It will be remembered that the introductory chapter to this paper differentiated between human therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research, with the former concept encapsulating the latter one. In turning to examine the current system of regulation found within the United Kingdom this has particular relevance as it is only the practice of therapeutic cloning – the creation and use of an embryo – which engages with the regulative measures adopted.

Stem cell research is very promising. The use of human embryos has been confronted with objections based on ethical and religious positions. The recent production of reprogrammed adult (induced pluripotent) cells does not – in the opinion of scientists – reduce the need to continue human embryonic stem cell research. So the debate continues.Islam always encouraged scientific research, particularly research directed toward finding cures for human disease. Based on the expectation of potential benefits, Islamic teachings permit and support human embryonic (...) stem cell research. The majority of Muslim scholars also support therapeutic cloning. This permissibility is conditional on the use of supernumerary early pre-embryos which are obtained during infertility treatment in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. The early pre-embryos are considered in Islamic jurisprudence as worthy of respect but do not have the full sanctity offered to the embryo after implantation in the uterus and especially after ensoulment.In this paper the Islamic positions regarding human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are reviewed in some detail, whereas positions in other religious traditions are mentioned only briefly.The status of human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning in different countries, including the USA and especially in Muslim countries, is discussed. (shrink)

No-cloning theorem says that there is no unitary operation that makes perfect clones of non-orthogonal quantum states. The objective of the present paper is to examine whether an imperfect cloning operation exists or not in a C*-algebraic framework. We define a universal \ -imperfect cloning operation which tolerates a finite loss \ of fidelity in the cloned state, and show that an individual system’s algebra of observables is abelian if and only if there is a universal \ (...) -imperfect cloning operation in the case where the loss of fidelity is less than \ . Therefore in this case no universal \ -imperfect cloning operation is possible in algebraic quantum theory. (shrink)

A common feature of scientific and ethical debates is that clones are generally described and understood as “copies” or, more specifically defined, as “genetic copies.” The attempt of this paper is to question this widespread definition. It first argues that the terminology of “clone as copy” can only be understood as a metaphor, and therefore, a clone is not a “genetic copy” in a strict literal sense, but in a figurative one. Second, the copy metaphor has a normative component that (...) is problematic in the context of descriptive science and may support or indicate the ethically relevant phenomenon of objectification of animals. In order to support the argument against the common conception of a clone as a copy, the biotechnological principles of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning will be examined. On this basis, it will be shown that the metaphor is valid because of similarities between the phenotype, the genotype, or the nuclear DNA sequence of the clone and its progenitor by using three prominent levels of comparison. Focusing on the process of SCNT, it will be shown that cloning as copying or doubling has to be redefined for scientific purposes because it is neither necessary nor does it fit to the biotechnological principles of cloning. It is more accurate to understand SCNT cloning as a process of splitting rather than of doubling or copying. In the second part, a deconstructivist analysis based on Jacques Derrida’s description in Positions will reveal the normative potential of the original–copy dichotomy. I will be showing that it includes an asymmetrical power structure between the original and the copy and that this structure can be reversed or at least considered unstable. Therefore, arguments that build on that metaphor must be reconsidered. Moreover, the analysis reveals that applying a terminology to humans and animals that is commonly used for things becomes the language of objectification. Two selected examples, fungibility and violability, based on Martha Nussbaum’s notion of objectification will support the thesis of objectification, display its normative consequences, and put the clone as a copy metaphor in a broader range of ethically questionable research tendencies. (shrink)

It is known that a countable $\omega $ -categorical structure interprets all finite structures primitively positively if and only if its polymorphism clone maps to the clone of projections on a two-element set via a continuous clone homomorphism. We investigate the relationship between the existence of a clone homomorphism to the projection clone, and the existence of such a homomorphism which is continuous and thus meets the above criterion.

