Order Code RL31358
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Human Cloning
Updated July 26, 2002
Judith A. Johnson
Specialist in Life Sciences
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Human Cloning
Summary
On November 25, 2001, a Massachusetts company, Advanced Cell Technology
(ACT), announced that it had created the world’s first cloned human embryos. The
cloned embryos survived only for a few hours. ACT has indicated that it intends to
use such embryos to derive stem cells in producing new therapies for diseases like
diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. The possibility of using cloning technology not
just for therapeutic purposes but also for reproducing human beings raises profound
moral and ethical questions.
President Bush announced in August 2001 that for the first time federal funds
will be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding will be
limited to “existing stem cell lines.” President Bush indicated that he is strongly
opposed to human cloning, and that federal funds will not be used for the cloning of
human embryos for any purpose, including stem cell research. The Bush
Administration established The President’s Council on Bioethics on November 28,
2001, an 18-member group that will “consider all of the medical and ethical
ramifications of biomedical innovation.” At its first meeting in January 2002
Chairman Leon Kass announced that human cloning would be the first topic
addressed. On July 11, 2002, the Council released its report on human cloning which
unanimously recommended a ban on reproductive cloning and, by a vote of 10 to 7,
a 4-year moratorium on cloning for medical research purposes.
On January 18, 2002, the National Academies released its report entitled
Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. The panel
recommends that the U.S. ban human reproductive cloning that is aimed at creating
a child. It suggests the ban should be legally enforceable and carry substantial
penalties rather than rely on voluntary actions. It should be reconsidered within 5
years, but only if compelling new data on safety and efficacy are presented and a
national dialogue on the social and ethical issues suggests that a review is warranted.
However, the panel concluded that research using cloning procedures to produce
stem cells should be permitted because of the considerable potential for developing
new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge. This position is in agreement
with a previous National Academies’ report entitled Stem Cells and the Future of
Regenerative Medicine which was released on September 11, 2001.
On July 31, 2001, the House passed H.R. 2505 by a vote of 265-162. The bill
would ban the process of human cloning as well as the importation of any product
derived from an embryo created via cloning. The provisions mean that cloning could
not be used for reproductive purposes or for research on therapeutic purposes, which
has implications for stem cell research. S. 1899 (Brownback) is the companion bill
to H.R. 2505. On April 10, 2002, President Bush announced his support for S. 1899
and 40 Nobel Laureates, who are in favor of cloning for medical research and
therapeutic purposes, announced their opposition to the Brownback bill. Senators
Arlen Specter, Dianne Feinstein, Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy introduced S.
2439 on April 30, 2002. S. 2439 would prohibit human reproductive cloning while
allowing cloning for medical research purposes, including stem cell research. This
report will be updated as needed.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Ethical and Social Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Brief History of Federal Policy Involving Human Embryo Research . . . . . . 3
Bush Administration Policy Regarding Human Embryo Research . . . . . . . . 5
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

---

Human Cloning
Background
The term “cloning” is used by scientists to describe many different processes
that involve making copies of biological material, such as a gene, a cell, a plant or
an animal. The cloning of genes, for example, has led to new treatments developed
by the biotechnology industry for diseases such as diabetes and hemophilia. In the
context of this report, a human embryo produced via cloning involves the process
called somatic1 cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of an egg is
removed and replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell.
In cloning, the embryo is created without sexual reproduction.
Concern over the possibility of producing a human clone increased with the
announcement on February 24, 1997, that scientists in Scotland had used SCNT in
1996 to produce the first cloned adult mammal, Dolly, the sheep. Scientists at the
Roslin Institute in Edinburgh removed the nucleus from a sheep egg and replaced it
with the nucleus of a mammary gland cell from an adult sheep. The resulting
embryo was then transferred to the uterus of a surrogate sheep. A total of 277 such
embryos were transferred, but only one lamb was born.2 Analyses of Dolly’s genetic
material confirmed that she was derived from the sheep mammary cell. Proponents
maintain that cloning could be used for a number of significant agriculture
applications, including the improvement of livestock.
On November 25, 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Massachusetts
announced that it had created the world’s first human embryos produced via cloning;
the results were published the following day in an electronic journal.3 ACT used two
techniques to produce human embryos — SCNT and a second process called
parthenogenesis. ACT researchers obtained eggs from seven women, ages 24 to 32,
who were paid $3000 to $5000. In the SCNT approach, scientists removed the
nucleus from 19 eggs and replaced it with a nucleus from another adult cell. For 11
of the eggs, the nucleus came from a skin cell, for the remaining eight eggs, from
cells which cling to the egg and are called cumulus cells. None of the eggs that
received a skin cell nucleus divided; seven of the eggs with the cumulus cell nucleus
began to divide. Two embryos divided into four cells each, and one embryo divided
into six cells before division stopped. In parthenogenesis, an egg cell is treated with
chemicals causing it to divide without being fertilized by a sperm. ACT exposed 22
1 A somatic cell is a body cell, as opposed to a germ cell, which is an egg or sperm cell.
2 Wilmut, I., et al. Viable Offspring Derived From Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.
Nature, v. 385, February 27, 1997. p. 810-813.
3 Cibelli, J.B., et al. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer in Humans: Pronuclear and Early
Embryonic Development. Journal of Regenerative Medicine, v. 2, November 26, 2001. p.
25-31.

