cavalier about the treatment of
nascent human life, or indifferent to the social effects of adopting one
course of action rather than another.*

To make clear to all what is at stake in the decision, Council Members
have presented, as strongly as possible, the competing ethical cases for
and against cloning-for-biomedical-research in the form of first-person
attempts at moral suasion. Each case has tried to address what is owed
to suffering humanity, to the human embryo, and to the broader society.
Within each case, supporters of the position in question speak only for
themselves, and not for the Council as a whole.

# [The Moral Case for Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research]{.underline}

The moral case for proceeding with the research rests on our obligation
to try to relieve human suffering, an obligation that falls most
powerfully on medical practitioners and biomedical researchers. We who
support cloning-for-biomedical-research all agree that it may offer
uniquely useful ways of investigating and possibly treating many chronic
debilitating diseases and disabilities, providing aid and relief to
millions. We also believe that the moral objections to this research are
outweighed by the great good that may come from it. Up to this point, we
who support the research all agree. But we differ among ourselves
regarding the weight of the moral objections, owing to differences about
the moral status of the cloned embryo. These differences are sufficient
to warrant distinguishing two different moral positions within the moral
case for cloning-for-biomedical-research:

[Position Number One]{.underline}. Most Council Members who favor
cloning-for-biomedical-research do so with serious moral concerns.
Speaking only for ourselves, we acknowledge the following difficulties,
but think that they can be addressed by setting proper boundaries.

-   *Intermediate moral status*. While we take seriously concerns about
    the treatment of nascent human life, we believe there are sound
    moral reasons for not regarding the embryo in its earliest stages as
    the moral equivalent of a human person. We believe the embryo has a
    developing and intermediate moral worth that commands our special
    respect, but that it is morally permissible to use early-stage
    cloned human embryos in important research under strict regulation.

-   *Deliberate Creation for Use*. We believe that concerns over the
    problem of deliberate creation of cloned embryos for use in research
    have merit, but when properly understood should not preclude
    cloning-for-biomedical-research. These embryos would not be "created
    for destruction," but for use in the service of life and medicine.
    They would be destroyed in the service of a great good, and this
    should not be obscured.

-   *Going Too Far*. We acknowledge the concern that some researchers
    might seek to develop cloned embryos beyond the blastocyst stage,
    and for those of us who believe that the cloned embryo has a
    developing and intermediate moral status, this is a very real worry.
    We approve, therefore, only of research on cloned embryos that is
    strictly limited to the first fourteen days of development---a point
    near when the primitive streak is formed and before organ
    differentiation occurs.

-   *Other Moral Hazards*. We believe that concerns about the
    exploitation of women and about the risk that
    cloning-for-biomedical-research could lead to
    cloning-to-produce-children can be adequately addressed by
    appropriate rules and regulations. These concerns need not frighten
    us into abandoning an important avenue of research.

[Position Number Two]{.underline}. A few Council Members who favor
cloning-for-biomedical-research do not share all the ethical qualms
expressed above. Speaking only for ourselves, we hold that this
research, at least for the purposes presently contemplated, presents no
special moral problems, and therefore should be endorsed with enthusiasm
as a potential new means of gaining knowledge to serve humankind.
Because we accord no special moral status to the early-stage cloned
embryo and believe it should be treated essentially like all other human
cells, we believe that the moral issues involved in this research are no
different from those that accompany any biomedical research. What is
required is the usual commitment to high standards for the quality of
research, scientific integrity, and the need to obtain informed consent
from donors of the eggs and somatic cells used in nuclear transfer.

# [The Moral Case against Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research]{.underline}

The moral case against cloning-for-biomedical-research acknowledges the
possibility---though purely speculative at the moment---that medical
benefits might come from this particular avenue of experimentation. But
we believe it is morally wrong to exploit and destroy developing human
life, even for good reasons, and that it is unwise to open the door to
the many undesirable consequences that are likely to result from this
research. We find it disquieting, even somewhat ignoble, to treat what
are in fact seeds of the next generation as mere raw material for
satisfying the needs of our own. Only for very serious reasons should
progress toward increased knowledge and medical advances be slowed. But
we believe that in this case such reasons are apparent.

-   *Moral status of the cloned embryo*. We hold that the case for
    treating the early-stage embryo as simply the moral equivalent of
    all other human cells (Position Number Two, above) is simply
    mistaken: it denies the continuous history of human individuals from
    the embryonic to fetal to infant stages of existence; it
    misunderstands the meaning of potentiality; and it ignores the
    hazardous moral precedent that the routinized creation, use, and
    destruction of nascent human life would establish. We hold that the
    case for according the human embryo "intermediate and developing
    moral status" (Position Number One, above) is also unconvincing, for
    reasons both biological and moral. Attempts to ground the limited
    measure of respect owed to a maturing embryo in certain of its
    developmental features do not succeed, and the invoking of a
    "special respect" owed to nascent human life seems to have little or
    no operative meaning if cloned embryos may be created in bulk and
    used routinely with impunity. If from one perspective the view that
    the embryo seems to amount to little may invite a weakening of our
    respect, from another perspective its seeming insignificance should
    awaken in us a sense of shared humanity and a special obligation to
    protect it.

