by Donal P. O’Mathuna and Walter L. Larimore
The world awakened on December 27, 2002 to the news that the first human clone had been born—or so the claim went, anyway.1 A cloning company called Clonaid, set up by a cult-group called the Raelians, claimed to have produced a baby named Eve who was cloned from one of their members. The claim has not yet been independently verified, and controversy over whether independent verification would be permitted has kept many skeptical about the whole claim. Clonaid had earlier claimed to have several women pregnant with cloned fetuses, although they also noted that the miscarriage rate was particularly high.2
Meanwhile, others in the race to clone the first humans claim to be close to ‘success.’ Severino Antinori, an Italian infertility expert, claims to know of other human clones who will be born early in 2003.3 His former partner, Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, retired from the University of Kentucky as a respected authority on infertility so that he also could attempt human cloning. A couple interviewed on national television about Zavos’ attempts to help them clone a child justified their decision, stating, “What you have got to realize is how much we want our own child.”4 To help them, Zavos says he has gathered “the Michael Jordans of the cloning business.”5
How should Christians respond to news that a cloned baby has been born? Should we celebrate the birth or shun the child? Numerous questions are raised that humanity has not had to face before. But before that, how should we react to those who promote human cloning? The first step in formulating a response is to understand what cloning involves. This will involve reviewing some of the technical aspects of how cloning is done. While the vast majority of people abhor attempts to clone babies (‘reproductive’ cloning), many scientists and patient advocacy groups want to promote a form of cloning what is euphemistically called ‘therapeutic’ or ‘research’ cloning.
To address human cloning, we have formulated a number of common questions that are asked about cloning. We hope readers will find themselves better equipped to respond with grace and wisdom to these questions and become engaged in the battle that is occurring right now for the soul of modern medicine.
What Is Human Cloning?
Human cloning is any procedure by which two or more individuals end up with identical genetic material (called DNA). Identical twins are “natural” clones. The technique used by Professor Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Scotland to produce the cloned sheep, Dolly, is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). All three groups attempting human cloning are using SCNT.
Each one of us is made up of billions of microscopic cells—each cell with a nucleus containing the individual’s unique set of DNA. There are two basic kinds of cells. Germ cells are reproductive cells—either eggs or sperm—and these contain only half of the DNA required to make up a living organism. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the two half-portions of DNA come together to give the complete and unique combination of DNA in that new individual. All non-reproductive cells contain a complete set of DNA and are called somatic cells— like skin or blood cells.
In cloning by SCNT, scientists remove the DNA-containing nucleus from an egg and replace it with the DNA-containing nucleus from a somatic cell of the person to be cloned. After the somatic nucleus is placed in the egg, a small electrical pulse is applied to fuse the material together. Some of these cells will start dividing, just like any other fertilized egg—resulting in a cloned embryo. If this implants into a woman, she will be pregnant with a cloned fetus that may lead to the birth of a cloned baby. This baby would be a clone (or identical twin) of the person who donated the somatic cells.
What Is the Difference Between Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning?
Both reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning use SCNT to clone human embryos. The difference lies in what the researchers intend to do with the new human life they hope to bring into being. In reproductive cloning, the researchers plan to implant some of the resulting human embryos into the wombs of women who want to deliver newborn babies. Proponents of reproductive cloning claim that they are simply using a new technique to relieve the suffering caused by infertility.
Therapeutic (or research) cloning has a very different purpose. The cloned embryos would only be allowed to grow for several days. At that point they would be destroyed to “harvest” (or “mine”) their embryonic stem cells. It is called “therapeutic” because it is hoped that these stem cells lead to useful therapies. Unfortunately, while patients might benefit, the embryos certainly won’t. This leads us to one of the big ethical issues in cloning: does the plight of some people (those suffering from diseases) ever justify taking the lives of other humans (the embryos)? In other words, does doing good for some people ever justify doing harm to other humans, in particular those at the earliest stages of human development?
Why is stem cell research connected to human cloning?