---

CRS-2
human eggs to the chemicals. After 5 days, six eggs had matured into a larger mass
of cells before division stopped. None of the embryos developed by ACT through
cloning divided sufficiently to produce stem cells.
The stated goal of ACT’s work is not to produce a cloned human baby (which
requires implantation of the cloned embryo into a woman’s uterus), but human
embryonic stem cells.4 Other research groups have derived stem cells from mice and
cattle using SCNT. ACT intends to derive stem cells from human embryos to
develop new therapies for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. Some
scientists believe that stem cells transplanted into a patient could treat disease or
injury by replacing damaged tissue. If the cell nucleus used in SCNT is from the
patient, the stem cells would be genetically identical to the patient, recognized by the
patient’s immune system, and avoid any tissue rejection problems that could occur
in other stem cell therapeutic approaches. Because of this, many scientists believe
the SCNT technique may provide the best hope of eventually treating patients using
stem cells for tissue transplantation. A California biotechnology company, Geron
Corporation, is also working on stem cells created via SCNT.5
Ethical and Social Issues
The possibility of using cloning technology not just for therapeutic purposes but
also for reproducing human beings raises profound moral and ethical questions. In
response to the creation of Dolly and concerns about the potential application of
cloning humans, on February 24, 1997, President Clinton asked the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission6 (NBAC) to review the ethical and legal issues
associated with the use of cloning technology; NBAC reported its findings and
recommendations on June 9, 1997.7 NBAC recommended a continuation of the
moratorium on the use of federal funding in the support of any attempt to create a
child by SCNT, and an immediate request to all non-federally funded investigators
to comply voluntarily with the intent of the federal moratorium. NBAC also
recommended that federal legislation be enacted, with a 3- to 5- year sunset clause,
to prohibit anyone from attempting to create a child through the use of SCNT in a
research or clinical setting. The NBAC found it morally unacceptable to attempt to
clone humans for the purpose of human reproduction because scientific data from
animal experiments indicate the method is not safe for mother or baby. In addition
4 For more information about stem cells, see CRS Report RL31015, Stem Cell Research, by
Judith A. Johnson.
5 Weiss, R. Embryo Work Raises Spector of Human Harvesting. Washington Post, June 14,
1999. p. A01.
6 NBAC was established by Presidential Executive Order 12975 on October 3, 1995, to
provide guidance to federal agencies on the ethical conduct of current and future human
biological and behavioral research. A September 16, 1999 executive order extended the
NBAC charter until October 2001. NBAC has been replaced by the President’s Council on
Bioethics, which was described by the Bush Administration in its August 9, 2001 policy
decision on human embryonic stem cell research. The President’s remarks on embryonic
stem cell research are available at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].
7 National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Cloning Human Beings. June 1997.

