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