The debate over therapeutic cloning has focused more on stem cell research than the cloning aspect. Stem cells are a group of cells with unique properties. While most cells have a limited lifespan, stem cells can grow in the laboratory for extended periods of time. Also, stem cells are unspecialized and can develop into cells found in a number of different types of tissues. Most cells are specialized to function within the tissue where they are located. For example, muscle cells will function only as muscle cells, and not heart cells. This “multipotency” property of stem cells is what makes them highly attractive to researchers. If they can figure out how to determine which tissue a stem cell will form, they may be able to use stem cells to develop replacement tissues for a wide range of damaged or diseased tissues.
What makes stem cells more controversial is where they are found. There are two major sources. One is from embryos, but the process of removing them destroys the embryo. A report endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) concluded that embryonic stem cells should only be taken from so-called “spare” or “excess” embryos.6
However, the ethical reasoning behind this report was not based on a view that human embryos were entitled to any particular level of dignity, sanctity, respect or protection. In contrast, it was based on the pragmatic reasoning that since these embryos were unwanted and would probably die at the fertility clinics anyway; some good should be brought from their deaths. The analogy was sometimes made that using these embryos was just like transplanting organs from a dying patient.
This argument is based on a utilitarian approach to ethics where the ends are felt to justify the means. The analogy neglects an important difference between harvesting embryonic stem cells and transplanting a heart from a road accident victim. Organ transplantation is not ethical if the patient is killed in order to donate the organ. The frozen embryos are only destined to die because their parents allowed the creation of more embryos than were needed and then refused to allow them to be transferred into other women willing to give them a chance at life. We would argue that it is unethical to deliberately fertilize human embryos and then leave them in a frozen limbo waiting for them to die. Killing them in research does not justify the original negligence, but compounds the problematic nature of these technologies when used unwisely.
The pragmatic, as opposed to principled, reasoning behind these reports was revealed when the crucial connection between cloning and stem cell research became apparent. In 2001, the US House of Representatives passed a bill banning all forms of human cloning, whether reproductive or therapeutic. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the professional medical body that specializes in fertility issues, responded angrily with a press release stating: “Therapeutic cloning using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will likely be the application that fulfills the promise stem cell research holds for patients. . . . Making SCNT illegal makes supporting stem cell research virtually meaningless.”7 Stem cell research is intimately and inextricably interwoven with the ethics of therapeutic cloning.
Are There Alternatives to Using Embryonic Stem Cells?
Supporters of therapeutic cloning argue that preventing progress in this area will doom millions of patients to suffer and die from illnesses that stem cell research might cure. In their view, the ends of curing disease justify all means, including those that destroy countless human embryos. They fail to point out that the same ends stand a good chance of being achieved by other means that are completely ethical.
Stem cells make up a significant proportion of the early embryo, but stem cells are also found in the fully developed human. Umbilical cord blood and bone marrow contain stem cells (though only one in about 10,000 bone marrow cells is a stem cell).8 Stem cells have also been found in the blood, eye, brain, skeletal muscle, liver, skin, and other tissues of adults. These are called adult stem cells. Their role in the adult remains unclear, but they may serve as reservoirs for regeneration and repair of tissues.
What has been particularly remarkable, though, is the finding that adult stem cells have many, if not most, of the same properties of embryonic stem cells. Bone marrow stem cells have been developed into tissues other than those of the blood. Highly purified bone marrow stem cells have been used to make liver, lung, intestinal, and skin tissues in animal experiments.9 This property is called “plasticity” and is one of the most hotly debated topics in this area. Much remains to be discovered about umbilical and adult stem cells and their abilities, but one expert in this area put it this way: “Taken together, all studies that suggest such plastic behavior persuasively argue that there is something to this phenomenon. I am not a betting individual; however, if pressed, I would predict that at least some degree of unexpected plasticity will be rigorously established in the near future.”10 Therefore, society should invest in adult stem research and not research that destroys human embryos.
Have Stem Cells Cured Anyone Yet?