---

CRS-3
to concerns about physical safety, the NBAC report pointed out that SCNT raises
issues about the individuality, autonomy, objectification and kinship of the resulting
children.
Cloning, if allowed for human reproduction, could affect society’s perception
of what it means to be a human being. Uncertainties over a cloned individual’s
personal uniqueness or freedom to create one’s own identity may haunt him or her.
Relatives or friends could have specific expectations regarding the cloned
individual’s talents and abilities. Others might ill treat or discriminate against a
cloned individual. Some worry that cloning would lead to diminished respect for
human life in general, and for cloned individuals in particular, since the cloned
person might simply be replaced with another clone. Others point out, however, that
this altered perception does not occur today with identical twins, who are naturally
produced clones. Cloning human embryos also raises difficult questions about the
rights of parents to control their own embryos and other issues concerning
reproductive rights and privacy. Some observers believe that it would be ethical to
clone human embryos to help infertile couples conceive. Lastly, the possibility of
human cloning is offensive to the religious and other deeply held beliefs of many
people.
On January 7, 1998, a Chicago scientist, Dr. Richard Seed, announced his
intention to clone a human being. In response, bills were introduced in Congress that
would have banned human cloning indefinitely or imposed a moratorium. The
legislation was opposed by a number of medical organizations, the biotechnology
industry and many scientists and was not enacted. Others expressing an interest in
reproductive cloning include: (1) Clonaid, a company directed by chemist Brigitte
Boisselier and formed by the Raelians, a group that believes humans are descendants
of extraterrestrials and that cloning can allow humans to become immortal; and, (2)
Panos Zavos, of the University of Kentucky, and Severino Antinori, director of a
fertility clinic in Rome, who are working together to help infertile couples have
children via cloning. In April 2002, there were unconfirmed reports in the media that
both Clonaid and Severino Antinori had implanted cloned human embryos in
women. Dr. Severino claims there are 3 such pregnancies of 6 to 9 week duration;
2 in Russia and 1 in an Islamic state. His claim has been disputed by his former
partner, Panos Zavos. The Clonaid group would not reveal any further details about
their cloning attempts.
Brief History of Federal Policy Involving Human Embryo
Research
Currently no U.S. laws or regulations would prohibit all cloning research.
However, federal funding of any type of research involving human embryos, starting
with in vitro fertilization (IVF) then later cloning and stem cells, has been blocked
by various policy decisions dating back 25 years. Following the birth of the first IVF
baby, Louise Brown, in July 1978, the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) was tasked
with considering the scientific, ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding human

---

CRS-4
IVF.8 The EAB released its report on May 4, 1979, which found that IVF research
was acceptable from an ethical standpoint and could be supported with federal funds.
The EAB’s recommendations were never adopted by HHS, the EAB was dissolved
in 1980, and no other EAB was ever chartered. Because federal regulations that
govern human subject research (45 CFR 46) stipulated that, at the time, federally
supported research involving human IVF must be reviewed by an EAB, a so-called
“de facto moratorium” on human IVF research resulted. Other types of embryo
research ensuing from the development and use of IVF, such as cloning and stem
cells, were therefore also blocked. The de facto moratorium was lifted with the
enactment of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L.
103-43, Section121(c)) which nullified the regulatory provision (45 CFR 46.204(d))
requiring EAB review of IVF proposals.
In response, the NIH established the Human Embryo Research Panel to assess
the moral and ethical issues raised by this research and develop recommendations for
NIH review and conduct of human embryo research. The NIH Panel released a
report providing guidelines and recommendations on human embryo research in
September 1994. It recommended that some areas of human embryo research be
considered for federal funding, including SCNT, stem cells and (under certain
limited conditions) embryos created solely for the purpose of research.9 The NIH
Panel also identified areas of human embryo research it considered to be
unacceptable, or to warrant additional review. It determined that certain types of
cloning10 without transfer to the uterus warranted additional review before the Panel
could recommend whether the research should be federally funded. However, the
Panel concluded that federal funding for such cloning techniques followed by
transfer to the uterus should be unacceptable into the foreseeable future. The Panel’s
report was unanimously accepted by the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director
(ACD) on December 2, 1994.
After the ACD meeting on December 2, 1994, President Clinton directed NIH
not to allocate resources to “support the creation of human embryos for research
purposes.” The President’s directive did not apply to research involving so-called
“spare” embryos, those that sometimes remain from clinical IVF procedures
performed to assist infertile couples to become parents. Nor did it apply to human
parthenotes, eggs that begin development through artificial activation, not through
fertilization. Following the Clinton December 2, 1994 directive to NIH, the agency
proceeded with plans to develop guidelines to support research using spare embryos.
However, these plans were halted on January 26, 1996, with the enactment of P.L.
8 The EAB was created in 1978 by the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW),
the forerunner of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The EAB was
formed at the recommendation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The National Commission operated from
1974 to 1978 and issued 10 reports, many of which formed the basis of federal regulations
for research involving human subjects (45 CFR 46).
9 National Institutes of Health. Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, September
27, 1994.
10 These were blastomere separation, where a two- to eight-cell embryo is treated causing
the cells (blastomeres) to separate; and, blastocyst division, in which an embryo at the more
advanced blastocyst stage is split into two.

---

CRS-5
104-99 which contained a rider that affected FY1996 funding for NIH. The rider
prohibited HHS from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos
for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. This
same rider, often referred to as the Dickey amendment, has been attached to the
Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Acts for FY1997 through FY2002.11
Current language, Section 510 of the FY2002 Labor, HHS and Education
Appropriations Act, prohibits HHS from using FY2002 appropriated funds for:
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or,
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or
knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for
research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). For purposes of this section, the
term “human embryo or embryos” includes any organism, not protected as a
human subject under 45 CFR 46 ... that is derived by fertilization,
parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes
[sperm or egg] or human diploid cells.
One month after the Dolly announcement, on March 4, 1997, President Clinton
sent a memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies making
it “absolutely clear that no federal funds will be used for human cloning.” This
action extended the congressional ban beyond HHS to all federally supported
research. Clinton also urged the private sector to adopt a voluntary ban on the
cloning of human beings. The NIH Guidelines on Stem Cell Research, published by
the Clinton Administration in August 2000, would not have funded research in
which: human stem cells are used for reproductive cloning of a human; human stem
cells are derived using SCNT; or, human stem cells that were derived using SCNT
are utilized in a research project.
Bush Administration Policy Regarding Human Embryo
Research
On August 9, 2001 President Bush announced that for the first time federal
funds will be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding
will be limited to “existing stem cell lines.” In the speech, President Bush stated that
he strongly opposes human cloning. Although not mentioned specifically in the
August 9 speech, a fact sheet on the White House website states that federal funds
will not be used for “the cloning of human embryos for any purpose.”12 In his
speech, President Bush announced his intention to name a President’s council,
chaired by Dr. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, “to consider all of the
11 The original rider, introduced by Representative Jay Dickey, is in Section 128 of P.L. 104-
99; it affected NIH funding for FY1996 contained in P.L. 104-91. For subsequent fiscal
years, the rider is found in Title V, General Provisions, of the Labor, HHS and Education
Appropriations Acts in the following public laws: FY1997, P.L. 104-208; FY1998, P.L.
105-78; FY1999, P.L. 105-277; FY2000, P.L. 106-113; FY2001, P.L. 106-554; and FY2002,
P.L. 107-116.
12 The White House Fact Sheet on embryonic stem cell research is available at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html].

