# **Chapter Three**

# 

# **On Terminology**

### We begin our presentation of the important matter of terminology by listing the crucial terms used in this report:

### Human cloning.

### Cloning-to-produce-children.

### Cloning-for-biomedical-research.

### Cloned human embryo.

The rest of this chapter will develop the meaning of these terms and
provide the analysis and argumentation that have led us to these
choices. Because there is much to be learned about the subject through
the discussion of alternative terminologies, and because we believe
strongly that the judicious use of language is necessary for sound moral
choice, we present our discussion of this matter at some length.

# ***Introduction: The Importance of Careful Use of Names***

Fruitful discussion of the ethical and policy issues raised by the
prospects of human cloning---as with any other matter---can proceed only
if we can find appropriate and agreed-upon terms for describing the
processes and products involved. Before we can get to possible moral or
policy arguments or disagreements, we need to agree about what to call
that about which we are arguing. As a contribution to public
understanding, we emphasize that this is not an easy thing to do, and we
indicate how and why we have gone about making our terminological
choices.

What exactly is meant by the term "cloning"? What criterion justifies
naming an entity a "clone"? How is the term "cloning" related to what
scientists call "somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)" or "nuclear
transplantation"? What should we call the single-cell entity that
results from SCNT, and what should we call it once it starts to divide
and develop? How, if at all, should our names for such activities or
such entities be affected by the purposes we have for engaging in the
activities or for using the entities?

As these questions imply, there is much confusion today about the terms
used in discussing human cloning. There is honest disagreement about
what names should be used, and there are also attempts to select and use
terms in order to gain advantage for a particular moral or policy
position. One difficulty is the difference between the perspective of
science and the perspective of lived human experience. People who look
at the phenomena of human reproduction and development through the lens
of science will see and describe things in terms that often differ
widely from those in ordinary usage; moreover, when an ordinary term is
used in scientific parlance, it sometimes is given a different meaning.
Similar divergences are possible also for people who look at these
matters through the lens of different cultural, philosophical, or
religious beliefs. Yet at the same time, all of us---scientists or not,
believers or not---encounter these same matters on the plane of lived
human experience, for which the terms of everyday speech may well be
more suitable. Because this same common (nonscientific) discourse is
also the medium of discourse for the ethical and policy discussions, we
shall strive to stay close to common speech, while at the same time
making the best use we can of scientific findings to avoid mistakes and
misconceptions.

Advisers to decision makers should strive not only for accuracy, but
also for fairness, especially because the choice of names can decisively
affect the way questions are posed and, hence, how answers are given.
The issue is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter of trying fairly
to call things by names that correctly describe them, of trying to fit
speech to fact as best one can. For the sake of clarity, we should at
least stipulate clearly the meanings we intend by our use of terms. But
we should also try to choose terms that most accurately convey the
descriptive reality of the matter at hand. If this is well done, the
moral arguments can then proceed on the merits, without distortion by
linguistic sloppiness or chicanery.

Many of the terms that appear in the debate about cloning are confusing
or are used in a confused manner.

First, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to name the
*activity* or *activities* involved: cloning, asexual reproduction,
reproductive cloning, nonreproductive cloning, research cloning,
therapeutic cloning, somatic cell nuclear transfer (or nuclear
transplantation), nuclear transfer for stem cell research, nuclear
transplantation to produce stem cells, nuclear transfer for regenerative
medicine. At stake are such questions as whether all acts of SCNT should
be called cloning. Some worry that the term "cloning" unfairly
prejudices people against the activity when it is used to describe
research activities.

Second, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to name
the *entity* or *entities* that result from human cloning (or human
SCNT): cell, egg, activated cell, totipotent cell, clonote,
reconstituted (or reconstructed) egg, zygote, clump of cells, embryo,
human embryo, human organism, blastocyst, clonocyst, potential human
being, human being, human clone, person. At stake here is the
nature---and the possible *moral* status---of the entities that are
involved in the subsequent manipulations, whether for producing a child
or for use in biomedical research. Some worry that use of any term but
"embryo" will unfairly prejudice people in favor of embryo-destructive
activities by hiding from view the full import of the activity.

