In recent years, scientists have been broadening their understanding of our genetic makeup. In June of 2000, the first draft of the human genome was released — a landmark achievement in which scientists identified an astounding number of genes and their effects on the humans who possess them. Scientists have made connections between genes and diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and epilepsy. It seems that our genetic makeup plays a role in determining what diseases we are likely to develop during our lives, and researchers are trying to use these genetic links to develop cures.

Cloning to Cure Disease?
One of the ways of developing gene-based cures involves human cloning and it is the subject of a very heated debate. Genetic engineers are experimenting with using cloned embryos to harvest "stem cells" — special versatile cells that can be coaxed to develop into all kinds of body tissues, from nerve tissue to heart muscle tissue. The cultivated tissues would be used to replace a sick patient's damaged or diseased tissues, and scientists hope that the technique can be applied to treat a variety of now incurable diseases. The practice of cloning for this purpose is known as "therapeutic cloning."

The embryos created for therapeutic cloning are never implanted in a woman's womb because they are not intended to become fully-formed people. Instead, they are grown in laboratory dishes and they die once the stem cells are taken from them.

The first human clone made for therapeutic cloning was created by Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (ACT) in Massachusetts last October. The embryo grew no larger than six cells before it died, but ACT says that it represents "the dawn of a new age in medicine" and that "the goal of therapeutic cloning is now in reach." In a discussion of their work in Scientific American last month, ACT researchers talked about some applications of therapeutic cloning: "Once we are able to derive nerve cells from cloned embryos, we hope not only to heal damaged spinal cords but to treat brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease. We are eager for the day when we are able to offer therapeutic cloning to sick patients."

These sick patients are the 128 million Americans who suffer from diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and epilepsy. So the question is, can we justify cloning and destroying human embryos in order to save or improve the lives of so many adults and children?

It is a difficult and divisive question. The President himself has answered a firm "no"; he does not support human cloning for any purpose, arguing that it is wrong to destroy human embryos. (Some critics say that therapeutic cloning means taking human life.) The House of Representatives voted on the matter last August and they agreed with President Bush. Now, the U.S. Senate has to decide what will become law. As they prepare to vote, they are hearing the views of the National Academy of Sciences, a panel that advises the government on scientific matters. Last month, the Academy urged a Senate committee to say yes to therapeutic cloning. Articulating the view of many Senators, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said that it would be "a tragic mistake" to put a stop to such "vital medical research."

Question	Yes/No	Your reason
Is it acceptable to grow human embryos specifically to produce other cells that may help cure the sick and injured?

The House of Representatives has already voted against allowing reproductive cloning. The National Academy of Sciences agrees: it has urged the Senate to say "no" to making cloned babies, adding that it was "dangerous and likely to fail" and that only a "mad scientist" would consider doing such a thing.

Last November, President Bush nominated a "Council on Bioethics" to reflect on these difficult issues. The Council consists of seventeen learned academics and professionals and it is charged with considering the human and moral consequences of new developments in science and technology, with genetic engineering chief among those.

In their first meeting, which took place last month, the members of the Council reflected on the related ideas of cloning and human perfection. Most panelists seemed to agree that human cloning for reproductive purposes should be outlawed, with one member calling it "a natural repulsion." Some members of the Council suggested that cloning techniques might be abused to create the "perfect" human; member Charles Krauthammer, for example, said that scientists were getting close to "creating a class of superhumans" — people whose genetic makeup had been determined by governments or individuals. Council member Janet Rowley disagreed, saying that this scenario was 100 years away.

Question	Yes/No	Your reason
Do you think that fears about using genetic engineering to create "superhumans" are justified?

The notion of creating perfect humans may seem far-fetched to some, but there are people who are earnestly considering cloning as the solution to their fertility problems. Stretching the notion of reproductive choice to its limits is Clonaid, "the first human cloning company." Clonaid is a private company that claims to have a waiting list of 2,000 people who would like to have a child that is a clone of one of its parents.

The scientific director of Clonaid, Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, points out that clones occur naturally as identical twins, and that there is no reason why humans shouldn't mimic this natural phenomenon. She argues that artificially-created human clones can be thought of as "belated twins." Also involved in Clonaid is Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori, who has become a controversial figure because of his views on using cloning to help couples who can't have children by natural methods. (Clonaid also says that it will soon offer a new cloning service to pet owners who "want to see their pet brought back to life.")

Question	Yes/No	Your reason
Do you think that cloning is a reasonable option for people who find that they are unable to have children through natural methods?
Suppose human clones were produced. Do you think that a clone would experience serious psychological effects because of his or her origins?
What do you think of the idea of taking your unique set of genes and replicating it to give life to another person — an exact copy of you?
The Senate will vote on the matter of human cloning this Spring. How would you vote?

Today, the following questions occupy lawmakers. Can we accept therapeutic cloning because of its potential to cure millions of people? If we come to accept therapeutic cloning, will we be on a slippery slope that will eventually lead us to accepting this idea of cloned babies?

Should we seriously consider making replicas of ourselves? Should we allow ourselves to change the blueprint that makes us who we are, and create genetically-engineered people?

The answers have yet to be decided.