Concern for “reproductive liberty” suggests that decisions about embryos should normally be made by the persons who would be the genetic parents of the child that would be brought into existence if the embryo were brought to term. Therapeutic cloning would involve creating and destroying an embryo, which, if brought to term, would be the offspring of the genetic parents of the person undergoing therapy. I argue that central arguments in debates about parenthood and genetics therefore suggest that (...) therapeutic cloning would be prima facie unethical unless it occurred with the consent of the parents of the person being cloned. Alternatively, if therapeutic cloning is thought to be legitimate, this undermines the case for some uses of reproductive cloning by implying that the genetic relation it establishes between clones and DNA donors does not carry the same moral weight as it does in cases of normal reproduction. (shrink)

Concern for “reproductive liberty” suggests that decisions about embryos should normally be made by the persons who would be the genetic parents of the child that would be brought into existence if the embryo were brought to term. Therapeutic cloning would involve creating and destroying an embryo, which, if brought to term, would be the offspring of the genetic parents of the person undergoing therapy. I argue that central arguments in debates about parenthood and genetics therefore suggest that (...) therapeutic cloning would be prima facie unethical unless it occurred with the consent of the parents of the person being cloned. Alternatively, if therapeutic cloning is thought to be legitimate, this undermines the case for some uses of reproductive cloning by implying that the genetic relation it establishes between clones and DNA donors does not carry the same moral weight as it does in cases of normal reproduction. (shrink)

The British Parliament legalized therapeutic cloning in December 2000 despite opposition from the European Union. The watershed event in Parliament's move was the active and unprecedented government support for the generation and destruction of human embryonic life merely as a means of medical advancement. This article contends that the utilitarian analysis of this procedure is necessary to identify the real world risks of therapeutic cloning but insufficient to identify the breach of defensible ethical limits that this (...) procedure represents. A value-oriented approach to Kantian ethics demonstrates that the utilitarian endorsement of therapeutic cloning entails a contradiction of the necessity of human vulnerability and a faulty valuation of the human embryo. The concern is that a narrow utilitarian focus ultimately commodifies human embryonic life and preferences outcomes as the sole determinant of moral value. (shrink)

Cloning Trevor, a story about therapeutic cloning research, appeared in the June issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The story gives a human face to the people whom therapeutic cloning could benefit. It presents an argument for government funding and it puts the usual calls for a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research to allow for more debate, in a less favourable light. The story also highlights some problems with ethical oversight.

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.

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.

There is ongoing debate about whether it is ethically acceptable to allow the creation of cloned embryos in order to produce human stem cells. A cloned embryo is created through a process called somatic-cell nuclear transfer, often known as ‘therapeutic’ cloning. The value of stem cells lies in their capacity to become any sort of cell in the human body. This capacity is particularly useful for treating medical conditions where stem cells can be used to repair or replace (...) damaged tissue. The value of a cloned embryo is that the DNA from a person who needs stem cell treatment can be used to create the clone and thereby minimise the likelihood that any inserted stem cells will be rejected. Research on the use of cloned stem cells is in its earliest stage. (shrink)

Debates about the legitimacy of embryonic stem-cell research have largely focused on the type of ethical value that should be accorded to the human embryo in␣vitro. In this paper, I try to show that, to broaden the scope of these debates, one needs to articulate an ontology that does not limit itself to biological accounts, but that instead focuses on the embryo’s place in a totality of relevance surrounding and guiding a human practice. Instead of attempting to substantiate the ethical (...) value of the embryo exclusively by pointing out that it has potentiality for personhood, one should examine the types of practices in which the embryo occurs and focus on the ends inherent to these practices. With this emphasis on context, it becomes apparent that the embryo’s ethical significance can only be understood by elucidating the attitudes that are established towards it in the course of specific activities. The distinction between fertilized embryos and cloned embryos proves to be important in this contextual analysis, since, from the point of view of practice, the two types of embryos appear to belong to different human practices: (assisted) procreation and medical research, respectively. In my arguments, I highlight the concepts of practice, technology, and nature, as they have been analyzed in the phenomenological tradition, particularly by Martin Heidegger. I come to the conclusion that therapeutic cloning should be allowed, provided that it turns out to be a project that benefits medical science in its aim to battle diseases. Important precautions have to be taken, however, in order to safeguard the practice of procreation from becoming perverted by the aims and attitudes of medical science when the two practices intersect. The threat in question needs to be taken seriously, since it concerns the structure and goal of practices which are central to our very self understanding as human beings. (shrink)