Third, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to describe
the *relation* between the cloned entity and the person whose somatic
cell nucleus was transferred to produce the cloned entity: genetic copy,
replica, genetically virtually identical, noncontemporary twin, delayed
genetic twin, clone.

####### Tools of Analysis

As a prelude to examining the *activity* or the *deed* of cloning, some
general analytical observations will be helpful. Although all aspects of
an activity or action are relevant to understanding its full human
meaning, when describing a deed it is sometimes useful to distinguish
*what* it is from both *how* it is done and *why* it is done. The act
itself (*what*) may be accomplished by a variety of means or techniques
(*how*), and it may be undertaken for a variety of motives or purposes
(*why*). To be sure, there is a danger of distortion in this
disaggregating analysis of human activity, and there is disagreement
about the degree to which the motives or purposes of the agent are to be
reckoned in the description of the act itself. People argue, for
example, whether "mercy killing" differs *as an act* from murdering a
rival (or executing a murderer or killing someone in self-defense), or
whether they are all equally acts of homicide (literally, "killing a
human being") whose *moral* meaning ("Is it justified or not?" "Is it
wrong or not?") we can then proceed to debate, if we wish, by attending
not only to the bare act of taking a human life but also to the agent's
motive and purpose. Though we do not wish to beg this question, the very
existence of this disagreement suggests that we do well not to ignore
the naked act itself, for it may have a meaning independent of what
moved the agent, a meaning relevant to subsequent moral assessment that
we do not wish to overlook.

To illustrate: in vitro fertilization (IVF: the merging of egg and sperm
outside the human body \[*in vitro* = "in glass"\], yielding a zygote
that is the beginning stage of a new living being) is the deed (*what*).
It is an act of "fertilization," of making fertile, of making the egg
cell ready and able to develop into a human organism. This fertilization
may be accomplished in at least two ways (*how*): by merely mixing egg
and sperm, allowing the sperm to find and penetrate the egg, or by the
technique of injecting individual sperm directly into the egg (a
technique known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI). And it may
be done for the (proximate) purpose (*why*) of initiating a pregnancy,
in turn for the (ultimate) purpose of providing a child for an infertile
couple; or it may be done for the (proximate) purpose of providing
living human embryos for basic research on normal and abnormal
embryological development, in turn for the (ultimate) purposes of
understanding human development or of discovering cures for diseases and
producing tissues for regenerative medicine. Though the technique used
or the purposes served may differ, in *one* crucial respect the deed
(IVF) remains the same and bears a common *intrinsic meaning*: a human
zygote, the first stage of a new human being, is intentionally produced
outside the body and exists in human hands and subject to human
manipulation.

As it happens, this fact is more or less accurately reflected in the
descriptive terminology used for IVF. Interestingly enough, unlike the
situation with cloning, no one distinguishes between "reproductive IVF"
and "therapeutic IVF" or "research IVF," naming the activity or deed
after the motive or purpose of the agent. This may reflect the
historical fact that IVF was initiated by people who were interested in
using it to produce live-born children for infertile couples; the
research use of "surplus" embryos produced by IVF came only later. But
it happens that this common name is also descriptively apt and remains
so regardless of why IVF was done in a particular case: the deed *is*
fertilization of egg by sperm, producing a living human zygote, the
first stage of the development of a new human being.

It should be noted that, although we began by trying to describe the
deed rather than the product of the deed, the two aspects merged
necessarily. The meaning of the act of "fertilization" falls forward
onto the nature of the "object" that fertilization produces: the
fertilized egg or zygote or earliest embryo.[^1] (By contrast, there is
nothing in the name of the technique "intracytoplasmic sperm injection",
that even hints at the immediate result or goal of the intended
injection.) Similar attention to the nature of the product may turn out
to be indispensable for a proper characterization of the activity of
cloning.