Background The regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. Despite years of intense academic and public debate, there is little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. Discussion The author critiques one of the most commonly used (...) ethical justifications for cloning laws – the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. He points out that there is, in fact, little consensus on point and that the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Rarely do domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning. Summary It is the author's position that the lack of thoughtful analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Human cloning has been simultaneously a running joke for massive worldwide publicity of fringe groups like the Raelians, and the core issue of an international movement at the United Nations in support of a treaty to ban the use of cloning techniques to produce a child (so called reproductive cloning). Yet, even though debates on human cloning have greatly increased since the birth of Dolly, the clone sheep, in 1997, we continue to wonder whether (...) class='Hi'>cloning is after all any different from other methods of medically assisted reproduction, and what exactly makes cloning an ‘affront to the dignity of humans.’ Categories we adopt matter mightily as they inform but can also misinform and lead to mistaken and unproductive decisions. And thus bioethicists have a responsibility to ensure that the proper categories are used in the cloning debates and denounce those who try to win the ethical debate through well‐crafted labels rather than well‐reasoned argumentations. But it is as important for bioethicists to take a position on broad issues such as human cloning and species altering interventions. One ‘natural question’ would be, for example, should there be an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning? (shrink)

Certain events settle themselves in the collective memory of humankind where they keep functioning for decades as points of reference for future generations. The announcement of the successful cloning of Dolly was such an event. Every one of us will remember this thought-provoking occasion or will, at least, be confronted with the extended media coverage of this breakthrough in medical science. Immediately, world leaders reacted and the question was raised how long it would take before the shepherd was cloned. (...) More important is the sequel to this medical breakthrough: the successful Dolly experiment led to the possibility of human embryonic and adult stem cell research. In 2000, the Pontifical Academy for Life took a position on this additional and innovative research. At the same time, understanding these technological innovations takes a lot of time as a result of the immense scientific complexity of these new technologies. In this article, we want to clarify the technological possibilities as well as the moral, theological and ethical issues involved. To some, it seems that humans usurped the Divine Creator's place and, by doing this, crossed a border. To others, this medical breakthrough is in line with previous reproductive technological innovations. (shrink)

In analysing the position adopted by the United Kingdom over therapeutic cloning, this paper will endeavour to examine the question of regulation, its necessity and extent. This will be achieved through considering different models of relevant theoretical discourse before, in applying that discourse to identified systems of regulation, the advantages and pitfalls of each system will be assessed in the hope of reaching a solution appropriate to the sensitive, yet dynamic, needs of the issue.

The author, a member of the U.S.President's Council on Bioethics, discussesethical issues raised by human cloning, whetherfor purposes of bringing babies to birth or forresearch purposes. He first argues that everycloned human embryo is a new, distinct, andenduring organism, belonging to the speciesHomo sapiens, and directing its owndevelopment toward maturity. He then distinguishesbetween two types of capacities belonging toindividual organisms belonging to this species,an immediately exerciseable capacity and abasic natural capacity that develops over time. He argues that it is (...) the second type ofcapacity that is the ground for full moralrespect, and that this capacity (and itsconcomitant degree of respect) belongs tocloned human embryos no less than to adulthuman beings. He then considers and rejectscounter-arguments to his position, includingthe suggestion that the capacity of embryos isequivalent to the capacity of somatic cells,that full human rights are afforded only tohuman organisms with functioning brains, thatthe possibility of twinning diminishes themoral status of embryos, that the fact thatpeople do not typically mourn the loss of earlyembryos implies that they have a diminishedmoral status, that the fact that earlyspontaneous abortions occur frequentlydiminishes the moral status of embryos, andthat his arguments depend upon a concept ofensoulment. He concludes that if the moralstatus of cloned human embryos is equivalent tothat of adults, then public policy should bebased upon this assumption. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that arguments for and against cloning fail to make their case because of one or both of the following reasons: 1) they take for granted customary beliefs and assumptions that are far from being unquestionable; 2) they tend to ignore the context in which human cloning is developed. I will analyze some of the assumptions underlying the main arguments that have been offered for and against cloning. Once these assumptions (...) are critically analyzed, arguments both rejecting and supporting human cloning seem to lose weight. I will first briefly present the main arguments that have been proposed against cloning and I will argue that they fail to establish their case. In the next section I will evaluate some of the positive arguments that have been offered supporting such technology. This analysis will show that the case for cloning also fails. Finally, I will maintain that because critics and especially supporters of this technology neglect the context in which human cloning is developed and might be implemented, their arguments are far from compelling. (shrink)

