Human Cloning

Human Cloning

By Alissa Johnson
National Conference of State Legislatures

The advent of human cloning technology—or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SNT)—has thrust policymakers into the scientific world of genetics research. The debate over ethical and legal issues surrounding the use of cloning for reproductive purposes has led to accompanying public discussion of stem cell research. While this discourse has alerted Americans of the growing role of genetics in health care, it also—not surprisingly—has generated much confusion. Policymakers can help to guide the learning process and ensure the formulation of sound public policy for cloning technology with an understanding of the potential uses, benefits and risks of reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

Reproductive Cloning

As researchers gain experience with the use of SNT, reproductive cloning, or the cloning of a human embryo for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy, may someday become a reality. SNT involves the removal of genetic material (or nucleus) from an adult’s somatic cell—or any cell in the human body other than sperm cells in men and egg cells in women such as a skin cell. The nucleus taken from the somatic cell then is transferred to a woman's egg cell, from which the nucleus has been removed. Through proper stimulation, the egg cell develops into an embryo, which doctors then can implant into a woman's uterus. If the procedure leads to a live birth, the resulting human being inherits one person's genetic material, that of the individual from which the somatic cell was taken.

Some observers object to the implantation of cloned embryos based on ethical or safety concerns. For instance, while researchers have produced numerous animal clones since the first in 1997, "Dolly" the sheep, many animal clones have suffered from genetic and other abnormalities for reasons not yet understood. Others object to the use of SNT for reproductive purposes because they believe it allows scientists to play God. In addition, others have concerns that human cloning may do psychological damage to children born via cloning if parents impose unrealistic expectations on them to mirror a particular personality along with their genetic make-up. A small number of scientists contend that human cloning, in fact, offers a valuable tool for infertile individuals who want biological offspring.

Therapeutic Cloning

Therapeutic cloning—which involves the creation of embryos through SNT for research in disease treatment or prevention—can be easily distinguished from reproductive cloning in that the intended use of the embryos is for research for than to initiate a pregnancy. Therapeutic cloning provides access to large numbers of embryos for the purpose of stem cell research—an attractive option for scientists given that embryos are a rich source of stem cells. The creation of embryos for stem cell research, however, raises ethical concerns for some individuals who object to the destruction of embryos on religious or moral grounds. Others note that stem cell research offers hope to people who suffer from disorders like Parkinson disease for which the potential benefits of stem cell research are thought to be substantial.

Federal Action

A federal bill to ban human cloning passed the House of Representatives in August 2001 but has not seen any action since that time. Several bills to ban reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning or both were subsequently introduced, but none of these bills has passed either chamber at the time of publication of this brief. In the midst of the federal debate, a panel formed by the National Academy of Sciences released its recommendation to prohibit reproductive cloning but permit therapeutic cloning.

In addition, President Bush approved limited use of federal funds for stem cell research using existing stem cell lines in August 2001. The president decided to uphold the ban on the use of federal funds in research that involves the destruction or creation of embryos, but private institutions can continue research in this area within the bounds of state laws. President Bush has continued to examine the issue of human cloning through the President’s Council on Bioethics, which issued a report on the subject in July 2002. The recommendation backed by a majority of the Council was to prohibit reproductive cloning and place a moratorium on cloning for research until the issue could be explored further.

State Action

Nine states have laws pertaining to the use of human cloning. California first addressed the issue with a ban on reproductive cloning in 1997. Since then, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan and Rhode Island have banned reproductive and therapeutic cloning, and Rhode Island and New Jersey outlawed reproductive cloning only. Virginia law also forbids reproductive cloning, but it is unclear whether the law prohibits therapeutic cloning as a result of some ambiguity in the definitions used in the statute. Finally, Missouri prohibits the use of public funds for human cloning research, and Louisiana’s statute, which at one time banned reproductive cloning, has expired.

State		Prohibits Cloning Embryos to Initiate Pregnancy	Prohibits Cloning for Research	Specifically Permits Stem Cell Research, Including on Cloned Embryos
Arkansas		*	*
California		*		*
Iowa		*	*
Michigan		*	*
Missouri		* with the use of state funds
New Jersey	*				*
Rhode Island	*
South Dakota	*		*
Virginia	*		Unclear

Most states also have various statutes that govern embryonic and fetal research. While many of these laws are decades old and were intended to address other new technologies as they emerged, such as in vitro fertilization, they may inadvertently affect the use of reproductive and therapeutic cloning techniques.

As of August 2004, state legislatures considered more than 75 human cloning bills so far this year. This suggests that policymakers will continue to face the difficult questions raised by the creation of public policy for human cloning for years to come. In their deliberations, state legislators may want to consider their ethical concerns along with the potential benefits that experimentation might offer for the development of new ways to fight disease.

Contacts for More Information

Alissa Johnson
NCSL-Washington, D.C.
(202) 624-5400
alissa.johnson@ncsl.org

Return to previous page Genetic Technologies Project Page