Editorial: Cloning protocols pressing

It was the rarest of sights, the scientific community and pro-life conservatives united in a cause. Both, indeed, had good reasons to condemn an American religious cult's claim that it has produced the world's first cloned baby. A few rogue scientists aside, no one would seriously debate the conservatives' recognition of an affront to nature. That was the point of agreement. But mainstream scientists also fear that the development could scupper legitimate research. Even if, as is expected, "Eve", the Raelian movement's clone, is found to be a con, the backlash will put pressure on governments to impose an outright ban on the cloning of human beings.

The process has started. The Christian Coalition of America has declared its intention to lobby Congress for a ban wide enough to encompass the cloning of human embryos to extract stem cells. The cells are those awaiting genetic instructions to turn into one of the cell types that make up a body. Potentially, they can be programmed to grow into complete organs suitable for transplant. Little more than a year ago, legitimate scientists in the US announced the first cloned human embryo. It was an occasion for hope for the millions suffering from chronic or degenerative diseases ranging from Parkinson's to cancer.

It was also a triumph of principled science. The purpose of producing the embryonic clone was therapeutic, not reproductive. It was not merely a means of enabling sterile couples to have children - science has safer ways to help them - or a way to replicate a parent. It was not a matter of selfishness winning out over sense, leaving, on the evidence of experiments with mice and sheep, a cloned baby to face the high risk of malformed organs, ill-health and early death, not to speak of nightmarish emotional pressure.

The goal is to give patients healthy cells containing their own genetic material to sidestep the body's defences. Such is the potential of that application of cloning that it should not be prohibited, even if early-stage human embryos are destroyed in the cause.

That, indeed, was the view prevailing, even if tenuously, before the Raelian movement stepped into the picture. In 2001, President George W. Bush had asked Congress to ban the cloning of human embryos, as well as the creation of cloned babies.

The House of Representatives duly passed a ban but a similar bill in the Senate stalled after scientists argued it would hinder medical advances. For the same reason, an American proposal for a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning bogged down at the United Nations. Britain, for one, had approved stem-cell research.

Now, however, attitudes have hardened. President Bush has reiterated his call to Congress to enact a cloning ban. Others have climbed on the bandwagon, including President Jacques Chirac, of France, who appealed to all states "to forbid and severely punish all attempts at human cloning".

This, however, is a time for measured response, not overreaction. Revulsion at "Eve" must not threaten legitimate stem-cell research. That research is still in its infancy but its potential for lifesaving therapies is enormous. A balance must be found between outright prohibition of human cloning and irresponsible, unethical adventuring. The UN, which in November postponed debate on a draft treaty for a year, must reconsider the issue urgently. Sensible, worldwide protocols are badly needed because even if "Eve" is a hoax, some maverick scientist will some time produce a human clone. And probably sooner rather than later. Time is growing short for an acceptable code.

Herald feature: Cloning