Some have objected to the laboratory cloning of human preembryos on the grounds that the procedure would violate the dignity of and respect owed to human preembryos. Others have argued that human cloning ought be permitted if it will predictably benefit, or at least not burden, individuals who are, unlike the human preembryo, clearly entitled to our respect and concern. Taking this latter position, the legal theorist John A. Robertson has argued that, since cloning does not harm (...) anyone who is clearly entitled to our respect and concern, it should be permitted. In particular, the offspring of cloning, he argues, cannot be genuinely harmed by cloning, since they owe their very existence to the cloning procedure. In this paper, I argue that cloning coupled with its related procedures does in fact place the flesh and blood human offspring of cloning at risk of genuine harm. I thus provide a basis for questioning the moral permissibility of cloning and its related technologies without implying that the human preembryo has dignity or is owed respect. (shrink)

I examine five concerns held by the general population regarding human cloning and argue that they show either a misunderstanding about the process and/or result of cloning, or else ignorance about what we already do. Put differently, I argue that human cloning is not in principle more questionable than other current practices. However, I do have serious concerns about the uses to which the new technology will be put. I argue that the reasons currently proposed for human (...) cloning are not persuasive. My position is that human cloning is not objectionable in principle, but practical application of the technology raises serious concerns. In my opinion, present circumstances do not seem to warrant it. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that arguments for and against cloning fail to make their case because of one or both of the following reasons: 1) they take for granted customary beliefs and assumptions that are far from being unquestionable; 2) they tend to ignore the context in which human cloning is developed. I will analyze some of the assumptions underlying the main arguments that have been offered for and against cloning. Once these assumptions (...) are critically analyzed, arguments both rejecting and supporting human cloning seem to lose weight. I will first briefly present the main arguments that have been proposed against cloning and I will argue that they fail to establish their case. In the next section I will evaluate some of the positive arguments that have been offered supporting such technology. This analysis will show that the case for cloning also fails. Finally, I will maintain that because critics and especially supporters of this technology neglect the context in which human cloning is developed and might be implemented, their arguments are far from compelling. (shrink)

It is technically possible to clone a human being. The result of the procedure would be a human being in its own right. Given the current level of cloning technology concerning other animals there is every reason to believe that early human clones will have shorter-than-average life-spans, and will be unusually prone to disease. In addition, they would be unusually at risk of genetic defects, though they would still, probably, have lives worth living. But with experimentation and experience, seriously (...) unequal prospects between cloned and noncloned people should erode. We shall ignore arguments about cloning that focus on the potential for harm to the fetus or resultant human being, where harm is understood solely in terms of physical and mental health. Unless the resultant people would generally have lives worth living there is no positive case for cloning, or any other form of reproduction, for that matter. If the resultant beings will generally have lives worth living there is a prima facie case for allowing cloning. We imagine the case in which the resultant beings will have lives well worth living. (shrink)

This study explores the social representations of cloning taking in consideration a series of associated emotions and the subjects' level of religiosity. The participants in our study consisted of 356 subjects of different ages and professions. The data collection included four tasks for the subjects to fill in. First, they had to fill in a free task association: starting from the stimulus-word „cloning" they had to associate five words or expressions, and then rank these five words according to (...) their importance. The second task required polarity association for each of the expressions; thus, the subjects had to evaluate them as positive, negative or neutral in relation to „cloning". The third task was a questionnaire evaluating the level of religiosity (28 items). The last task included a list of 35 emotions (positive as well as negative) which subjects had to associate on a scale from 1 to 10 with the bio-medical procedure of cloning. The data analysis was focused on comparing the different groups defined in relation to the level of religiosity, affective polarity, age and level of education. We used the prototipicality technique, developed in the framework of the social representation's theory, in order to identify the elements of the social representations of cloning belonging to the previously mentioned variables. . (shrink)

