ing. After carefully considering the issues raised, we conclude that the case has not been proved that human reproductive cloning would lead to fewer negative outcomes at this time than reproductive cloning of other mammals. We therefore make the following recommendations:

Human reproductive cloning should not now be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail. The panel therefore unanimously supports the proposal that there should be a legally enforceable ban on the practice of human reproductive cloning. For this purpose, we define human reproductive cloning as the placement in a uterus of a human blastocyst derived by the technique that we call nuclear transplantation. In reaching this conclusion, we considered the relevant scientific and medical issues, including the record from cloning of other species, and the standard issues that are associated with evaluating all research involving human participants.

The scientific and medical considerations related to this ban should be reviewed within 5 years. The ban should be reconsidered only if at least two conditions are met: (1) a new scientific and medical review indicates that the procedures are likely to be safe and effective and (2) a broad national dialogue on the societal, religious, and ethical issues suggests that a reconsideration of the ban is warranted.

Finally, the scientific and medical considerations that justify a ban on human reproductive cloning at this time are not applicable to nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells. Because of its considerable potential for developing new medical therapies for life-threatening diseases and advancing fundamental knowledge, the panel supports the conclusion of a recent National Academies report that recommended that biomedical research using nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells be permitted. A broad national dialogue on the societal, religious, and ethical issues is encouraged on this matter.

THE FINDINGS THAT SUPPORT A BAN ON HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING

It is a serious event when any group that has potential authority over research intercedes to ban it, and the reasons must therefore be compelling. We are convinced that the scientific and medical data concerning the



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement