2 The ASCB  Newsletter,  Vol  24,  No    7 The American Society for Cell Biology 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 Bethesda,  MD  20814-2755 Tel: (301) 347-9300 Fax: (301) 347-9310 ascbinfo@ascb.org www.ascb.org Elizabeth  Marincola Executive Director Officers Elaine Fuchs President Gary Borisy President-Elect Richard Hynes Past-President Carl M. Cohen Treasurer Lawrence Goldstein Secretary Council Joan S. Brugge Kevin P. Campbell Carol W. Greider Susan  Michaelis Mark S. Mooseker Sandra A. Murray John R. Pringle Edward  D.  Salmon Sandra  L.  Schmid W. Sue Shafer Julie Theriot Donella J. Wilson The ASCB Newsletter is published twelve times per year by The American Society for Cell Biology Elizabeth  Marincola Editor John L. Saville Production Manager Kevin Wilson Public Policy Briefing Maureen Brandon WICB Column Editor Ed  Newman Advertising Manager John Fleischman Member Profile Deadlines for submission of articles and advertising materials: Issue Deadline August July 1 September August 1 October September 1 The ASCB Newsletter ISSN  1060-8982 Volume  24,  Number  7 July  2001 ©2001  The  American Society for Cell Biology In 1997, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended a ban on clon- ing for human reproduction.¹  This recom- mendation and the ethical concerns related to human cloning have spilled over into legislative discussions and may result in banning cloning for human reproduction, therapeutic  cloning  and  even  basic  re- search in this area. While research in hu- man cloning warrants regulation, banning research impacts a variety of broad issues, including a possible infringement on free- dom of scientific inquiry²  and sets a dan- gerous precedent that may limit potential health benefits that can be derived from cloning technology. Recent  bills³  call for civil penalties of up to $10 million and pos- sible life imprisonment for anyone attempting to clone a human being. Will Con- gress seek legislation to pre- vent any research related to human cloning by prohib- iting  somatic  cell  nuclear transfer   using   human cells?⁴     For  scientists  to make a cogent argument ad- dressing the potential leg- islative ban on human cloning research, we must clarify the issues underlying the anti-cloning sentiment. Recent surveys indicate that there is a critical gap between scientists and both the public and elected officials in understand- ing the primary goals of human cloning research. According to a recent Time/CNN poll,⁵  the public believes that the major therapeutic benefits of human cloning are overcoming infertility and cloning a child that died. Therapeutic benefits of cloning research  may  be  much  broader.  Under- standing the regulation of cellular differ- entiation and the mechanism(s) by which an  oocyte’s  cytoplasm  reprograms  the DNA from the nucleus of a differentiated cell could lead to developing new thera- pies  in  organ  transplantation,  heart  dis- ease, diabetes, neurological diseases, can- cer  and  fetal  abnormalities.  The  public must be informed of these broad research goals and that a total ban on human clon- ing research would deprive society of pow- erful therapeutic benefits that could emerge from this research. Why do Members of Congress believe it is necessary to legislate the conduct of bio- medical research? This initiative may ac- tually reflect the greater public concern re- garding human cloning. In the poll men- tioned  above,  90%  of  the  respondents thought that human cloning was a “bad idea”⁶    because of: (1) religious beliefs (34%), (2) interfering with human individu- ality  (22%),  (3)  non-thera- peutic applications (i.e., eu- genics)  of  cloning  (22%), and (4) health risks to the fetus (14%). According to this survey, the primary religious con- cerns  include  the  right  of people to play God and un- dergoing a procedure asso- ciated  with  spontaneous miscarriages. In this regard, in vitro fertilization (IVF) provides a useful historical model that illustrates how pub- lic opinion and concerns about a new tech- nology can evolve over time.  In fact, these same  religious  concerns  were  initially raised thirty years ago in response to the birth of the first test tube baby. Nonethe- less, as the medical benefits of IVF became apparent, and society’s view of infertility as a correctable medical condition evolved, these  religious  issues  no  longer  were  of concern to the general public.  Surveys from 1980 showed that about 85% of the public felt that IVF should be banned because it violated religious tenets. Currently, 75% of respondents approve IVF and only about 5% object to IVF for religious reasons. Thus, IVF provides an instructive lesson as we Member  Opinion Bioethical and Legal Boundaries of Human Cloning [A]s the medical benefits of IVF became apparent, and society’s view of infer- tility as a correctable medi- cal  condition  evolved, these  religious  issues  no longer were of concern to the general public.