In debates about human cloning, a distinction is frequently drawn between therapeutic and reproductive uses of the technology. Naturally enough, this distinction influences the way that the law is framed. The general consensus is that therapeutic cloning is less morally problematic than reproductive cloning — one can hold this position while holding that both are morally unacceptable — and the law frequently leaves the way open for some cloning for the sake of research into new therapeutic (...) techniques while banning it for reproductive purposes. We claim that the position adopted by the law has things the wrong way around: if we accept a moral distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, there are actually more reasons to be morally worried about therapeutic cloning than about reproductive cloning. If cloning is the proper object of legal scrutiny, then, we ought to make sure that we are scrutinising the right kind of clone. (shrink)

Public policy debates such as we find in the Untied Nations, the Singapore Bioethics Advisory Committee, and the US President’s Council on Bioethics reflect behind-the-scenes theological debates. Although religious spokespersons agree nearly universally that human reproductive cloning should be banned; moral ambivalence rises when confronting human embryonic stem cell research. Rather than focus on beneficence (medical benefits), religious bioethicists focus on nonmalificence (embryo protection). The Vatican claim that stem cell research should be banned because it destroys embryos appears at (...) first to rely upon ensoulment at conception; but a closer analysis shows that the Vatican position relies upon genetic uniqueness. Appeal to genetic uniqueness is inadequate for Christian anthropology; what needs to be added is a relational and proleptic understanding of human dignity. (shrink)

In order to answer the question raised in the title of my paper, I first put forward a general ethical theory, which is based on the traditional maxim neminem laedere. Second, I show how this principle in conjunction with certain assumptions concerning the value of life entails certain fundamental bioethical principles. Thus killing a living being Y is morally wrong whenever the intrinsic value of the life that Y would otherwise live is positive. But procreating a living being Y is (...) prima facie morally neutral, i.e. neither bad nor good. Third I will argue that the question of moral rights should always be reduced to the question of the morality of certain corresponding actions. In particular, granting Y a right to life should be taken to mean that it would be morally wrong if someone else were to set an end to Y’s life. In a similar vein, I suggest answers to some other questions of the reproductive rights issue. Fourth, with respect to the controversial issue of therapeutic and genuine cloning, I do not see any compelling moral reasons against this utopian way of procreating full-grown individuals.Nevertheless, I think there are a lot of other good reasons not to try to produce a human Dolly. Finally, as regards the use or abuse of human embryos as potential suppliers of stem-cells for the cure of other people’s diseases, it seems morally safe to perform experiments at least with those embryos which, like spare embryos that remained from measures of in vitro fertilization, would not have a life anyway. It’s more difficult to decide, however, whether it would be morally safe to produce embryos only for the sake of using them in the aforementioned way. (shrink)

Carson Strong's article “Cloning and Infertility” has initiated a conversation in this journal about the ethical and policy issues surrounding the question of who, if anyone, should be allowed access to human reproductive cloning technology, should somatic cell nuclear transfer ever become technically feasible and safe. Strong's position in that article is that infertile opposite sex couples for whom cloning is the last resort for having a genetically related child are the only people who should be granted (...) access to such technology, primarily because this need to have a genetically related child would give such couples respectable reasons for cloning themselves. Also, every child has a basic right to a “decent minimum opportunity for development.” Thus it would be morally wrong, other things being equal, to clone a person with cystic fibrosis or spina bifida but morally permissible to clone a nearsighted person, because nearsightedness is not sufficiently disabling to violate the child's birthright. With this caveat, he concludes that protecting reproductive freedom requires that physicians be allowed to provide cloning services only to that small subset of infertile opposite sex couples who would need it as a last resort, should human reproductive cloning ever become safe and feasible. (shrink)

Heath Robinson could perhaps draw a diagram that made sense of the legislative and regulatory structure Bonnicksen describes in this book. However Heath Robinson machines, no matter how baroque, actually achieve something: in the four years covered by this contemporary history the American “system” seems to have achieved very little. That we have not yet seen a confirmed cloned child produced in the USA or elsewhere does not seem due in any part to the activity that Bonnicksen describes. This is (...) not a history of America’s progress towards crafting a policy; it is an account of its failure to make one.The bulk of this book details the legal and regulatory responses to emerging reproductive technology in America following the announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned lamb in 1997. The remainder gives an overview of the position of other countries around the world, and a brief concluding chapter outlines the options open to the US in the future. Lest anything that follows might suggest otherwise, I found this book interesting and informative, and …. (shrink)