-   *The exploitation of developing human life.* To engage in
    cloning-for-biomedical-research requires the irreversible crossing
    of a very significant moral boundary: the creation of human life
    expressly and exclusively for the purpose of its use in research,
    research that necessarily involves its deliberate destruction. If we
    permit this research to proceed, we will effectively be endorsing
    the complete transformation of nascent human life into nothing more
    than a resource or a tool. Doing so would coarsen our moral
    sensibilities and make us a different society: one less humble
    toward that which we cannot fully understand, less willing to extend
    the boundaries of human respect ever outward, and more willing to
    transgress moral boundaries once it appears to be in our own
    interests to do so.

-   *Moral harm to society*. Even those who are uncertain about the
    precise moral status of the human embryo have sound
    ethical-prudential reasons to oppose
    cloning-for-biomedical-research. Giving moral approval to such
    research risks significant moral harm to our society by (1) crossing
    the boundary from sexual to asexual reproduction, thus approving in
    principle the genetic manipulation and control of nascent human
    life; (2) opening the door to other moral hazards, such as
    cloning-to-produce-children or research on later-stage human embryos
    and fetuses; and (3) potentially putting the federal government in
    the novel and unsavory position of mandating the destruction of
    nascent human life. Because we are concerned not only with the fate
    of the cloned embryos but also with where this research will lead
    our society, we think prudence requires us not to engage in this
    research.

-   *What we owe the suffering*. We are certainly not deaf to the voices
    of suffering patients; after all, each of us already shares or will
    share in the hardships of mortal life. We and our loved ones are all
    patients or potential patients. But we are not only patients, and
    easing suffering is not our only moral obligation. As much as we
    wish to alleviate suffering now and to leave our children a world
    where suffering can be more effectively relieved, we also want to
    leave them a world in which we and they want to live---a world that
    honors moral limits, that respects all life whether strong or weak,
    and that refuses to secure the good of some human beings by
    sacrificing the lives of others.

***Public Policy Options***

The Council recognizes the challenges and risks of moving from moral
assessment to public policy. Reflections on the "social contract"
between science and society highlight both the importance of scientific
freedom and the need for boundaries. We note that other countries often
treat human cloning in the context of a broad area of biomedical
technology, at the intersection of reproductive technology, embryo
research, and genetics, while the public policy debate in the United
States has been considering cloning largely on its own. We recognize the
special difficulty in formulating sound public policy in this area,
given that the two ethically distinct
matters---cloning-to-produce-children and
cloning-for-biomedical-research---will be mutually affected or
implicated in any attempts to legislate about either. Nevertheless, our
ethical and policy analysis leads us to the conclusion that some
deliberate public policy at the federal level is needed in the area of
human cloning.

We reviewed the following seven possible policy options and considered
their relative strengths and weaknesses: (1) Professional
self-regulation but no federal legislative action ("self-regulation");
(2) A ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with neither endorsement nor
restriction of cloning-for-biomedical-research ("ban plus silence"); (3)
A ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with regulation of the use of
cloned embryos for biomedical research ("ban plus regulation"); (4)
Governmental regulation, with no legislative prohibitions ("regulation
of both"); (5) A ban on all human cloning, whether to produce children
or for biomedical research ("ban on both"); (6) A ban on
cloning-to-produce-children, with a moratorium or temporary ban on
cloning-for-biomedical-research ("ban plus moratorium"); or (7) A
moratorium or temporary ban on all human cloning, whether to produce
children or for biomedical research ("moratorium on both").

***The Council's Policy Recommendations***

Having considered the benefits and drawbacks of each of these options,
and taken into account our discussions and reflections throughout this
report, the Council recommends two possible policy alternatives, each
supported by a portion of the Members.

**Majority Recommendation:** Ten Members of the Council recommend ***a
ban on cloning-to-produce-children combined with a four-year moratorium
on cloning-for-biomedical-research. We also call for a federal review of
current and projected practices of human embryo research,
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic modification of human
embryos and gametes, and related matters, with a view to recommending
and shaping ethically sound policies for the entire field*.** Speaking
only for ourselves, those of us who support this recommendation do so
for some or all of the following reasons:

-   By permanently banning cloning-to-produce-children, this policy
    gives force to the strong ethical verdict against
    cloning-to-produce-children, unanimous in this Council (and in
    Congress) and widely supported by the American people. And by
    enacting a four-year moratorium on the creation of cloned embryos,
    it establishes an additional safeguard not afforded by policies that
    would allow the production of cloned embryos to proceed without
    delay.

