Her review of the struggle of the current National Bioethics Advisory Commission to develop policy options for the president regarding cloning is covered in its essentials, without getting bogged down in bureaucratic arcana. This keeps the story line clean but it also limits attention to policy. Cloning ties into the abortion debate and the related controversy over embryo research. It starkly exposes the conflicting impulses of scientists to leave avenues of inquiry open and of theologians and critics of science and technology to rein some areas in. This is a perennial battle of conflicting presumptions.
Judgment depends on who carries the burden of proof.
Probing these presumptions reveals some underlying differences. The scientific and practical benefits held out for cloning are a long way off and may or may not justify its use. Among those calling for a cloning ban, the moral certainty that cloning is wrong is surprisingly bereft of justification. So we are left with an unsatisfying situation. Scientists have offered no compelling reason to clone a human being and agree that any safe and reliable means for doing so will take years to develop.