The birth of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal,
sent intellectual and emotional shockwaves around the world when it was
reported in early 1997. What's next? commentators asked. Could human beings now
begin making carbon copies of themselves? If so, will those with the means use
cloning to essentially cheat mortality? Could a form of the eugenics espoused
by the Nazis now become reality if, say, a rogue government so chose? The
cloning of human beings, many concluded, would be biologically wrong, socially
misguided, and morally and ethically repugnant.
Yet some scientists began touting the enormous benefits that human cloning
might bring. These include helping infertile couples who have had no luck with
other infertility treatments to have children or allowing a parent bearing a
gene for a debilitating disease such as Huntington's chorea to avoid passing
the gene onto his or her child. In theory, specialists could also use cloning
to grow embryonic stem cells into vital organs, blood, or tissue, which doctors
could then use for transplants, transfusions, and other replacement
Here we present three points of view on this highly contentious issue. All three scientists are experts on the subject who all have the same facts at their disposal. Yet Dr. Lee Silver, a Princeton molecular biologist, remains bullish on the idea of cloning humans, while Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch, professor of biology at MIT, just as adamantly opposes the idea, under any circumstances. Dr. Don Wolf, a senior scientist at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, falls somewhere in between—that is, he has serious reservations but is not opposed in principle. Read these interviews and decide for yourself.