# ***Cloning: Toward an Appropriate Terminology***

Though much of the terminological confusion and controversy concerns the
way to describe the different *kinds* of cloning practices that are
envisioned, the term "cloning" itself is not without its own
ambiguities. A "clone" (noun, from the Greek *klon*, "twig") refers to a
*group* of genetically identical molecules, cells, or organisms
descended from a single common ancestor, as well as to *any one* of the
one or more individual organisms that have descended asexually from a
common ancestor. Both the group and each of its members are "a clone."
"To clone" (verb) is to duplicate or produce a genetic duplicate or
duplicates of a molecule, cell, or individual organism. The replication
of DNA fragments in the laboratory is called "DNA cloning." The physical
isolation of a single cell and its subsequent multiplication in tissue
culture into a population of descendants is referred to as "single cell
cloning." The laboratory culture of bacteria and the asexual propagation
of plants by means of cuttings are instances of organismal cloning.
Cloning of higher organisms is more complex: all cloning of vertebrate
organisms must begin at the embryonic stages. Contrary to what some
people imagine, cloning of amphibians or mammals (including human
beings) is not the direct duplication ("photocopying") of an adult
organism.

In the sense relevant here, "cloning" is a form of asexual reproduction
(parthenogenesis[^2] is anoth-er), the production of a new individual
not by the chance union of egg and sperm but by some form of replication
of the genetic makeup of a single existing or previously existing
individual. (In biological or functional terms, the core of sexual
reproduction is not bodily intercourse but the fusion of male and female
*germ cells*; thus IVF, though it takes place outside the body,
is---biologically speaking---a form of sexual reproduction.) Cloning is
the activity of producing a clone, an individual or group of individuals
genetically virtually identical to the precursor that is being
"replicated."[^3]

#### **Cloning-to-Produce-Children; Cloning-for-Biomedical-Research**

In much of the current public discussion, we encounter a distinction
between two sorts of cloning; "reproductive" and "therapeutic." The
distinction is based entirely on the differing goals of the cloners: in
the first case, the goal is the production of a (cloned) child; in the
second case, the development of treatments for diseases (suffered not by
the clone, but by others). We recognize the distinction and the need for
terms to describe the difference. But the terms currently in vogue have
their difficulties. Both terms have been criticized by partisans of
several sides of the debate, and for understandable reasons.

Some object to the term "reproductive cloning" used as a term of
distinction, because they argue that *all* cloning is reproductive.
Their reason: all human cloning intends and issues in the production of
a cloned human embryo, a being distinct from the components used to
generate it, a new human being in the earliest stage of development or
"reproduction." (This claim, we would suggest, is at this stage a
descriptive point, not yet a normative one; *it does not necessarily
imply that such a being is fully human or "one of us," hence deserving
of the moral and social protection accorded* "*persons*.") The fact that
only some of these embryonic cloned humans are wanted for baby-producing
purposes does not, in the view of these critics, alter this fact about
their being. In support of their claim that cloning occurs (only) at the
beginning, they note that once the cloning act of nuclear transfer has
occurred, all new influences that act upon the new human organism cease
to be "genetic" (nature) and are now "environmental" (nurture). Instead
of "reproductive cloning," we shall speak of
"cloning-to-produce-children."

Others object to the term "therapeutic cloning" for related reasons. The
act of cloning embryos may be undertaken with healing motives. But it is
not *itself* an act of healing or therapy.[^4] The beneficiaries of any
such acts of cloning are, at the moment, hypothetical and in the future.
And if medical treatments do eventually result, the embryonic clone from
which the treatment was derived will not itself be the beneficiary of
any therapy. On the contrary, this sort of cloning actually takes apart
(or destroys) the embryonic being that results from the act of cloning.

To avoid the misleading implications of calling any cloning
"therapeutic," we prefer the terms "research cloning" or "cloning for
research," which also more accurately indicate the purpose of the
activity. Yet some may find fault with this replacement. Because it
appears to be a deliberate substitution for "therapeutic cloning," it
may seem to imply that the scientists have abandoned the pursuit of
medical cure in favor of research as an end in itself. Believing that
producing cloned embryos just for research would seem to be less
justifiable than producing them with healing motives, these critics of
the term "research cloning" want to avoid giving the impression that
scientists want to experiment on new life just to satisfy their
curiosity. We believe that this legitimate concern can be addressed by
appending the adjective "biomedical" to make clear that the aim of the
research is to seek cures and treatments for human diseases. We
therefore opt to use the term "cloning-for-biomedical-research."