To date, no clinical trials utilizing embryonic stem cells or embryonic cloned stem cells have been conducted. A 2001 report from the National Institute of Health cautioned that, “at this stage, any therapies based on the use of human ES [embryonic stem] cells are still hypothetical and highly experimental.”11
The first experiment using embryonic stem cells in mice (published in March 2002) had surprising results. Not only were the improvements very modest (a five percent improvement in the sick mice), but also to the scientists’ complete surprise, tissue rejection was a major problem. The researchers concluded “that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders.”12
In contrast, adult stem cells have been used to completely cure several patients of fatal immune diseases.13 In one case, stem cells were isolated from several patients, and the isolated stem cells genetically modified to remove a defective gene. When the modified stem cells were transplanted back into the patients, they developed into healthy tissues. There were no tissue rejection problems since these tissues came from the patients themselves.
Harvesting these adult stem cells is as ethical as donating blood, and supported by virtually all faith groups and denominations. Adult stem cells from bone marrow, fat, and the umbilical cord have successfully treated patients with conditions like sickle cell anemia, diabetes, heart disease, and multiple sclerosis. Although this whole area of research is still in its infancy, and all claims must be made with caution, the early results indicate that not only is therapeutic cloning unethical, it is unnecessary.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to ask if it is ethical to drain scarce research dollars for unproved, theoretical and ethically questionable research, such as embryonic stem cell research, instead of pouring these same dollars into the more established and ethically unquestioned stem cell research using adult and umbilical stem cells that do not destroy life. Some researchers are acknowledging the financial problems raised by therapeutic cloning, though for economical not ethical reasons. The scientist who first isolated human embryonic stem cells says therapeutic cloning “would be astronomically expensive,”14 leading the CEO of a biotechnology company to state, “It is not commercially viable. Quality control is difficult; the FDA can’t regulate it, [and] no one can afford the treatment.”15 This leaves one wondering why so much hype has been generated about therapeutic cloning’s potential.
Why Should Christians Support a Ban on Therapeutic Cloning?
The most compelling reason for banning therapeutic cloning is that it involves deliberately making and destroying human life. The main argument in its favor requires accepting two premises: (1) that some humans are not persons, and (2) that the ends justify the means. Whenever these two arguments have been brought together in human history, they have led to atrocities. Slavery was justified on the basis that blacks were not fully human, and that they and society would benefit from slavery. Nazi atrocities similarly claimed that society would benefit from the removal of those unfit to live. Today, the potential benefits of stem cell therapies are said to justify the killing of human embryos, who are alleged to be less than fully human.
God does not confer worth and value on humans because of their functional abilities (or their size, location, wealth, power, race, gender, or stage of development). In fact, he tells power, race, gender, or stage of development). In fact, he tells 12). God confers value and worth on all humans, even those who do nothing of value. We are told that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; James 3:9). There is nothing in the way the Bible describes people, born or unborn, regenerate or unregenerate, that suggests that some humans are not yet images of God (or have lost the image of God).16
In contrast to trying to determine which humans are persons and which are not, the Bible calls on everyone to protect the weak and vulnerable. In the days of ancient Israel, these were the poor, foreigners, and widows. Jeremiah brings a message to the king of Judah telling him, “Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place” (Jeremiah 22:3). Today, human embryos and fetuses are among the most weak and vulnerable that we should be protecting and nurturing—yet their innocent blood is being shed. All human embryos are entitled to their best chance to develop into all that God can make them become. They do not deserve to become raw material for scientific experiments.
Is the Human Embryo a Person at Conception? If Not, When?
How could someone know that we were not persons at the point of conception? What would make such a phenomenal difference to the moral status of the embryo just because it is implanted, felt by the mother, viable, or born? Who but God can determine when we become persons?
Since no one can know for sure that the unborn are not persons, the burden of proof lies on those who want to kill the unborn.17 Those who ask, “Who is a person?” ask a question very similar to the one put to Jesus: “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). The lawyer thought that by determining that some people were not his neighbors he would not need to treat them like neighbors. Rather than philosophically describe what it meant to be viewed as a neighbor, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. He called on the people to act as good neighbors, rather than quibble over what it took to be counted as their neighbor.18
In the same way, rather than argue over who is a human person, we should be asking how we should treat the weakest humans among us. Human embryos merit the same protection as humans in any other stage of development. Size, development, dependence, consciousness and location do not determine the humanity of a human life—either before or after birth.