Much of the literature on therapeutic somatic cell nuclear transfer covers the moral arguments for and against proceeding and the policy stall occasioned by conflicts over the moral status of embryos. Yet it is also worthwhile to view policy from the standpoint of the resources available as well as of deficiencies in those resources. This article uses the idea of a policy community to examine policy making from a starting point that focuses not on what divides, but rather on (...) the groups and individuals committed to enabling ES cell research and therapeutic SCNT. Although written with international dimensions in mind, the article focuses on the United States, where the politics are particularly volatile and the likelihood of policy leadership at the national level is remote. (shrink)

Advanced Cell Technology's Ethics Advisory Board has been called window dressing for a corporate marketing plan. But the scientists and managers have paid attention, and the lawyers have gone along.

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)

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act received royal assent on 29 March 2004. The approach proposed by the federal government responds to Canadians’ strong desire for an enforceable legislative framework in the field of reproduction technologies through criminal law. As a result of the widening gap between the rapid pace of technological change and governing legislation, a distinct need was perceived to create a regulatory framework to guide decisions regarding reproductive technologies.In this article the three main topics covered in (...) the new legislation are commented on: cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos. Some important issues also covered in the new legislation, such as privacy and access to information, data protection, identity of donors, and inspection, will not be addressed. (shrink)

Restrictions on research on therapeutic cloning are questionable as they inhibit the development of a technique which holds promise for succesful application of pluripotent stem cells in clinical treatment of severe diseases. It is argued in this article that the ethical concerns are less problematic using therapeutic cloning compared with using fertilised eggs as the source for stem cells. The moral status of an enucleated egg cell transplanted with a somatic cell nucleus is found to be (...) more clearly not equivalent to that of a human being. Based on ethical considerations alone, research into therapeutic cloning should be encouraged in order to develop therapeutic applications of stem cells. (shrink)

After years of failure, in November 2007 primate embryonic stem cells were derived by somatic cellular nuclear transfer, also known as therapeutic cloning. The first embryo transfer for human reproductive cloning purposes was also attempted in 2006, albeit with negative results. These two events force us to think carefully about the possibility of human cloning which is now much closer to becoming a reality. In this paper we tackle this issue from two sides, first summarising what (...) scientists have achieved so far, then discussing some of the ethical arguments in favour and against human cloning which are debated in the context of policy making and public consultation. Therapeutic cloning as a means to improve and save lives has uncontroversial moral value. As to human reproductive cloning, we consider and assess some common objections and failing to see them as conclusive. We do recognise, though, that there will be problems at the level of policy and regulation that might either impair the implementation of human reproductive cloning or make its accessibility restricted in a way that could become difficult to justify on moral grounds. We suggest using the time still available before human reproductive cloning is attempted successfully to create policies and institutions that can offer clear directives on its legitimate applications on the basis of solid arguments, coherent moral principles, and extensive public consultation. (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)

The aim of regenerative medicine is to reconstruct tissue that has been lost or pathologically altered. Therapeutic cloning seems to offer a method of achieving this aim; however, the ethical debate surrounding human therapeutic cloning is highly controversial. Artificial parthenogenesis—obtaining embryos from unfertilised eggs—seems to offer a way to sidestep these ethical pitfalls. Jacques Loeb , the founding father of artificial parthogenesis, faced negative public opinion when he published his research in 1899. His research, the public’s (...) response to his findings, and his ethical foundations serve as an historical argument both for the communication of science and compromise in biological research. (shrink)