Some proponents of the activity called "therapeutic cloning" also now
object to the term, but not because of the adjective. Though it was
proponents who originally coined and used the term, some of them now
want to shed the term "cloning," fearing that the bad or distressing
connotations of the latter will weigh against the activity itself.
Cloning, they insist, should be reserved for the activity that produces
live-born cloned babies; it should not apply to the initial act that
starts the process, which they would rather call "somatic cell nuclear
transfer" or "nuclear transplantation."[^5] The reason for such
re-description is not wholly cosmetic and rhetorical; because the
researchers are primarily interested in obtaining pluripotent[^6] stem
cells, their focus is on the somatic cell nucleus and what must be done
to it (transfer or transplantation) in order for it to revert to the
undifferentiated condition of the primordial stem cell stage.
Nevertheless, such terminological substitution is problematic, for the
following reasons.

Although as a scientific matter "somatic cell nuclear transfer" or
"nuclear transplantation" may accurately describe the *technique* that
is used to produce the embryonic clone, these terms fail to convey the
nature of the deed itself, and they hide its human significance. The
deed, fully described, is the production of a living human entity (or
"embryo" or "organism"; of the right name for the product, more later)
that is genetically virtually identical to the donor organism, a fact or
meaning not captured in the name for the technique or method, the
transfer of a somatic cell nucleus (into an unfertilized egg whose own
nucleus has been removed or inactivated).[^7] As a name, SCNT is not a
fully accurate description even of the technique itself. It makes no
reference to the intended and direct result of the deed of nuclear
transfer. It also omits mention of the fact that the recipient of the
transferred nucleus is an (enucleated) *egg* cell (rather than another
kind of cell), which then can be made to initiate cell division as if it
were just like a zygote produced by fertilization. The further
amendments, "somatic cell nuclear transfer *for stem cell research*" or
"nuclear transplantation *for regenerative medicine*" or "nuclear
transplantation *to produce stem cells*" only compound the difficulty,
mixing in the purpose of the activity with its technique, thus further
obscuring the immediate meaning of the act itself, the production of a
living cloned human embryo.

#### **Cloned Human Embryo: The Product of SCNT**

What shall we call the product of SCNT? The technical description of the
cloning method (that is, SCNT) omits all reference not only to cloning
but also to the *immediate product* of the activity. This obscurity
enables some to argue that the immediate product of SCNT is not an
"embryo" but rather "an egg" or "an unfertilized egg" or "an activated
cell," and that the subsequent stages of development should not be
called embryos but "clumps of cells" or "activated cells." To be sure,
there are genuine difficulties and perplexities regarding what names to
use, for we are dealing with an entity new in our experience. Partly for
this reason, some people recommend avoiding the effort to describe the
nature of the product, preferring instead to allow the *uses we human
beings have for it* to define its being, and hence its worth. But, for
reasons of both truth and ethical conduct, we reject this approach as
improper. We are all too familiar with instances in which some human
beings have defined downward the status of other beings precisely to
exploit them with impunity and with a clear conscience. Thus, despite
the acknowledged difficulties in coming to know it accurately, we insist
on making the effort to describe the product of SCNT as accurately and
as fairly as we can.

The initial product of SCNT is a single cell, but it is no ordinary
cell. It is also an "egg" and a "reconstituted egg." But even that is
not the whole story. The "reconstituted" egg is *more* than
reconstituted; it has been capacitated for development. Because the egg
now has a diploid nucleus, it has become something beyond what it was
before: it now contains in a single nucleus the full complement of
genetic material necessary for producing a new organism.[^8] And being
an *egg* cell, it uniquely offers the cytoplasmic environment that can
support this development. The product of SCNT thus resembles and can be
made to act like a fertilized egg, a cell that not only has the full
complement of chromosomes but also is capable (in animals) or may be
capable (in humans) of developing into a new organism. In other words,
in terms of its future prospects, it is a "zygote-like entity" or a
(cloned) "zygote equivalent."[^9]

