**[Cloning Fact Sheet]{.underline}**

**Summary:** The cloning of any human being is morally and ethically
wrong. Cloning humans for birth or for harmful research should both be
opposed. "Therapeutic cloning" of DNA or cells or anything else that
does not create a new human life is acceptable.

**Status:** Two groups are working on cloning human beings for live
birth. One group claims it will be able to do so within the next 18 to
24 months. Several biotechnology companies in the U.S. want to pursue
cloning as a way to make human embryos to use in destructive
experiments.

**[Objections to Human Cloning]{.underline}**

-   Cloning of humans would require the prolific creation and
    destruction of human life in order to finally create a fully
    developed human clone. New humans would be created and destroyed in
    massive numbers for scientific research. Even many proponents of
    embryonic stem cell research have not advocated for the creation of
    new human embryos solely for research.

-   Human cloning represents a degree of power and control over the
    physical identity of other persons that violates their rights and
    demeans their unique individuality.

-   Cloning would make human life a commodity, created to preset
    specifications, thereby lessening respect for the value of human
    life.

-   Cloning humans would create a new category of biological
    relationship that presents serious personal, familial and societal
    difficulties. Who would be the "parents" of cloned humans? Who would
    be legally and morally responsible for them?

**[Definition]{.underline}**

Cloning is a way of producing a genetic twin of an organism, without
sexual reproduction. The method used to produce Dolly the sheep is
called \"somatic cell nuclear transfer\": the nucleus of a body cell
(\"somatic cell\") is transferred into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus
has been removed or rendered inactive. A tiny electric pulse may then
stimulate development of the resulting embryo, which is an almost exact
genetic twin of the creature that supplied the nucleus.

**[Legislative History]{.underline}**

On February 23, 1997, Scottish scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep
known as Dolly. The next day, President Clinton asked the 18‑member
National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the ethical and legal
implications of cloning. In March, 1997 President Clinton issued a
memorandum prohibiting the use of federal funding for cloning of human
beings. Also in that year, Congress amended its existing ban on federal
funding for human embryo research to ban funding for human cloning
research.

In 1998, Senators Bond (S. 1599) and Lott (S. 1601) both introduced
cloning bans ‑‑ that prohibited all human cloning. The Bond bill failed
to garner the votes for cloture. Also, Senator Feinstein introduced S.
1602, a bill that prohibited any cloned embryo from being implanted in a
woman\'s uterus. Pro‑lifers call this the \"clone and kill\" approach
because it would allow unlimited creation of human embryos by cloning,
but then mandate their destruction. National Right to Life Committee and
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly opposed this
Feinstein bill. In the end, there was no vote on a cloning bill in
either chamber.

On March 28, 2001 Representative Jim Greenwood held a cloning hearing in
the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. At
the end of the hearing, Representative Greenwood stated that he,
Representative Tauzin and Representative Deutsch would be introducing
legislation to ban human cloning. Senator Campbell, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Brownback, Representative Stearns, and Representative Dave
Weldon have introduced cloning legislation, or have said they are
planning to do so.

**Two Opposite Approaches to Banning Human Cloning**

**[True Ban on Human Cloning]{.underline}**

This approach would prohibit using the cloning technique to create a new
human life. Cloning of DNA and cells and anything else that does not
create a new living human organism would be acceptable under this
approach.

Biotechnology companies oppose this approach because they want to be
able to clone embryos for destructive research and for perfecting human
cloning techniques.

**[Ban on Implantation of Cloned Humans]{.underline}**

This approach would allow the cloning technique to be used to create
human life for the purpose of destroying that life in research. The only
requirement would be that the cloned human is not allowed to be
implanted in a uterus. This approach has been called "Clone and Kill"
because it would allow human life to be created and manipulated as long
as science can support it, just so the life is destroyed before
implantation.

**This approach would for the first time allow the creation of human
life while making it a federal offense to let that life continue.** Even
proponents of Embryo‑Destroying Stem Cell Research, including the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) did not favor specially
creating embryos for research; they argued that only embryos created by
In‑Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and originally intended for reproduction
should be used:

> *Recommendation 3: ES Cells from Embryos Made Solely for Research
> Purposes Using IVF*
>
> Federal agencies should not fund research involving the derivation or
> use of human ES cells from embryos **made solely for research
> purposes** using IVF.
>
> The primary objection to creating embryos specifically for research is
> that **there is a morally relevant difference between generating an
> embryo for the sole purpose of creating a child and producing an
> embryo with no such goal.** Those who object to creating embryos for
> research often appeal to arguments about respecting human dignity by
> avoiding instrumental use of human embryos (i.e., using embryos merely
> as a means to some other goal does not treat them with appropriate
> respect or concern as a form of human life).
>
> (National Bioethics Advisory Commission September 1999 Report ‑
> "Ethical Issues in Human Stem‑Cell Research")

Endorsing the creation of human life solely for the purpose of
destroying it would be a new step backward in the protection of human
life.