Beauchamp and Childress (1994) elaborated an approach to bioethical deliberations based on four universalistic principles. This framework of ‘principlism’ has been criticized from within biomedical ethics as insufficient and problematic. However, this article considers a more radical sociological critique by John Evans (2002) that rejects the entire approach of defining ‘principles’ a priori. This sociological critique is based on classical sociologist Max Weber's (1925) distinction between instrumental (‘thin’) and substantive (‘thick’) rationality. As an exploratory assessment of Evans' critique, his conceptualization (...) of ‘thin’ versus ‘thick’ rationalization is applied to a large sample of Anglo-American press coverage (n = 5126) of the bioethical controversy surrounding therapeutic cloning. Given the role of mainstream news media as a key arena for the discursive framing of biomedical research and its ethical implications, the findings raise important questions about principlism and the mediation of bioethical debates on issues such as therapeutic cloning. (shrink)

The issues of human cloning and stem cell retrieval are inseparable in circumstances in which the rationale of self-preservation may be invoked as a negative right. I apply this rationale to a hypothetical case in which cloning is necessary to preserve the bodily integrity or life of an individual. Self-preservation as moral integrity is examined in a narrower context, i.e., as applicable to those for whom deliberate termination of embryonic life is morally-problematic. This issue is addressed through comparison (...) with two paradigms commonly used in support of clinical practice: the distinction between letting die and killing, and the permissibility of vital organ retrieval after death. Although these paradigms are questionable in their own right, they offer a rationale by which scientists and clinicians may respect the negative right to moral integrity of those with whom they disagree. (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)

The rapid sequencing of entire genomes based in large measure on a DNA cloning procedure, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), has opened new frontiers in the discovery process for novel therapeutic agents. DNA cloning is a basic tool in genomics and it has been used for over a decade. Drug discovery is currently focused on the identification of gene databases, gene arrays and protein arrays aimed at therapeutic modulation of disease-related genes—which require procedures that may involve (...) cloning techniques. Currently, cloning for pharmacologic products is most applicable in the preclinical area of drug discovery. For example, the identification of specific receptor subtypes occurred via cloning whereas traditional pharmacologic approaches that use agonists and antagonists may have failed to separate binding affinities. Successful therapeutic agents where cloning played vital role resulted in the development of synthetic insulin, growth hormone, erythropoiten and other tissue factors in blood products, Vaccines may be another successful application derived from cloning. Another area where cloning can make a significant impact upon human therapeutics is that this technique may provide a new source of cells for tissue engineering and transplantation. Stem cells, and in particular, embryonic stem cells can differentiate into other cell types such as hepatocytes and neurons to provide normal products for hepatic and neurological diseases. However, the use of cloning embryonic stem cells introduces important ethical, medical and legal issues which require that leaders in government, academic, and religious groups be fully educated in these applications. A close working relationship among these diverse groups is needed to respond wisely to the introduction of new therapeutic opportunities while at the same time providing protection for the individual and the public at large from unethical practises. (shrink)

Cloning - few words have as much potential to grip our imagination or grab the headlines. No longer the stuff of science fiction or Star Wars - it is happening now. Yet human cloning is currently banned throughout the world, and therapeutic cloning banned in many countries. In this highly controversial book, John Harris does a lot more than ask why we are so afraid of cloning. He presents a deft and informed defence of human (...) cloning, carefully exposing the rhetorical and highly dubious arguments against it. He begins with an introduction to what a human clone is, before tackling some of the most common and frequently bizarre criticisms of cloning: Is it really wicked? Can we regulate it? What about the welfare of cloned children? Does it turn human beings into commodities? Dismissing one by one some of the myths about human cloning, in particular that it is degrading and unsafe, he astutely argues that some of our most cherished values, such as the freedom to start a family and the freedom from state control, actually support the case for human cloning. Offering a brave and lucid insight into this ethical minefield, John Harris at last shows that far from ending the diversity of human life or creating a race of super-clones, cloning has the power to improve and heal human life. (shrink)