The initial product of SCNT is, to be sure, not just a cell but an
*active* cell. (More precisely, it is a cell that can be activated by
electric stimulation.) But "activated cell" is much too vague to
describe the activity of which it is capable. For, once stimulated, the
activity of this "cell" produced by SCNT is nothing other than human
embryological development, initiated and directed by the cell itself.
The processes of cellular growth, chromosomal replication, cell
division, and (ultimately) differentiation into the tissues and organs
of the organism are coordinated processes under the governance of the
immanent developmental plan encoded in the cell's genetic material. In
other words, the product of SCNT is an organism in its germinal stage,
and its activities are those of an integrated and self-developing
whole.[^10]

Another suggested name, better than "activated cell," is "totipotent
cell"---a cell that is "capable of all." But this too is ambiguous. If
what is meant is that it can (and will, should it be stimulated to do
so) become "any and all" of the different kinds of cells in the body,
then it is an insufficient meaning. For, as explained in the previous
paragraph, *this* totipotent cell may also become the "all" that is the
integrated *whole* (cloned) mature organism itself (along with a portion
of the placenta that would give it nourishment). In this second and
fuller meaning of "totipotent," a totipotent cell is then just a
*functional* synonym for the "zygote": "zygote" etymologically reminds
one of the cell's origins in egg-joined-to-sperm; "totipotency"
describes what it is capable of. A fertilized egg is precisely a
"totipotent" cell; the product of human SCNT is, we assume, its
equivalent.

In some discussions, the next few stages of the developing cloned human
entity have been described as "clumps of cells." Yet, for reasons
already given, this is only partially accurate. Viewed externally, under
the microscope, the developing embryo will appear as two, then four,
then eight cells "clumped" together, and the 100-to-200-cell blastocyst
stage will indeed appear as a "ball of cells." Yet there is more here
than meets the eye, for the "clump" is governed by an internal principle
of development that shapes and directs its transformations. Thus, this
ball or clump is not a mere heap or aggregate; it is a primordial and
unfolding whole that functions as a whole and that is in the process of
developing (or attempting to develop) into a mature whole being. Of
course, if development is not pursued or not allowed to happen because
of disruption, then the "clump of cells" description may be rendered
accurate not just microscopically but also biologically. But as long as
development continues and the developing entity is intact, that is not
the case.

It would seem, then, that---whatever the reason for producing it---the
initial product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is a living
(one-celled) cloned human embryo. The *immediate* intention of
transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity:
one that is alive (rather than nonliving), one that is human (rather
than nonhuman or animal), and one that is an embryo, an entity capable
of developing into an articulated organismic whole (rather than just a
somatic cell capable only of replication into more of the same cell
type). This is the intended primary product of performing SCNT, whether
the ultimate motive or purpose is producing a live-born child from the
cloned embryo or conducting scientific research on the cloned embryo.
Also, the blastocyst stage that develops from this one-celled cloned
embryo will be the same being, whether it is then transferred to a
woman's uterus to begin a pregnancy or is used as a source of stem cells
for research and possible therapy for others.

Yet, not surprisingly, objections have been raised to calling this
cloned entity an "embryo," objections having to do both with its origins
and with the uncertainty about the extent of its developmental
potential. There are also objections having to do not with the facts but
with public connotations and perceptions: for some members of the
public, the word "embryos" apparently conjures images of miniature
babies. If "nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells" seems to some
people to be unfairly morally *neutered* terminology, "embryo" seems to
other people to be unfairly morally *loaded* terminology, especially
when used to describe an entity barely visible to the naked eye. We
acknowledge this problem and recognize that, despite our best efforts,
such difficulties in public perception probably cannot be simply
corrected. But we do not regard this as sufficient reason to scrap the
use of a term if it is in fact most appropriate. The other objections to
calling the product of SCNT an "embryo" are not about rhetoric and
politics, but about the thing itself. They should be addressed.

First, "human embryo," in the traditional scientific definition of this
term, refers to the earliest stages of human development, from the
zygote through roughly eight weeks of gestation, after which time it is
called a fetus. Because the product of SCNT is technically not a zygote,
not having come from egg and sperm, it is argued that it cannot
therefore be an embryo. Second, it is said that it cannot be an embryo
because it is an "artifact," something produced entirely by human
artifice, "made" rather than "begotten." Third, we do not yet know for
sure whether this entity can in fact develop into a baby; hence, we do
not *know* whether it has the full developmental potential of a human
embryo formed by fertilization.