What Would Cloning Do for Women?
Human cloning could pose serious health risks to women. Not only would carrying a clone potentially endanger a woman’s life, women as well as clones would be viewed as commercial commodities. A very large supply of human eggs would be needed to treat even a small group of patients. Let’s assume only five percent of the eggs used in therapeutic cloning experiments would be fertilized and grow, which is a generous estimate. Stem cell therapy to treat the 16 million diabetes patients in the US would require at least 320 million human eggs. Assuming each woman on fertility drugs produced sixteen eggs (again very generous), approximately 20 million women would need to “donate” their eggs. To produce multiple eggs, women must take fertility drugs that are injected at least once daily for three weeks. These drugs are powerful and carry side effects, often causing headaches, bloating and mood swings, and also increase a woman’s risk of some serious health hazards. Strong pressure would be exerted on women to participate in such procedures, and others would be seduced by financial gain. Poor women in particular would be pressured into selling their eggs to meet this massive demand. The going rate for a month’s supply of eggs has tripled in the last four years, now set at about $7,500—although some “exceptional donors” are asking for, and receiving, $50,000.19 Such commodification of procreation and women will become even more prevalent if endless quantities of eggs are sought after for therapeutic cloning.
What Is the Problem with Reproductive Cloning?
One of the most sobering facts about cloning is its failure rate. While producing Dolly, 277 sheep embryos were made— and 276 died along the way.20 A review of all mammal-cloning experiments found typical success rates between 0 and 3 percent.21 Many abnormalities occur in the clones, some of which endanger the mothers, too. In cloning cattle, 876 embryos resulted in eight cloned calves, with three pregnant cows also dying because of abnormally large cloned fetuses.22 And the problems don’t stop at birth. Dolly has developed unusual complications as she has aged, and most clones die prematurely. This has led Ian Wilmut to ask rhetorically, “Are there any normal cloned mammals?”23
A human cloning project could kill hundreds, if not thousands, of human embryos before one successful birth. The Raelians recently admitted that women carrying cloned embryos have an abnormally high miscarriage rate. Ian Wilmut joined Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent US cloning expert, to declare that human cloning experiments are “irresponsible and repugnant.”24 The prospect of subjecting unborn human clones and the women carrying them to the same fate as befell animals led one animal cloning expert, Mark Westhusin of Texas A&M University, to state, “No one who actually has any experience with cloning wants anything to do with [human cloning].”25 We can expect that of those few cloned humans who survive to live birth, most will die shortly thereafter, and the others will be plagued by abnormalities due to the cloning process.
Human cloning is morally wrong because it destroys human life. Reproductive cloning is over 97 percent fatal to the clone. Therapeutic cloning is 100 percent fatal.
Does It Really Matter What Happens to Embryos?
Those who support “therapeutic” cloning claim the products of SCNT are just “pre-embryos,” “masses of cells,” “activated eggs” or “the products of somatic cell nuclear transfer.” The National Academy of Sciences wants to take the word cloning out of the phrase “therapeutic cloning” and call it “nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells.”26 Three leading authorities wrote an editorial on therapeutic cloning in Science entitled, “Please don’t call it cloning!”27 Yet by their own (and everyone else’s) definition of cloning, that is precisely what is happening. Such efforts reflect a dangerous trend to depersonalize human beings. The use of technical language tries to hide the fact that they are talking about the deliberate creation and destruction of human life.
At the root of the ethical problems with cloning is that human embryos become viewed as commodities to be manufactured and manipulated. When Dr. Zavos was asked if he was concerned about birth defects in cloned babies, he replied, “We can grade embryos. We can do genetic screening. We can do quality control.”28 The couple hoping to have a cloned baby commented, “if there are abnormalities, we will abort.”29 Quality control on human beings!