ABSTRACT With the controversial ethical issues on the creation of human embryos through cloning for therapeutic research, which holds more promise for medical breakthroughs that the world could ever imagine and the acknowledgement by many scientists that this biotechnology may not lead in the near future to therapies; this country report discusses the approach Singapore takes on human stem cell research, interjected with the authors’ own arguments and suggestions especially on research compensation injuries, an often neglected important issue. (...) International comparative viewpoints taken by the major countries in the world are also included in the appendix. (shrink)

Cloned organisms can be genetically altered so that they do not exhibit higher brain functioning. This form of therapeutic cloning allows for genetically identical organs and tissues to be harvested from the clone for the use of the organism that is cloned. “Spare parts” cloning promises many opportunities for future medical advances. What is the ontological and ethical status of spare parts, headless clones? This paper attempts to answer this question from the perspective of Aristotle’s view of (...) the soul. Aristotle’s metaphysics as applied to his view of biological essences generates an ethic that can contribute to moral reasoning regarding the use of headless spare parts clones. The task of this paper is to show the implications that Aristotle’s view of the soul, if it is true, would have on the ethics of headless, spare parts cloning. (shrink)

The possibility of cloning human beings raises the difficult question: Which human lives have value and deserve legal protection? Current cloning legislation tries to hide the problem by illegitimately renaming the entities and processes in question. The Delaware cloning bill, (SB55 2003/2004) for example, permits and protects the creation of human embryos by cloning, as long as they will be destroyed for research and therapeutic purposes, but it adopts terminology which renders its import unclear. I (...) show that, in the case of cloning legislation, the burden of proof is on those who would adopt new terminology, and it has not been met. (shrink)

Many countries or jurisdictions have legally banned human cloning or are in the process of doing so. In some countries, including France and Singapore, reproductive cloning of humans is a criminal offence. In 2005, the United Nations adopted a ‘Declaration on Human Cloning’, which calls for a universal ban on human cloning. The debate on human reproductive cloning seems to have drawn to a close. However, since reproductive cloning of mammals has become routine in (...) several countries, there is reason to believe that at some point in the future, humans will be cloned too. Moreover, even if reproductive cloning will not be possible in the near future, cloning for research and therapeutic purposes is likely to be. -/- This entry describes the most important areas of disagreement regarding the ethics of cloning. I will focus on human cloning (as opposed to animal cloning), since human cloning has been the focus of the cloning debate. (shrink)

In bioethical discussions of human cloning there are sometimes employed definitions broadening the denotation of the term human being to include also, on an equal footing, human embryos. Also, the fact of being human is being equated with being a person. Consequently, embryos are treated as having dignity and calls are heard in the name of justice to protect the rights and interests of embryos whenever these clash with the interests of mature human beings. The author, being a layman (...) in the area of human cloning, limits himself to indicating views he agrees with and those he finds doubtful. He expects human cloning will be taking place, albeit on a small scale, regardless of any bans which would only force the practice to become clandestine. Arguments in favor of controlled human cloning include not only the need to preserve freedom in scientific research, but also hopes for minimizing the adverse effects of cloning. The author indicates factors of an emotional nature which hamper discussions of cloning. He also argues that objections to experiments with humans and demands to make them conditional on prior consent of the people being experimented on are ineffective and often impossible to satisfy. The author also believes that it is impossible to unconditionally obey the commandment "You shall not kill". He does not see any threats posed by the fact that the clone and the cloned person will be identical. While not overlooking the potential dangers to clones (such as genetic defects), the author also sees potential advantages of cloning and transplantology (therapeutic, psychic, social). (shrink)

Ford, Norman Victoria's Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike MLA introduced a Bill to allow therapeutic cloning in Victoria on March 13, 2007. If this Bill is passed, Victoria would be the first State to permit somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) and thereby open the way for the destruction of cloned human embryos for therapeutic purposes and medical research.