---

CRS-6
medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.” The President’s
Council on Bioethics, was established for a period of up to 2 years by Executive
Order 13237 on November 28, 2001. The White House announced the other 17
members of the council on January 16, 2002.
The first meeting of the President’s Council on Bioethics was held on January
17-18, 2002, in Washington, D.C.13 Dr. Kass announced that the first topic to be
addressed by the Council would be human cloning. At the Council’s second
meeting, the terminology of cloning was discussed in order to reach a consensus on
the terms used to describe the two types of cloning: reproductive vs. therapeutic or
research cloning. All Council members voted in opposition to reproductive cloning,
however, they could not come to an agreement on articulating the precise nature of
their objection, whether solely on safety grounds or which of the various moral
objections were most important. On the issue of therapeutic cloning, what the
Council prefers to call research cloning, the Council also could not come to
agreement. Dr. Kass proposed that the Council’s final report should reflect both the
arguments supporting cloning for the purpose of medical treatment and those against.
He asserted that the report should also provide the soundest arguments for each
position and indicate how many Council members supported each viewpoint.
The third meeting of the Council was held on April 25 and 26, 2002. The
Council heard presentations on the scientific and therapeutic promise of embryonic
stem cells from John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University and the potential of adult
stem cells from Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota. In an informal
vote, almost half of the 18 members of the Council voiced their support for the
therapeutic use of human cloning. The May 2002 meeting was cancelled.
At the June 20, 2002, meeting, nine Council members voted to support cloning
for medical research purposes, without a moratorium, provided a regulatory
mechanism was established.14 Because one member of the Council had not attended
the meetings and was not voting, the vote seemed to be 9 to 8 in favor of research
cloning. However, draft versions of the Council report sent to Council members on
June 28, 2002, indicated that two of the group of nine members had changed their
votes in favor of a moratorium. Both made it clear that they have no ethical problem
with cloning for biomedical research, but felt that a moratorium would provide time
for additional discussion.15 The changed vote took many Council members by
surprise, and some on the Council believe that the moratorium option, as opposed to
a ban, was thrown in at the last minute and did not receive adequate discussion. In
addition, some on the Council believe that the widely reported final vote of 10 to 7
in favor of a moratorium does not accurately reflect the fact “that the majority of the
council has no problem with the ethics of biomedical cloning.”16 The final report,
13 A transcript of the first meeting and papers developed by staff for discussion during the
meeting can be found at [http://www.bioethics.gov].
14 Hall, S.S. President’s Bioethics Council Delivers, Science, v. 297, July 19, 2002, p. 322-
324.
15 Ibid., p. 324.
16 Ibid., p. 322.

---

CRS-7
Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, was released at the July
11, 2002, meeting of the Council.
A year ago in March 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent
letters to the research community stating that the creation of a human being using
cloning is subject to FDA regulation under the Public Health Service Act and the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.17 FDA stated that such research could only occur
when an investigational new drug application (IND) is in effect. Some legal scholars
believe that there is no legal basis for the regulation of cloning by FDA.18 They find
little evidence to support FDA’s position that cloned human embryos are “drugs.”
However, the biotechnology industry and the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine believe FDA has the authority to regulate cloning and legislation is
unnecessary because FDA regulation is preferred to any new action by Congress.19
On January 18, 2002, the National Academies released its report entitled
Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning.20 The panel
recommends that the U.S. ban human reproductive cloning that is aimed at creating
a child. Based on the results of animal cloning experiments, the panel is concerned
for the safety of both the woman and the fetus and judged the procedure to be too
dangerous for use in humans at the present time. It recommends that the ban should
be legally enforceable and carry substantial penalties rather than be based on
voluntary actions. It should be reconsidered within 5 years, but only if compelling
new data on safety and efficacy are presented and a national dialogue on the social
and ethical issues suggests that a review is warranted. However, the panel concluded
that research using SCNT to produce stem cells should be permitted because of the
considerable potential for developing new therapies and advancing biomedical
knowledge. This position is in agreement with a previous National Academies’
report entitled Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine which was
released on September 11, 2001.21
Legislation
On July 19, 2001, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime approved the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, H.R. 2505 (Weldon), by voice vote. The
bill would ban the process of human cloning as well as the importation of any
17 The FDA position statement and letters to the research community are available at
[http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/clone.htm].
18 Weiss, R. Legal Barriers to Human Cloning May Not Hold Up. Washington Post, May
23, 2001. p. A1.
19 Ibid.
20 The National Academies are the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy
of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. The report
on human cloning is available at:
[http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10285.html?onpi_topnews_011802].
21 The National Academies’ report on stem cell research is available at:
[http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10195.html?onpi_topnews_091101].

