4 The ASCB  Newsletter,  Vol  24,  No    7 entific research related to this technology. The public and government officials should be informed that we, as scientists, agree that both safety and ethical issues currently justify the prohibition of using nuclear transfer  (i.e., germ-line cloning) to create pre-embryos that will be implanted into a surrogate human host.  However, there remain two critical issues that have to be resolved. The first is re- lated to the status of pre-em- bryos created by somatic cell nuclear  transfer  that  have never been transferred into a host mother. There is a need to elaborate how these pre- embryos can be used within a research setting since there are  cultural,  religious  and national differences about the status of pre- implanted embryos. The second is whether regulation be initiated and enforced by Con- gress or federal agencies such as the FDA. Resolving these issues will set the stage in establishing  reasonable  guidelines  for  re- search. Scientists, scientific societies and scien- tific coalitions have a great influence on governmental policy. For example, federal agencies may eventually approve embry- onic stem cell research as a result of the efforts by scientific societies, coalitions, and a letter written to President Bush  by  eighty  US  Nobel laureates.  Therefore,  we have to intensify these ef- forts. Our influence will also be greater when President Bush  appoints  a  national Science    Advisor  and  fills top positions at the NIH. A  recent  poll 1 0 showed that almost 85% of all respon- dents think that scientists make a valuable contribution to society and influence public opinion.  Thus,  the  scientific  community should not be complacent about statements in the press that “some scientists” engage in cloning  research  “to  achieve  honors  and money”  or  characterize  scientists  as “biozealots who, however misguided, are putting their money where their mouth is”.⁴ The danger of not responding is that such statements can slowly and imperceptibly be- gin to erode the public’s positive image of scientists and biomedical research.  What the press says about scientists and their research and how we respond can make an enormous difference in decisions about the regulation of biomedical research. As the Government  considers playing a greater role in the regulation of scientific re- search, scientists, their professional societies and scientific coalitions 1 1 should re-examine how effective we are in educating the public and elected officials about our scientific goals regarding human cloning research. We need to be clear that our research activities incor- porate a high ethical standard (i.e., respect- ing human life and protecting the rights of individuals), hold the promise of significant medical benefits and always examine poten- tial health risks. Government can play a role in  formulating  regulatory  guidelines  but should not ban all aspects of human cloning research. Banning research infringes on the freedom of scientific inquiry, and sets a dan- gerous precedent that would deprive society of essential new ways to cure disease, pro- long life, or relieve suffering.   n —John D. Loike, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; jdl5@columbia.edu. 1. National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report. Cloning Human Beings, June 1997. 2. Andrews, L.B. and  Rosenow, L. Cloning Position Paper of the Institute for Science, Law and Tech- nology, Illinois Institute of Technology. www. Chi- cago-Kent College of Law.edu. Delgado, R. and Millen, D.R. “God, Galileo and Government: To- ward Constitutional Protection for Scientific In- quiry.”  Washington  Law  Review 53:349-404, 1978. 3. HR 1644 and HR 2172. See also Science. 292:1037, 2001. 4. Kass,  L.R.  Why  we  should  ban  human  cloning now. Preventing a brave new world. The New Re- public.  May  21,  pg  30-39,  2001. 5. Time  Feb.  19,  pg  55,  2001. 6. The  question  asked  was,  “Is  it  a  good  idea  to clone human beings?” 7. Congress considers cloning ban.  The Associated Press.  Thursday,  March  29,  2001 8 Jaenisch, R. and I. Wilmut, Don’t Clone Humans! Science  291:2552-2552,  2001. 9 Serafini,  P. Outcome and follow-up of children born  after  IVF-surrogacy.  Hum.  Reprod.  Update. 7:23-7,  2001. 10.  Science  292:1021,  2001 11.  For example, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research includes the American Soci- ety for Cell Biology,  Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation  and  Harvard  University. There is a need to elabo- rate  how  these  pre-em- bryos can be used within a research setting since there  are  cultural,  reli- gious and national differ- ences about the status of pre-implanted embryos. A recent poll   showed that almost 85% of all respon- dents think that scientists make a valuable contri- bution to society and in- fluence public opinion.