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)

In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on "embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," "stem (...) cells," and "embryos," and whether "adult" are preferable to "embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor "copying humans" or "killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion. (shrink)

This paper discusses the topic of engineering immortality, which is used as an ethical argument in support of human cloning. While many of the legal and religious responses to the ethical issue of human cloning focus on the use of embryos as a means to an end (for reproductive or therapeutic purposes) and onthe concern for human dignity, an argument for achieving human immortality through human cloning has rarely been considered. This paper presents, from a Christian (...) theological perspective, a response to the argument for engineering immortality by human cloning. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 9.3 (Autumn 2009): 447–451. (shrink)

The recent desperation to clone human embryos may be seriously undermining accepted ethical principles of medical research, with potentially profound wider consequencesIn her editorial in the February 2005 issue of this journal, Nikola Biller-Andorno questioned whether the effort and resources that have been invested in debates about cloning at the United Nations might have been somewhat disproportionate, if a binding universal agreement on reproductive cloning cannot be reached.1 Although most of the overt disagreement has centred around “therapeutic” (...) cloning, rather than the potential use of nuclear transfer for reproduction, it is none the less clear that the delay and ultimate failure to date in achieving consensus on the former has also increased the likelihood of the latter becoming a foreseeable reality in the absence of a legally binding global convention. Whilst the much heralded promise of therapies has now been severely undermined by scandals of fraud,2 the available evidence from various primate studies3–5 and the history of similar work with other mammalian species6,7 have provided little reason to doubt that human reproductive cloning might be possible in principle . I completely agree with Dr Biller-Andorno’s appeal that we need to “foster a genuine, worldwide discourse on bioethical issues” and not let our debate get completely derailed by vested interests, whether politically or economically motivated. If we don’t, we can probably expect dire consequences for the future of biomedical research and its impact on society at large.Prior to the United Nations’ discussions regarding a ban on human cloning in October 2004, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Great Britain announced that they had granted their first licence to clone human embryos by nuclear transfer,8 though no other applications had apparently been made following the legalisation …. (shrink)

In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on "embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," "stem (...) cells," and "embryos," and whether "adult" are preferable to "embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor "copying humans" or "killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion. (shrink)

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)

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)

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)

Both experimental and therapeutic uses of the new reproductive technologies have been governed not by the medical ideology of the best interests of patients and their children, but by the market ideology of profit maximization under the guise of "reproductive liberty." Government in our constitutional, democratic society has the authority and obligation to make and enforce reasonable regulations to manage the new reproductive market in order to protect the interests of the public, prospective parents, and their future children. The (...) "cloning" debate provides a useful opportunity to compare and contrast the competing regulatory models of the free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions. (shrink)

Although many scientists view cloning as a useful procedure for scientific research into early embryo development—one that cannot currently be used to produce multiple copies of humans—the popular literature has led some individuals to view it as sinister. To address the concerns of the public, various conceptions of cloning are distinguished and their basis in fact analyzed. The possible uses, benefits, and detriments of both embryo splitting and nuclear transplantation are explained. Once the nature and purposes of (...) class='Hi'>cloning are understood, and the distinctive ethical dilemmas created by embryo splitting and nuclear transplantation are sorted out, these procedures should be clinically implemented to assist in vitro fertilization treatment for those who are infertile and to further other therapeutic and investigational efforts in medicine. (shrink)

Despite the remarkable achievements of novel targeted anti‐cancer drugs, most therapies only produce remission for a limited time, resistance to treatment, and relapse, often being the ultimate outcome. Drug resistance is due to highly efficient adaptive strategies utilized by cancer cells. Exogenous and endogenous stress stimuli are known to induce first‐line responses, capable of re‐establishing cellular homeostasis and determining cell fate decisions. Cancer cells may also mount second‐line adaptive strategies, such as the mutator response. Hypermutable subpopulations of cells may expand (...) under severe selective stress, thereby accelerating the emergence of adapted clones. As with first‐line protective responses, these strategies appear highly conserved, and are found in yeasts and bacteria. We hypothesize that evolutionarily conserved programs rheostatically regulate mutability in fluctuating environments, and contribute to drug resistance in cancer cells. Elucidating the conserved genetic and molecular mechanisms may present novel opportunities to increase the effectiveness of cancer therapies. (shrink)