Plural democratic societies encourage and require the tolerance of disparate views. However, in relation to contentious areas like assisted reproductive technologies and destructive embryo research, tolerance is strained by the normative force of our fundamental beliefs about the moral status of early human forms. Yet in the continuing debates, spokespersons for different positions often do not concede all the implications of their arguments, may sidestep the real moral issues, and can fail to be clear about the foundations on which their (...) arguments and policy advice ultimately rely. Guidelines and statutes can be rendered incoherent by the desire to balance and satisfy opposing values, rather than honestly reflecting the primary values they espouse.I call for greater clarity and honesty as these issues continue to be debated. An uncritical adherence to pluralism will encourage strategic obfuscation, but citizens of democracies need to be clearly informed about all the premises of opposing positions. Decisions about ethically and legally acceptable reproductive technologies ultimately depend on support for one metaphysical grounding at the expense of another. This should be acknowledged, as should its implications for policy. (shrink)

The claim that human reproductive cloning constitutes an affront to human dignity became a familiar one in 1997 as policymakers and bioethicists responded to the announcement of the birth of Dolly the sheep. Various versions of the argument that reproductive cloning is an affront to human dignity have been made, most focusing on the dignity of the child produced by cloning. However, these arguments tend to be unpersuasive and strongly criticised in the bioethical literature. In this paper (...) I put forward a different argument that reproductive cloning is an affront to human dignity, one that looks beyond the dignity of the child produced. I suggest that allocating funds to such a pursuit can affront human dignity by diverting resources away from those existing people who lack sufficient health to enable them to exercise basic rights and liberties. This version of the argument posits cloning as an affront to human dignity in particular circumstances, rather than claiming the technology as intrinsically inconsistent with human dignity. (shrink)

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I (...) challenge the latter premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy. (shrink)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced recently that food products derived from some animal clones and their offspring are safe for human consumption. In response to criticism that it had failed to engage with ethical, social, and economic concerns raised by livestock cloning, the FDA argued that addressing normative issues prior to issuing a final ruling on animal cloning is not part of its mission. In this article, the authors reject the FDA's claim that its mission (...) to protect and advance public health can be accomplished without considering ethical issues or without making value judgments. The authors offer two arguments in support of their position. First, the agency's mission statement presupposes significant normative commitments and judgments. Second, the FDA's risk assessment of food products from cloned animals and their offspring is itself clearly shaped by a variety of normative commitments. (shrink)

[Selected as EDITOR'S CHOICE] Background: Extant surveys of people’s attitudes toward human reproductive cloning focus on moral judgments alone, not emotional reactions or sentiments. This is especially important given that some (esp. Leon Kass) have argued against such cloning on the grounds that it engenders widespread negative emotions, like disgust, that provide a moral guide. Objective: To provide some data on emotional reactions to human cloning, with a focus on repugnance, given its prominence in the literature. Methods: (...) This brief mixed-method study measures the self-reported attitudes and emotions (positive or negative) toward cloning from a sample of participants in the United States. Results: Most participants condemned cloning as immoral and said it should be illegal. The most commonly reported positive sentiment was by far interest/curiosity. Negative emotions were much more varied, but anxiety was the most common. Only about a third of participants selected disgust or repugnance as something they felt and an even smaller portion had this emotion come to mind prior to seeing a list of options. Conclusions: Participants felt primarily interested and anxious about human reproductive cloning. They did not primarily feel disgust or repugnance. This provides initial empirical evidence that such a reaction is not appropriately widespread. (shrink)