**[Abortion and Roe v. Wade]{.underline}**

This is an issue of protecting human life and respecting human nature.
Some would want to make this into an abortion issue, but it is not.
Since cloning happens outside the body, Roe v. Wade does not come into
play. In fact, those who want to draw the line at banning the
implantation of clones are the ones most likely to run afoul of [Roe v.
Wade]{.underline}. What would the remedy be for someone who broke the
law by implanting a cloned human being? Would the law require an
abortion? By contrast, at least ten states restrict or prohibit harmful
experiments on embryos in the laboratory without infringing on [Roe v.
Wade]{.underline}.

**[This Issue is Separate from the debate on using embryonic stem cells
for research.]{.underline}**

Neither approach to banning human cloning would address the issue of
federal funding for embryo‑destroying stem cell research. Banning
cloning is a separate issue from funding research using human embryos
from In‑Vitro Fertilization (IVF) fertility clinics. The current debate
is over whether or not human IVF embryos can be destroyed for research;
the cloning debate is over whether or not new human life can be created
for the purpose of scientific tests and then destroyed by government
mandate.

**[\$\$\$\$\$\$ in the Cloning Debate]{.underline}**

The Biotech Industry Association (BIO), which represents 850 biotech
companies in the United States and 21 other countries, spent \$1.6
million to defeat the true ban on human cloning (Bond/Frist) in 1998.
That was in addition to \$1 million independently spent by Genentech and
\$40,000 spent to retain Bergner‑Bockorny to defeat the true cloning
ban.

On the other hand, Senator Feinstein, who introduced the "Clone and
Kill" bill was named "1999 Outstanding Legislator of the Year" by BIO
for "support of legislative issues critical to the continued growth and
worldwide prominence of the biotech industry." Senator Mack,
Representative Dooley and Representative Greenwood also received the
"Outstanding Legislator of the Year" award from BIO in 1999.

The biotech industry has money, access, PR firms and connections to
groups representing victims of diseases. They support a moratorium on
implanting cloned humans, but they will fight hard to be able to clone
humans for destructive research.

**[Dolly was Number 277]{.underline}**

To produce one live sheep, "Dolly," scientists created 277 sheep
embryos; 276 died in different stages of development or were discarded.
Experiments in human cloning would involve the creation and destruction
of human life, at many stages, on a massive scale. Human lives are not
acceptable scientific guinea pigs; a mistake making a human clone is not
the same as a mistake copying an article at the copy machine.

**[Poll ‑ (Time/CNN, February 7‑8, 2001)]{.underline}**

-   67% thought it was a bad idea to clone animals.

-   90% thought it was a bad idea to clone humans.

-   68% thought it was a bad idea to clone humans for vital organs that
    can be used to save the lives of others.

-   76% thought helping infertile couples to have children would not
    justify human cloning.

**[Brain Teasers]{.underline}**

Who would be the clone's parents since there is no genetic "father" and
"mother" in the usual sense?

Who would be legally responsible for a cloned human being or groups of
cloned human beings?

Who would be legally, morally responsible if something went wrong with a
clone?

Who would those deemed to be the responsible parties be responsible to?

What kind of rights would a clone have?

Could a clone sue the responsible parties that cloned him or her?

Would it be legally permissible to kill a cloned human if he or she were
found to be "defective" after birth?

If you allow human cloning, but ban implantation of a human clone (by
far the quickest and easiest part of the cloning process), what would be
the legal remedy if a woman broke that law and implanted a clone?

-   Would it be legal to keep a cloned human embryo alive for a longer
    time outside the womb and develop parts of this human life for
    harvesting?

-   At what point does a cloned human have rights (life, protection from
    scientific experimentation, protection from crime, etc\...)

-   Is that point different from what it would be for human life created
    the old fashioned way? If so, why?

**Will Cloning Lead to:**

-   the cloning of organ donors who would be mutilated or destroyed for
    the benefit of others?

-   the genetic creation of a human‑animal hybrid \[chimera\] race?

-   the custom design of specialized human beings with gene sequences
    that make them better suited for combat situations or dangerous
    environments?

-   the design of a genetically superior, super‑race?

-   the elimination of genetically distinct groups of human beings who
    are genetically inferior?