There are, however, good responses to these objections. The first
product of SCNT is, on good biological grounds, quite properly regarded
as the *equivalent* of a zygote, and its subsequent stages as *embryonic
stages in development*. True, it is not technically "zygotic" in origin,
and it owes its existence to human artifice. But these objections,
dealing only with *origins*, ignore the organization and powers of this
entity, and the crucially important fact of its capacity to undergo
future embryological development---just like a sexually produced embryo.
True, it originates as a result of human artifice, and it lacks the
natural bi-parental (male-plus-female) precursors. But this particular
"artifact" is alive and self-developing, and should it eventually give
rise to a baby, that child would in its being and its capacities be
indistinguishable from any other human being---hardly an artifact---in
the same way that Dolly is a sheep. True, regarding its developmental
potential, we do not yet have incontrovertible proof that a cloned human
embryo can in fact do what embryos are "supposed" to do and what animal
cloned embryos have already done, namely, develop into all the later
stages of the organism, up to its full maturity (à la Dolly). But if we
do not assume this last possibility---an assumption based on the
biological continuity of all mammals[^11]---there would be nothing to
talk about in this whole matter of human cloning. As we emphasized in
the first chapter of this report, *this entire inquiry assumes that
cloned human embryos can someday be developed into live-born human
beings*.

Once we make this assumption, neither its artificial nor its
uni-parental source alters the decisive point: the product of SCNT is an
entity that is the first stage of a developing organism---of a
determinate species (human), with a full genetic complement, and its own
(albeit near-replicated) individual genetic identity. It hence deserves
*on functional grounds* to be called an *embryo*. And that is the heart
of the reason why we in this report shall call it an "embryo" (actually,
for reasons soon to be discussed, a "*cloned* embryo"): because the
decisive questions to be addressed in our moral reflections have to do
not with the origin of the entity but with *its developmental
potential*, its embryonic character must be kept centrally in mind.

This decision, based on what we believe comes closest to the truth about
the product of SCNT, is supported by other, more practical
considerations. We are disinclined to introduce other words to describe
the early product of human cloning that might deprive discussion of the
ethics of human cloning of its humanly significant context. Despite the
novelty of cloning and its products, their considerable kinship to
elements of normal reproduction and development means that we enter upon
the discussion equipped with existing and relevant terms and notions. We
do not start in a terminological vacuum or with an empty dictionary. We
observe that even people who prefer not to call the one-celled product
of SCNT a zygote or embryo use terms like "blastocyst" and "embryo" to
name the product a few cell divisions later.[^12] We think that using or
coining other words will be more confusing to members of the public as
they try to follow and contribute to the ethical discussion. And we
clearly assume, as already stated, that the product of human SCNT could
someday be shown (were it legal to attempt such a showing) to be capable
of developing into a later-stage embryo, fetus, or live human being,
even though such capacity has yet to be documented.

There are also very important *ethical* reasons that support our choice.
We want to be very careful not to make matters easy for ourselves. We do
not want to define away the moral questions of
cloning-for-biomedical-research by denying to the morally crucial
element a name that makes clear that there is a moral question to be
faced. Yes, there is some ground for uncertainty about the being of the
product of SCNT. Yet because something is ambiguous to *us* does not
mean that it is ambiguous *in itself*. Where the moral stakes are high,
we should not allow our uncertainty to lead us to regard the subject in
question as being anything less than it might truly be.

The product of "SCNT" is not only an embryo; it is also a *clone*;
genetically virtually identical to the individual that was the source of
the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic clone of the donor. There
is, to be sure, much discussion about how close the genetic relation is
between donor and embryonic clone, and about the phenotypic similarity
of the clone to the donor.[^13] Yet the goal in this process is in fact
a blastocyst-stage cloned embryo (in the case of
cloning-for-biomedical-research) or (in the case of
cloning-to-produce-children) a child who is genetically virtually
identical to the donor; otherwise there would be no reason to produce
the cloned embryo by SCNT rather than by ordinary IVF. A full and
fitting name of the developing entity produced by human SCNT is "cloned
human embryo," a term that also allows us to remember that, thanks to
its peculiar origins, this embryo is not in all respects identical to an
embryo produced by fertilization of egg by sperm.