A critique is made of Bernard Rollin''s examination of the ethics of cloning adult mammalian cells. The primary concern is less to propound an anticloning or procloning position than to call for full exploration of the ethical complexities before a rush to judgment is made. Indeed, the ethical examination in question rushes toward an ethical position in such a way that does not appear consistent with Rollin''s usual methodology. By extending this methodology – which entails full weighing of benefits (...) and costs – it becomes apparent that there are real potential risks to this type of cloning in both animals and humans, besides the possible benefits, and that the scientific, political, philosophical, and broader academic communities should explore these risks and benefits extensively. Rollin''s usual methodological call for hesitation before risks would translate into hesitation before the ethical risks of adult mammalian cell cloning instead of his paper''s curiously laissez-faire stance. (shrink)

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I (...) challenge the latter premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy. (shrink)

We propose a Condorcet-consistent voting method that we call Split Cycle. Split Cycle belongs to the small family of known voting methods satisfying the anti-vote-splitting criterion of independence of clones. In this family, only Split Cycle satisfies a new criterion we call immunity to spoilers, which concerns adding candidates to elections, as well as the known criteria of positive involvement and negative involvement, which concern adding voters to elections. Thus, in contrast to other clone-independent methods, Split Cycle mitigates both “spoiler (...) effects” and “strong no show paradoxes.”. (shrink)

In the film Never Let Me Go, clones are forced to donate their organs anonymously. As a work of fiction, this film can be regarded as a negotiation of limited agency, since the clones are depicted as vulnerable individuals. Thereby, it evokes a confrontation with underprivileged positions in technocratic societies, encouraging the audience to take the perspective of the marginalised. The clones are situated in ‘privileged deprivation’; from the audience’s point of view, they are unable to evolve into autonomous agents—but (...) from their own perspective within the dystopian system, they are still ‘privileged’. In this paper, we analyse the depiction of the clones’ personal development. Further, we examine references to bioethical aspects as well as technologies that affect the human body both on a micro and macro level—cloning and its impact on the human embryo and organ donation practised on the full-grown human body. We argue that this film as a reference for the discussion in popular culture focuses on individuals who do not profit from modern technical progress or do not have enough agency to refuse it. To make this point, we analyse the film’s fictional story, set in a form of alternate history, as a negotiation of a historical context which brings out the idea of neglected voices. (shrink)

: There appears to be a consensus in the general community that reproductive cloning is an immoral technology that should be banned. It may, however, be argued, at least from the perspective of the Jewish tradition, that reproductive cloning has many positive benefits. It is thus essential that one carefully weigh the costs and the benefits before deciding on a definitive course of action.

This article provides an analysis of the relationships between IVF and therapeutic cloning, as they played out in the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority consultation of 2006: Donating Eggs for Research: Safeguarding Donors. We develop an account of current developments in IVF and cloning which foregrounds the role of mediation in structuring the discursive context in which they are constituted. We foreground the imperative of choice and the promise of cures as key features of this context. We (...) also argue that the intercorporeal exchanges of IVF are materially restructured in relation to cloning research, despite their represented similitude in the consultation document. The discourse of choice in relation to reproductive technologies has become entrenched over the last twenty years. In relation to therapeutic cloning, it has been coupled with, and strengthened by, the discourse of cures. In examining relations between IVF and cloning with specific attention to both mediating imaginaries, and intercorporeal exchanges, we develop an analysis that displaces the rhetoric of choice and cures. This makes visible the limited subject positions available, and the limited possibilities for responding critically to the consultation. Identifying women as the gendered subjects of this consultation and placing intercorporeality at the centre of our analysis illuminates the interdependency of women undergoing IVF, cloning science and the governance of embryo research in the UK. (shrink)

In this article we argue that we have no good ethical reasons to prevent research on both, reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Our strategy is for each type of cloning research to demonstrate that no harms will occur to any person if such research goes ahead. Furthermore, we show that there is substantial interest in the continuation of this research, and the availability of reproductive human cloning technologies. We argue that satisfying these interests, in the absence of any (...) identifiable harms, would result in a positive, desirable outcome. (shrink)