Acceptance of this attitude towards embryos may lead to other humans being viewed as objects to be manipulated. Parents who use in-vitro fertilization may now select the sex of their child. Embryos and fetuses who carry certain genes can simply be “disposed of.” When it becomes possible to alter the genetic makeup of the embryo, a host of other traits could be selected—height, weight, eye and hair color, intelligence, athletic ability, and musical aptitude. With increasing acceptance that certain genes should be weeded out, it will become increasingly difficult to accept those who survive the screening process and make it to birth. How we treat the weakest among us will eventually affect our view of all humanity. And Jesus said that what we do to the least of our brethren, we do to Him (Matthew 25:31-46).
C. S. Lewis had the wisdom in 1944 to proclaim that if humanity ever had the power to manipulate future generations (through eugenic practices) the consequences would reach far into everyone’s future:
In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenic and scientific education, the power to make its descendents what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands, we have preordained how they are to use them. . . . The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future.30
Why Not Ban Only Reproductive Cloning?
Instead of banning all human cloning, proposals have been made to ban only “reproductive” cloning. Such proposals are neither moral nor bans on human cloning. They seek to prevent one unethical practice by requiring another unethical practice, and two wrongs do not make a right. A ban on reproductive cloning still allows the cloning aspect of the procedure to occur. Furthermore, it would then require that all cloned embryos be killed.
Prohibiting reproductive cloning while allowing therapeutic cloning would result in the state-mandated killing of innocent human lives. Practically, how could anyone prevent a scientist or doctor from implanting a clone into a woman? And if the cloned embryo was implanted, would the law require an abortion—or that the baby clone be killed? A law banning only “reproductive” cloning would be immoral itself, and unenforceable.
Therapies developed by killing human embryos are not only unethical, they are unnecessary. Stem cells that researchers hope to use in therapies can be isolated from adults without destroying embryos. These adult stem cells may not have all the properties of embryonic stem cells, and they may not be as easy to isolate. But pursuing research on umbilical and adult stem cells, and not embryonic ones, puts medical research on higher ethical ground. It shows that humanity will not sacrifice its young on the altar of medical progress. It protects the most vulnerable and defenseless humans among us. Therefore, it is the right choice, and the only one that should be pursued.
Our society is about to make some incredibly important decisions. Today’s decisions will affect humanity for posterity. It is time for Christians to speak out—to let policy makers know that the ends do not always justify the means. The ends of finding new therapies for diseases are laudable. But they do not justify the deliberate creation and destruction of human life in the hope of developing therapies. There are no valid or compelling reasons—ethical, scientific, scriptural or medical—to proceed with human cloning. A comprehensive ban on all human cloning is the only sufficient and scriptural answer. AJ
Donal P. O’Mathuna is Professor of Bioethics and Chemistry at Mount Carmel College of Nursing in Columbus, Ohio. He is also a Fellow of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Chicago and is the co-author (with Walt Larimore) of Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook (Zondervan, 2001).
Walter L. Larimore, M.D. is Vice President of Medical Outreach for Focus on the Family. Dr. Larimore is a Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a member of the American Medical Association, the Christian Medical Association and the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. He is co-author (with Donal O’Mathuna of Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook (Zondervan, 2001).
1 Falco M. Group claims first cloned human born. CNN.com. Accessed at https://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27/human.cloning/index.html on December 27, 2002.
2 AFP, “Human Cloned Pregnancies ‘In Progress’,” Sydney Morning Herald (October 4, 2002). Accessed at https://www.smh.com.au/articles/ 2002/10/03/1033538721433.html on October 14, 2002.
3 Tim Radford, “Italian Promises Cloned Human Baby in January,” The Guardian (November 28, 2002). Accessed at https://www.guardian.co.uk/ genes/article/0,2763,849163,00.html on November 29, 2002.
4 Sarah-Kate Templeton, “Why We’re Trying to Give Birth to the World’s First Human Clone,” Sunday Herald (July 21, 2002). Accessed at https://www.sundayherald.com/26361 on December 12, 2002.
5 Victor Balta, “UOP Speaker: Baby Clone Coming Soon,” RecordNET (October 3, 2002). Accessed at https://www.recordnet.com/daily/news/articles/100302-gn-6.shtml on October 7, 2002.