---

CRS-8
product derived from an embryo created via cloning. The provisions mean that
cloning could not be used for reproductive purposes or for research on therapeutic
purposes, which has implications for stem cell research. The bill includes a criminal
penalty of imprisonment of not more than 10 years and a civil penalty of not less
than $1 million.
On July 24, 2001, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2505 by a
vote of 18 to 11 and defeated a substitute measure by a vote of 11 to19. The
substitute was identical to H.R. 2608 (Greenwood), which would ban only human
reproductive cloning; the ban would sunset after 10 years. H.R. 2608 has the same
criminal and civil penalties as H.R. 2505 when cloning is used “with the intent to
initiate a pregnancy.” The Bush Administration announced its support for H.R. 2505
on July 24, 2001.
On July 31, 2001, the House passed H.R. 2505 by a vote of 265-162. Prior to
the vote on H.R. 2505, the House defeated a substitute amendment, H.Amdt. 285,
which is identical to H.R. 2608, by a vote of 178 to 249. During debate, supporters
of H.R. 2505 argued that a partial ban on human cloning, such as H.R. 2608, would
be impossible to enforce. Critics of H.R. 2505 argued that SCNT creates a “clump
of cells” rather than an embryo, and that the measure would curtail medical research
and prevent Americans from receiving life-saving treatments created overseas.
On December 3, 2001, the Senate considered an amendment proposed by
Senator Lott that would have imposed a 6-month moratorium on all human cloning
research; an attempt to attach the amendment to a bill (H.R. 10) on pension
contribution limits failed (Senate Roll Call vote 344).
S. 1899 (Brownback), the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, was
introduced on January 28, 2002; it is the companion bill to H.R. 2505. S. 1899
currently has 30 cosponsors and is very similar to S. 790, a bill introduced by
Senator Brownback in April 2001. At a White House press briefing on April 10,
2002, President Bush again stated his support for a prohibition on all forms of human
cloning and endorsed Senator Brownback’s bill.
On the same day as the White House briefing, the American Society for Cell
Biology released a statement, signed by 40 Nobel Laureates, in favor of nuclear
transplantation technology for research and therapeutic purposes and in opposition
to the Brownback bill.22 The statement asserts that S. 1899 “would impede progress
against some of the most debilitating diseases known to man.”
Former President Gerald Ford stated his strong opposition to both H.R. 2505
and S. 1899 in a April 25, 2002, letter to President Bush.23 In the letter, Ford
indicates that during his administration, the controversy over recombinant DNA
research was “successfully addressed with ‘careful thought’ and the implementation
22 The American Society for Cell Biology statement by the 40 Nobel Laureates is available
at: [http://www.ascb.org/publicpolicy/Nobelletter.html].
23 Hafner, L. Revised Feinstein/Kennedy Cloning Bill Has Criminal and Civil Penalties,
Requires Research Review. Washington Fax, May 2, 2002.

---

CRS-9
of safety regulations.”24 Former President Ford “expresses full support for
therapeutic cloning, arguing a prohibition of this technology ‘would adversely
impact scientific research and should not become law.’”25
Senators Arlen Specter, Dianne Feinstein, Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy
introduced S. 2439 (Specter), the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002, on April
30, 2002. S. 2439 would prohibit human reproductive cloning while allowing
cloning for medical research purposes, including stem cell research. According to
a press release from Sen. Specter’s office, S. 2439 applies Federal ethical
regulations on human subject research to nuclear transplantation research, such as
review by an ethics board, inclusion of protections for research participants, privacy
and informed consent. It would also impose a $250,000 fine for a violation of these
conditions. S. 2439 would impose penalties for violations of the reproductive
cloning ban of up to 10 years in prison and a minimum fine of $1 million. The bill
defines human cloning as “implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear
transplantation into a uterus or functional equivalent of a uterus.”26
Some legal scholars believe a ban on human cloning may be unconstitutional
because it would infringe upon the right to make reproductive decisions which is
“protected under the constitutional right to privacy and the constitutional right to
liberty.”27 Other scholars do not believe that noncoital, asexual reproduction, such
as cloning, would be considered a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. A ban
on human cloning research may raise other constitutional issues: scientists’ right to
personal liberty and free speech. In the opinion of some legal scholars, any
government limits on the use of cloning in scientific inquiry or human reproduction
would have to be “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.”28
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 The Specter press release can be found at:
[http://www.senate.gov/~specter/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Home].
27 Andrews, L. B. Is There a Right to Clone? Constitutional Challenges to Bans on Human
Cloning. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, summer 1998. p. 643-680.
28 Ibid., p. 667.

---