As if things were not difficult enough, a further complication may soon
arise, following reports of successful SCNT experiments in which human
somatic cells were fused with *animal* oocytes, and the resulting
product grown to the blastocyst stage of development. What are we to
call the product of this kind of cloning? And what kind of species
identity does it have? According to the advance reports (based on a
presentation at a scientific meeting), the stem cells extracted from the
blastocyst stage were demonstrated to be *human* stem cells (somewhat
surprisingly, the mitochondria were also human in genotype). Is this,
therefore, a cloned human embryo? The only test that could settle the
question---implantation into a woman's uterus for attempted gestation to
see if a human child results---cannot ethically even be contemplated
without already assuming a positive answer. In the face of uncertainty,
therefore, and lest we err by overconfidence, there is *prima facie*
reason to include even these cross-species entities in the category of
"cloned human embryos." (When we come to the *ethical* issues of
cloning-for-biomedical-research, we can consider whether this
*terminological* judgment is matched by an *ethical* one.)

####### Conclusion

None of the terms available to us is entirely trouble-free. Yet the
foregoing analysis leads us to the following conclusion regarding the
terms best descriptive of the facts of the matter:

***Human cloning (what it is):*** 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.

***Human cloning (how it is done):*** 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" (SCNT).

***Human cloning (why it is done):*** This same activity may be
undertaken for purposes of producing children or for purposes of
scientific and medical investigation and use, a distinction represented
in the popular discussion by 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) The immediate and developing product of
the initial act of cloning, accomplished by SCNT. (b) A human embryo
resulting from the somatic cell nuclear transfer process (as contrasted
with a human embryo arising from the union of egg and sperm).

## 

##### ENDNOTES

[^1]: A more careful analysis of the *what* of this activity would
    distinguish between the activity itself and the product that results
    from it. Unlike nonproductive activities, such as dancing ("How can
    we know the dancer from the dance?"), the work (activity) of making
    or producing results in separable objects or works (products).
    Although shoemaking completes itself in the production of a shoe,
    the shoe as *result* is distinct from the *activity* of shoemaking.
    Similarly, though fertilization is an activity that is intelligible
    only as issuing in a fertilized egg, the now-fertile egg as *result*
    or *product* stands apart from the deed of IVF. One reason that the
    word "fertilization" works so well in describing IVF is that it is a
    very rich term, pointing both to cause and effect, backward to the
    deed and forward to the future prospects of the product.

[^2]: Parthenogenesis (see Glossary of Terms), the development of an
    organism directly from an unfertilized egg that has been
    artificially induced to undergo development, is, in principle,
    another method of asexual reproduction. Although parthenogenetic
    reproduction has been successfully achieved in amphibians, in
    mammalian species there are as yet no reports of live births
    following parthenogenesis. Thus, there is at present little reason
    to believe that live-born human beings can be produced via
    parthenogenesis. It is therefore not the subject of this report,
    although many of the things said about cloning via somatic cell
    nuclear transfer would be applicable to asexual reproduction through
    parthenogenesis.

[^3]: Although cloning, like fertilization, is responsible for bringing
    forth a new organism, the activities are named in very different
    ways, yet in each case emphasizing the fundamental intention of the
    activity. "Fertilization" describes the activity in terms of the
    capacitation of the egg, as a result of which development begins.
    "Cloning" describes the activity in terms of *the relation between
    the progenitor and the product*. In cloning by somatic cell nuclear
    transfer, the egg, though it is activated as if it were fertilized,
    is not cloned; cloned rather is the donor from whom the nucleus was
    taken, and the resulting organism (at all stages of development) is
    a clone of the donor. The name of the activity, "cloning," even more
    than "in vitro fertilization," refers to the *product* of the
    activity, an identical (or nearly identical) entity.

[^4]: Compare, in this respect, what used to be called "therapeutic
    abortion," an abortion undertaken in cases in which pregnancy
    threatened the life of the pregnant woman and where abortion was
    therefore intended to save the woman's life. Similarly, we might
    call the removal of a cancerous kidney a "therapeutic nephrectomy";
    we would never use the term to refer to the removal of a kidney for
    donation to another person in transplantation.