6 American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute for Civil Society. Stem Cell Research and Applications: Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research (1999). Accessed at https://www.aaas.org/ spp/sfrl/projects/stem/report.pdf on August 25, 2002.
7 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Statement on House Passage of Weldon Cloning Bill. Press release (July 31, 2001).
8 National Academy of Sciences, Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Cloning (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002).
9 Diane S. Krause, Neil D. Theise, Michael I. Collector, Octavian Henegariu, Sonya Hwang, Rebekah Gardner, Sara Neutzel and Saul J. Sharkis, “Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a Single Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell,” Cell 105.3 (May 2001) 369-77.
10 Ihor Lemischka, “A Few Thoughts about the Plasticity of Stem Cells,” Experimental Hematology 30.8 (August 2002) 848-52.
11 National Institutes of Health, Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions (Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), 17. Accessed at https://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/scireport.htm on June 13, 2002.
12 William M. Rideout III, Konrad Hochedlinger, Michael Kyba, George Q. Daley and Rudolf Jaenisch, “Correction of a Genetic Defect by Nuclear Transplantation and Combined Cell and Gene Therapy,” Cell109 (2002) 17-27.
13 Alessandro Aiuti, Shimon Slavin, Memet Aker, Francesca Ficara, Sara Deola, Alessandra Mortellaro, Shoshana Morecki, Grazia Andolfi, Antonella Tabucchi, Filippo Carlucci, Enrico Marinello, Federica Cattaneo, Sergio Vai, Paolo Servida, Roberto Miniero, Maria Grazia Roncarolo and Claudio Bordignon, “Correction of ADA-SCID by Stem Cell Gene Therapy Combined with Nonmyeloablative Conditioning,” Science 296 (June 2002) 2410-3.
14 Peter Aldhous, “Can They Rebuild Us?” Nature 410 (2001) 622-5.
15 Denise Gellene, “Clone Profit? Unlikely,” Los Angeles Times (May 10, 2002). Accessed at https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000033027may10.story on May 20, 2002.
16 Dónal P. O’Mathúna, “The Bible and Abortion: What of the ‘Image of God’?” in Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal. Edited by John F. Kilner, Nigel M. de S. Cameron and David L. Schiedermayer (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1995), 199-211.
17 Dónal P. O’Mathúna, “What to Call Human Cloning,” European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 3.6 (June 2002) 502-5.
18 O’Mathúna, “The Bible and Abortion.”
19 Ruth Padawer, “Soaring Egg Donation Prices Causing Ethical Concerns,” North Jersey News (October 7, 2002). Accessed at https://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=7&page=5105001 on October 14, 2002.
20 I. Wilmut, A. E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A. J. Kind and K. H. Campbell, “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells,” Nature 385 (February 1997) 810-3.
21 Lesley Paterson, “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Cloning) Efficiency,” (August 2001). Accessed at www.roslin.ac.uk/public/webtablesGR.pdf on August 22, 2002.
22 J. R. Hill, A. J. Roussel, J. F. Edwards, N. L. Hooper, M. W. Miller, J. A. Thompson, C. R. Looney, M. E. Westhusin, J. M. Robl and S. L. Stice, “Clinical and Pathological Features of Cloned Transgenic Calves and Fetuses (13 Case Studies),” Theriogenology 15.8 (June 1999) 1451-65.
23 Ian Wilmut,” “Are There Any Normal Cloned Mammals?” Nature Medicine 8.3 (March 2002) 215-6.
24 Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, “Don’t Clone Humans!” Science 291 (2001) 2552.
25 Jeremy Manier, “Potential Perils Born in Cloning,” Chicago Tribune (March 4, 2001). Accessed at https://www.gyre.org/news/cache/571 on October 14, 2002.
26 National Academy of Sciences (2002).
27 Bert Vogelstein, Bruce Alberts and Kenneth Shine, “Please Don’t Call it Cloning!” Science 295 (February 2002) 1237.
28 Panayiotis Zavos, quoted in Jaenisch and Wilmut, 2552.
29 Templeton, 2002.
30 C.S.Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Harper: San Francisco, 2001).