Background No two countries have adopted identical regulatory measures on cloning. Understanding the complexity of these regulatory variations is essential. It highlights the challenges associated with the regulation of a controversial and rapidly evolving area of science and sheds light on a regulatory framework that can accommodate this reality. Methods Using the most reliable information available, we have performed a survey of the regulatory position of thirty countries around the world regarding the creation and use of cloned embryos (see (...) Table 1). We have relied on original and translated legislation, as well as published sources and personal communications. We have examined the regulation of both reproductive cloning (RC) and non-reproductive cloning (NRC). Results While most of the countries studied have enacted national legislation, the absence of legislation in seven of these countries should not be equated with the absence of regulation. Senator Morin was not correct in stating that the majority of recent legislation bans both RC and NRC. Recent regulatory moves are united only with regard to the banning of RC. While NRC is not permitted in seventeen of the countries examined, it could be permitted in up to thirteen countries. Conclusions There is little consensus on the various approaches to cloning laws and policies, and the regulatory position in many countries remains uncertain. (shrink)

The compromise position concerning the moral permissibility of different forms of human embryonic stem cell research has two commitments. The first commitment of this position is that it is morally permissible to derive hESCs from unwanted IVF embryos, despite the fact that this process involves the destruction of these embryos. The second commitment of this position is that it is morally impermissible to create human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest their hESCs. I argue (...) that this compromise position concerning the moral permissibility of different forms of hESC research is theoretically tenable, but unappealing. In order to do so, I first claim that although it may be morally permissible to destroy embryos insofar as they do not have a right to life, it can still be coherent to view them as deserving moral respect. I then argue that one may plausibly view the practice of deriving hESCs from unwanted IVF embryos as being compatible with affording the embryo proper moral respect, whilst also maintaining that creating embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest their hESCs is incompatible with affording this respect. However, although I argue that one may plausibly adopt the compromise position in view of this moral difference between the two forms of hESC research, I also suggest that the compromise position is unappealing. My justification for this conclusion is that there are good reasons to support the claim that therapeutic cloning is morally permissible, even if we concede that it violates the moral respect due to the embryo. (shrink)

We initiate the study of reducts of relational structures up to primitive positive interdefinability: After providing the tools for such a study, we apply these tools in order to obtain a classification of the reducts of the logic of equality. It turns out that there exists a continum of such reducts. Equivalently, expressed in the language of universal algebra, we classify those locally closed clones over a countable domain which contain all permutations of the domain.

The Wnt family of developmental regulators were named after the Drosophila segmentation gene wingless and the murine proto‐oncogene int‐1. Homology between these two genes connected oncogenesis to cell‐cell signals in development. I review how wingless was initially characterized, and cloned, as part of the quest to identify developmental cell‐to‐cell signals, based on predictions of the Positional Information Model, and on the properties of homeotic and segmentation gene mutants. The requirements and cell‐nonautonomy of wingless in patterning multiple embryonic and adult (...) structures solidified its status as a candidate signaling molecule. The physical location of wingless mutations and transcription unit defined the gene and its developmental transcription pattern. When the Drosophila homolog of int‐1 was then isolated, and predicted to encode a secreted proto‐oncogene homolog, it's identity to the wingless gene confirmed that a developmental cell‐cell signal had been identified and connected cancer to development. (shrink)

When positionally cloned in late 1989, it was anticipated that mutations within the Wilms' tumour suppressor gene (WT1) would prove responsible for this common solid kidney cancer of childhood. Characterisation of the WT1 expression pattern and of the structure of the encoded protein isoforms and their mode of action has now spanned almost a decade. WT1 proteins act as nucleic acid-binding zinc finger-containing transcription factors involved in both transactivation and repression. These activities are facilitated and constrained by interactions with other (...) proteins. Expression analyses and knockout mice indicate that WT1 protein plays a critical role in normal kidney and gonad development. Specific constitutional WT1 mutations results in several urogenital anomaly syndromes. While only 10% of sporadic Wilms' tumours do display WT1 mutation, WT1 is mutated in other cancers, including acute myeloid leukaemia. Much is still to be determined in WT1 biology. The next decade will see at least three streams of attention. The first two, elucidation of the role of WT1 in RNA metabolism and the characterisation of further protein partners, may together explain the distinct tissue-specific functions of WT1. Finally, further research into the role of WT1 in haematopoiesis will improve our understanding of WT1 in leukaemia. BioEssays 21:191-202, 1999. (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)