-   It calls for and provides time for further democratic deliberation
    about cloning-for-biomedical research, a subject about which the
    nation is divided and where there remains great uncertainty. A
    national discourse on this subject has not yet taken place in full,
    and a moratorium, by making it impossible for either side to cling
    to the status-quo, would force both to make their full case before
    the public. By banning all cloning for a time, it allows us to seek
    moral consensus on whether or not we should cross a major moral
    boundary (creating nascent cloned human life solely for research)
    and prevents our crossing it without deliberate decision. It would
    afford time for scientific evidence, now sorely lacking, to be
    gathered---from animal models and other avenues of human
    research---that might give us a better sense of whether
    cloning-for-biomedical-research would work as promised, and whether
    other morally nonproblematic approaches might be available. It would
    promote a fuller and better-informed public debate. And it would
    show respect for the deep moral concerns of the large number of
    Americans who have serious ethical problems with this research.

-   Some of us hold that cloning-for-biomedical-research can never be
    ethically pursued, and endorse a moratorium to enable us to continue
    to make our case in a democratic way. Others of us support the
    moratorium because it would provide the time and incentive required
    to develop a system of national regulation that might come into use
    if, at the end of the four-year period, the moratorium were not
    reinstated or made permanent. Such a system could not be developed
    overnight, and therefore even those who support the research but
    want it regulated should see that at the very least a pause is
    required. In the absence of a moratorium, few proponents of the
    research would have much incentive to institute an effective
    regulatory system. Moreover, the very process of proposing such
    regulations would clarify the moral and prudential judgments
    involved in deciding whether and how to proceed with this research.

-   A moratorium on cloning-for-biomedical-research would enable us to
    consider this activity in the larger context of research and
    technology in the areas of developmental biology, embryo research,
    and genetics, and to pursue a more comprehensive federal regulatory
    system for setting and executing policy in the entire area.

-   Finally, we believe that a moratorium, rather than a lasting ban,
    signals a high regard for the value of biomedical research and an
    enduring concern for patients and families whose suffering such
    research may help alleviate. It would reaffirm the principle that
    science can progress while upholding the community's moral norms,
    and would therefore reaffirm the community's moral support for
    science and biomedical technology.

The decision before us is of great importance. Our society should take
the time to make a judgment that is well-informed, respectful of
strongly held views, and representative of the priorities and principles
of the American people. We believe this ban-plus-moratorium proposal
offers the best available way to a wise and prudent policy.

This position is supported by Council Members Rebecca S. Dresser,
Francis Fukuyama, Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Alfonso
Gómez-Lobo, William B. Hurlbut, Leon R. Kass, Charles Krauthammer, Paul
McHugh, and Gilbert C. Meilaender.

**Minority Recommendation:** Seven Members of the Council recommend ***a
ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with regulation of the use of cloned
embryos for biomedical research.*** Speaking only for ourselves, those
of us who support this recommendation do so for some or all of the
following reasons:

-   By permanently banning cloning-to-produce-children, this policy
    gives force to the strong ethical verdict against
    cloning-to-produce-children, unanimous in this Council (and in
    Congress) and widely supported by the American people. We believe
    that a ban on the transfer of cloned embryos to a woman's uterus
    would be a sufficient and effective legal safeguard against the
    practice.

-   *It approves cloning-for-biomedical-research and permits it to
    proceed without substantial delay.* This is the most important
    advantage of this proposal. The research shows great promise, and
    its actual value can only be determined by allowing it to go forward
    now. Regardless of how much time we allow it, no amount of
    experimentation with animal models can provide the needed
    understanding of *human* diseases. The special benefits from working
    with stem cells from *cloned* human embryos cannot be obtained using
    embryos obtained by IVF. We believe this research could provide
    relief to millions of Americans, and that the government should
    therefore support it, within sensible limits imposed by regulation.

-   It would establish, as a condition of proceeding, the necessary
    regulatory protections to avoid abuses and misuses of cloned
    embryos. These regulations might touch on the secure handling of
    embryos, licensing and prior review of research projects, the
    protection of egg donors, and the provision of equal access to
    benefits.

-   Some of us also believe that mechanisms to regulate
    cloning-for-biomedical-research should be part of a larger
    regulatory program governing all research involving human embryos,
    and that the federal government should initiate a review of present
    and projected practices of human embryo research, with the aim of
    establishing reasonable policies on the matter.

Permitting cloning-for-biomedical-research now, while governing it
through a prudent and sensible regulatory regime, is the most
appropriate way to allow important research to proceed while insuring
that abuses are prevented. We believe that the legitimate concerns about
human cloning expressed throughout this report are sufficiently
addressed by this ban-plus-regulation proposal, and that the nation
should affirm and support the responsible effort to find treatments and
cures that might help many who are suffering.

This position is supported by Council Members Elizabeth H. Blackburn,
Daniel W. Foster, Michael S. Gazzaniga, William F. May, Janet D. Rowley,
Michael J. Sandel, and James Q. Wilson.