Cloning Californians? Report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning and recent cloning-related legislation.

Although reports of Dolly ("the world's most famous sheep"), Dr. Seed and Clonaid's announcements of plans to clone humans, and more recently, the cloning of Cc the cat, have brought the issue of human cloning to the public consciousness, legislatures--both state and federal--are either silent or just beginning to grapple with the technical, legal, and moral issues raised by human cloning. (1) While in 1997 an executive order barred federal funding of cloning research, and various states have enacted legislation banning human cloning, both scholars and legislatures continue to debate the appropriate form of action. (2) Forming part of that debate, on January 11, 2002, the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning (the "Committee") published its report, Cloning Californians? Report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning (the "Report"), which it submitted to the California Department of Health Services. (3) This Case Note summarizes that Report and briefly reviews recent human cloning-related legislation at the state and federal levels. Because of its limited scope, this Note neither discusses nor draws conclusions as to whether various legislative responses to the prospect of human cloning are sound or valid, given the myriad of legal, political, moral, ethical, and scientific issues involved. Rather, recognizing that the regulation of human cloning is still in its infancy, this Note identifies what recent legislative action there has been on both the state and federal levels. I. REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN CLONING In 1997, California became the first state to enact comprehensive legislation banning human cloning. (4) The legislation placed a five-year moratorium on the cloning of an entire human being "in order to evaluate the profound medical, ethical, and social implications that such a possibility raises." (5) To that end, the Legislature called upon the State Director of Health Services "to establish a panel of representatives from the fields of medicine, religion, biotechnology, genetics, law, bioethics, and the general public to evaluate those implications, review public policy, and advise the Legislature and the Governor in this area." (6) On December 23, 1998, the Director of the Department of Health Services formally appointed twelve individuals to serve as members of the Committee. (7) On May 8, 1999, the Committee held its first meeting and thereafter held a round of public hearings followed by a series of five closed meetings. (8) As a result of those meetings, in its Report, the Committee made five main recommendations regarding human cloning. (9) A. Recommendation One: California Should Prohibit Human Reproductive Cloning California law already prohibits human reproductive cloning, but this moratorium is operative only until January 1, 2003. (10) After reviewing the arguments for and against human reproductive cloning, the Committee ultimately concluded that another flat ban should issue, but with no expiration date. The Committee also noted, however, that a "subsequent Legislature and Governor could, of course, allow human reproductive cloning based on new information or changed views," but that "the burden of going forward should fall to those who seek to convince the State to make such a change." (11) The Report includes a review of a number of arguments for and against human reproductive cloning. The Committee suggests that the most compelling argument against human reproductive cloning is that of safety, (12) since direct evidence concerning the safety of human reproductive cloning is lacking, and "serious theoretical reasons. (13) cause concern about the safety of reproductive cloning. Beyond physical safety concerns, the Committee also cited arguments that psychological harm to individuals and harm to society could ensue should human reproductive cloning be allowed. Although proponents argue that such harms are speculative, a cloned child and the DNA donor may risk the feeling of the loss of uniqueness, while parents of cloned children may impose unfair expectations during their children's development. …