[^5]: Vogelstein, B., et al. "Please don't call it cloning!" *Science*,
    295: 1237, 2002.

    ^2^ Leggett, K. and A. Regalado. "China Stem Cell Research Surges as
    Western Nations Ponder Ethics" *Wall Street Journal*, March 6, 2002,
    p. A1.

[^6]: Pluripotent cells are those that can give rise to many different
    types of differentiated cells. See Glossary of Terms.

[^7]: This reduction of an act to its mechanism is roughly analogous to
    describing walking as "sequential alternate leg advancement" (SALA).

[^8]: The original egg had a haploid nucleus, containing only half the
    chromosomes necessary for development. The diploid nucleus contains
    the full amount. See Chapter Four.

[^9]: Technically, the term "zygote" (from a Greek root meaning "yoke")
    refers to the primordial cell that forms from the union of egg and
    sperm and the fusion (the yoking together) of their nuclei as the
    first step in the development of a new life that has come from the
    joining of its two parents. It is for this reason technically
    inappropriate to call the product of an asexual initiation a
    "zygote," though it may be its functional equivalent. The term
    "clonote" has been suggested as the strict analogue of "zygote,"
    identifying the primordial cell formed in cloning by its special
    origin: just as a zygote arises from the "yoking together" of *two*
    elements, so a "clonote" arises from the act of clonal propagation
    from a *single*, already *existing* organism. (Similarly, the term
    "parthenote" for the primary product of parthenogenesis would
    accurately indicate that it arises from the "virgin"
    \[unfertilized\] egg alone; *parthenos*, Greek for "virgin.") The
    term "clonote" also has the merit of carrying the *clonal* character
    of the entity in its name.

[^10]: For the reasons given in this paragraph, we reject the suggestion
    that the immediate product of SCNT and the cells it gives rise to
    should be considered "cells in tissue culture." Unlike *somatic*
    cells grown in laboratory culture, the immediate product of SCNT,
    although (like cultured tissues) it grows in culture media outside
    the body, is the germ of a new organism, not merely of other cells
    just like itself.

[^11]: A recent press report indicates that as-yet-unpublished work in
    China by Sheng Huizhen involved insertion of human somatic cell
    nuclei into enucleated rabbit eggs, and that the resulting cloned
    embryos developed to a stage where human embryonic stem cells could
    be isolated.^2^ And, of course, in other mammals the product of SCNT
    has been grown all the way to live-born young that grow up to be
    able to produce young of their own.

[^12]: Thus, for example, the report on *Scientific and Medical Aspects
    of Human Reproductive Cloning*, released by the National Academy of
    Sciences in January 2002, describes "nuclear transplantation to
    produce stem cells" as "a very different procedure" from what it
    calls "human reproductive cloning." Nevertheless, the report falls
    quite naturally into our normal way of speaking, a way that
    recognizes that the cloned product is, indeed, a human embryo and
    that any stem cells obtained from it would be *embryonic* stem
    cells. Thus, for example, the authors of the report can write a
    sentence such as the following (p. 2-6): "The experimental
    procedures required to produce stem cells through nuclear
    transplantation would consist of the transfer of a somatic cell
    nucleus from a patient into an enucleated egg, the in vitro culture
    of the embryo to the blastocyst stage, and the derivation of a
    pluripotent ES cell line from the inner cell mass of this
    blastocyst." Other scientists clearly insist that the primary
    product of SCNT is an embryo (see, for example, Dr. John Gearhart's
    presentation to the Council on embryonic stem cells, March 25, 2002;
    transcript on the Council's website,
    [www.bioethics.gov](http://www.bioethics.gov/)).

[^13]: The environment in which the donor came to be and lives surely
    differs from the one in which the cloned embryo may develop (if it
    does develop). There may be imprinting or epigenetic reprogramming
    differences in gene expression early on that may affect the physical
    and mental characteristics of the clone. There is also the matter of
    the mitochondrial genes (see Glossary of Terms), a small number of
    protein-producing genes out of a total of some 30,000 to 60,000,
    which are inherited from the female source of the egg (the clone
    would be genetically identical only in those cases in which the same
    woman donated both egg and somatic cell nucleus, to produce an
    embryonic clone of herself).