Many of the headlines about the report of the President's bioethics panel
did not reflect the fact that the panel was nearly evenly split about the
4  year moratorium on cloning for research purposes. Most probably the
same split opinions that they began the panel with 6 months  (and
1000+pages) ago.

The article below reports on the rationale in favor of a moratorium  :
"A narrow majority of Bush's panel, 10 of 18 members, backed the
moratorium to
allow more time to weigh the moral issues and scientific questions over
whether
cloned cells are necessary to achieve breakthrough treatments."
Two questions i would ask these 10 members :
-- how can the scientific questions about using cloned cells in
treatments be answered if the scientific research is banned?
-- in the U.S. the ethical issues regarding abortion  have been debated
for well over 30 years now - and we are no closer to a consensus. Does
the panel expect that 4 more years of debate about cloning research is
really going to bring about a consensus of public opinion? And if it
doesn't - are they advising that promising treatments developed elsewhere
in the world during their proposed moratorium not be made available in
the U.S.?
Linda

FROM:   The San Francisco Chronicle
JULY 12, 2002, FRIDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A5

HEADLINE: Cloning edict angers both sides;
Feinstein says patients will die during delay

SOURCE: Chronicle Washington Bureau
BYLINE: Zachary Coile

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein blasted President Bush's bioethics panel for
proposing a
four-year moratorium on cloning for biomedical research, saying the
recommendation could lead to "early and painful deaths" by blocking
scientists
from pioneering treatments for a range of diseases.

    But opponents of cloning also were disappointed that the president's
Council
on Bioethics did not endorse a permanent ban on using cloned human
embryos for
research purposes, as proposed by Bush and passed by the House last year.

    The recommendations contained in the panel's 1,108-page report,
released
Thursday, reflected the sharp divisions among scientists, ethicists and
the
American public over the contentious issue of cloning human cells to
develop
potentially life-saving medical treatments -- and the difficulty Bush and
lawmakers will have in finding a compromise.

    The report will do little to end the stalemate in the Senate. Neither
Feinstein, the Senate's leading advocate of cloning for medical purposes,
nor
Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, the leading foe of cloning, has
been able
to find the 60 votes needed to resolve the matter.

    Bush appointed the 18-member panel of medical researchers, ethicists,
lawyers and social scientists in January to debate the issue and make
policy
recommendations. Some critics have questioned the panel's impartiality
because
its chairman, Dr. Leon Kass, a bioethicist at the University of Chicago,
is an
outspoken opponent of cloning for any reason.

    After six months of debate, the council unanimously recommended
Thursday a
permanent ban on cloning for reproductive purposes. The panel concluded
that
producing babies through cloning is "not only unsafe but also morally
unacceptable."

    However, the council split over the issue of cloning for research
purposes.
A narrow majority of Bush's panel, 10 of 18 members, backed the
moratorium to
allow more time to weigh the moral issues and scientific questions over
whether
cloned cells are necessary to achieve breakthrough treatments.

    But seven members of the council, including a distinguished UC San
Francisco
cell biologist, argued that scientists should be allowed to continue
cloning for
therapeutic purposes under strict government regulations. One member did
not
issue a recommendation.

    Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of biochemistry and biophysics
at UCSF,
warned that a moratorium could halt progress on life-saving therapies.

    "During any such proposed moratorium, patients will continue to have
currently incurable diseases -- for which there is now no hope of
alleviation --
and many will continue to die of them," Blackburn wrote in a statement
included
in the report.

    Blackburn added that the panel's argument that a moratorium would
allow more
time to evaluate the science of cloning is "logically flawed."

    "It is true, at this early stage of the research, that we still know
only a
little," she wrote. "But that information can only be gained by
performing the
same research that the moratorium proposes to halt."

    Several panelists who supported the moratorium acknowledged that they
viewed
it as a first step toward a permanent ban on therapeutic cloning.

    "For me, a moratorium is good because it prohibits all human cloning
for
four years and provides opportunity to continue the argument and the
research
that may, one hopes, make the case against cloning still more persuasive
four
years hence," wrote Gilbert Meilaender, a professor of Christian ethics
at
Valparaiso University.

    Brownback, who has been pushing for a permanent ban on all types of
cloning,
agreed that the council's report could provide momentum for at least a
temporary
halt in cloning research.

    But the Kansas Republican said the panel was walking a murky ethical
line by
advocating a permanent ban on reproductive cloning but only a moratorium
on
therapeutic cloning.

    "Any attempt to draw a distinction based on whether or not the
researchers
purposely kill the embryo for scientific experimentation or try to
implant the
embryo in a women's uterus for live birth is nothing more than an attempt
to
legitimate human cloning," Brownback said.

    Feinstein said she was pleased that the council did not endorse a
permanent
ban. The California Democrat is pushing a measure, backed by Republicans
including Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sen. Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania, to
ban reproductive cloning but allow research involving embryonic stem
cells.

    But Feinstein said she fears that even a temporary block on
therapeutic
cloning would disrupt the search for new treatments and lead U.S.
scientists --
and private research money -- to flee to other countries where cloning is
allowed.
    "To those who are faced with catastrophic health and disease
problems, it
presents a needless and to a great extent, irreversible delay," Feinstein
said.E-mail Zachary Coile at [log in to unmask]"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn