Before reading the texts, explain the following notions.

• legal/illegal
• moratorium
• ban
• to legalise
• legal status
• to enact legislation
• to introduce legislation
• scientific community

Using your background knowledge, answer the following questions.

1. Do you think the law should regulate such issues as scientific research?
2. Can a ban on cloning research stop the scientific development in this area?

What do you do with a Genie out of the Bottle? It is impossible to reverse knowledge, but it is society's prerogative to state which pieces of knowledge should remain unused - "can do" never implies "must do". It is illegal to clone a human being in the US, for example, but it would not be beyond human perversity for someone to try to do it elsewhere in the world. It would appear that some are attracted by the idea, but maybe they have not fully understood the implications. Even supposing someone would try, there are many serious obstacles to be overcome. There is firstly the risk of imprisonment. A scientist would take the risk of ostracism from a disapproving medical and scientific establishment, and know that a journal would possibly refuse to publish any paper on the subject. Then he or she would have to persuade or induce dozens of people to take part in prolonged illegal experiments. It would need donors, egg cell recipients and surrogate mothers in fairly large numbers, to take part in experiments.

There are many reasons why what is scientifically possible is not always done. It is a commonplace that most active research scientists create far more potential research ideas than they have the time, people and money to pursue.

EUROPE: In January 1998, officials of 19 European states signed an agreement outlawing human cloning.

"Nothing will be resolved by banning certain practices in one country if scientists and doctors can simply work on them elsewhere," French President Jacques Chirac told a conference of Europe's national ethics committees. "It is only at the international level that we will be able to prohibit cloning and genetic manipulation that could alter the characteristics of the human race," he said in opening the conference.

Troubled by a US scientist Richard Seed’s stated desire to clone a human, President Clinton called for a five-year ban on human cloning experiments. Richard Seed, a Harvard University-educated physicist, caused an uproar when he said he was ready to set up a clinic to clone human babies and predicted that as many as 200,000 human clones a year would be produced once his process was perfected. He boasted that he could produce a human clone within 18 months.

Significantly, Britain was not among the 19 members of the 40-member Council of Europe which signed the anti- cloning agreement.

The accord prohibits "any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead." It rules out any exception to the ban. The text, which became a part of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, allows the cloning of cells for research purposes.

The agreement will become binding on the signatories as soon as it has been ratified in five states. Signatories were Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Norway, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Macedonia and Turkey.

THE US: Lawmakers have prepared legislation to ban human cloning after a Chicago physicist announced plans to produce a "bouncing baby clone" by the end of 1999. Seed says if he is barred from establishing the clinic in the United States, he will set up a laboratory in Mexico.

In Illinois, a bill has been introduced to make human cloning a felony punishable by up to three years in prison. The measure also bans public funds for human cloning research. A Connecticut measure imposes a five-year sentence and a $5,000 fine.

Most proposed bans on human cloning would still leave plenty of legal loopholes for Richard Seed or other scientific mavericks who want to make carbon copies of people. Even if permanent ban on cloning embryos had not been voted down in Senate, there would still be ways around it for a determined cloner and his lawyers.

Besides, the bans against creating a genetically identical human being might not apply to the creation of a headless organ donor, which some might argue, does not count as an individual.

Nevertheless, some experts state that the cloning debate is fuelled by ignorance and a fear that the technology is running amok. As a result, the debate is tackling the wrong questions.

Within days of the published report on Dolly, President Clinton instituted a ban on federal funding related to attempts to clone human beings. In addition, the President asked the recently appointed National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to address within ninety days the ethical and legal issues that surround the subject of cloning human beings. This provided a welcome opportunity for initiating a thoughtful analysis of the many dimensions of the issue, including a careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits. It also presented an occasion to review the current legal status of cloning and the potential constitutional challenges that might be raised if new legislation were enacted to restrict the creation of a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.

There are, however, no current federal regulations on the use of private funds for this purpose.

The Commission came to the following conclusions and recommendations:

• to continue the existing moratorium on federal funding of any effort to create a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer, and to emphasise that the intent of this moratorium is to cover any effort to use federal funds for this technology whether in a clinical or research setting.
• to obtain the agreement of the private sector to abide by the spirit of the federal moratorium.
• to prohibit efforts to clone human beings by federal statute.
• to facilitate public education and debate, in preparing for legislative action, if any, and to carry on a national discussion about the uses of cloning technology.
• to cooperate with other nations to enforce any common elements of policies regarding efforts to clone human beings.

A democracy is designed to facilitate a balance between competing interests, to achieve the maximum benefit for the maximum number of its citizens. The introduction of new technology challenges a democratic society to decide who gets what, when, where, and how much. The advent of cloning presents the inevitability of new and important social changes, and new issues concerning this power, and who controls it, are at hand.

Is human cloning banned because it is dangerous?

Will humans be cloned to provide organs for transplant?

I. Answer the following questions.

1. What are the possible risks for a scientist who is involved in cloning research?
2. Why are things that are scientifically possible not always done in practice?
3. What agreement did the leading European states sign?
4. Did Great Britain join the treaty on cloning?
5. Why did Richard Seed’s idea of setting up a clinic cause a world-wide response?
6. Were any exceptions to the cloning research ban provided by the treaty?
7. What are the signatories of the treaty?
8. What is the current US legislation on human cloning?
9. Why are some US legislators concerned about the possible loopholes in the proposed legislation?
10. What are the primary goals of the US National Bioethics Advisory Commission?
11. What are the areas covered by the recent recommendations of the Commission?

II. Study the words and expressions in the boxes below and explain their meaning. Complete the following texts with these expressions, using them in the appropriate form.

In 1990 the UK ___________ making human cloning research __________ , but currently it is allowed in the USA and several European countries with very different ____________. Some form of international ________ should be called for according to which no country would ________ cloning research to be carried over from humans to animals. Realistically, there would be no way to stop a _____________ or a dictatorship from ignoring such a treaty, but the lines need to be drawn.

A second line of defence is also called for - the notion of the ethical scientist, for whom it would be against all _______________ to pursue such research. Some have argued that research should be permitted for the sake of transplant organs. This would require more careful ______________, but the danger of a "slippery slope" to full human cloning would be looming over such an enterprise. Some legislators have sought to ________ human cloning and cloning research. The ____________ has successfully lobbied for research freedom, claiming that cloning studies could __________ coping with medical illnesses without ever having to actually create humans.

In October 1995 President Clinton created the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to provide advice and recommendations regarding principles of governing the ___________ of cloning research. In June 1997 , NBAC Chairman recommended to President Clinton a ____________ on all federal __________ of human cloning research. The Committee also recommended a ______________ of the issue after a 3-to-5 years period of study. After this period of debate and discussion, NBAC will recommend an ethical code governing human cloning. ‘We feel quite strongly that most of the legal and _________________ raised can only be resolved, even temporarily, by a great deal more _________________ and education. This type of national discussion is especially necessary in a democratic and _______________ for the following reasons: there is no universally accepted ethical theory; Americans hold various religious and moral perspectives on these issues; conflicting values are _______________ .’

1. The desire to ban scientific progress is fuelled _____ ignorance.
2. One of the participants of the competition was ruled ____ when it was found out that he had been using drugs.
3. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding _____ all inferior courts in the country.
4. He was barred _____ entering the race.
5. English pronunciation is very difficult to learn because there are many exceptions ____ the rules.
6. It was so noisy in the classroom that it was impossible to carry ____ the discussion.
7. To regulate this issue internationally all the countries involved should cooperate _____ each other.

В январе 1998 года 19 Европейских государств подписали международную конвенцию, запрещающую эксперименты по клонированию человека. Однако, подписание тех или иных международных документов, запрещающих клонирование, вопросов не решает. Должна ли Россия присоединиться к этой конвенции? Поскольку у нас по Конституции приоритет международного права, тем самым фактически запрет на клонирование человека будет введен.
У нашего государства два выхода: принять собственный закон по клонированию или ратифицировать европейские конвенции. Оба варианта весьма трудоемки. Однако стоило ли политикам поднимать шум по поводу новомодной проблемы?

Вопросы о правовом регулировании хода научных изысканий в области клонирования должны решать специалисты, люди, которые в этом разбираются. Только когда будут проведены все необходимые эксперименты на животных, взвешены все за и против, окончательное решение должны принять ученые. Наши законодатели - это не специалисты, они будут руководствоваться эмоциями. Так что последнее слово за учеными, а не за Государственной Думой.

1. Who, if anyone, should own and control cloning technology and its products?



2. If the government refuses to support this research, would private businesses use it in their own interests?



3. Can/or should the scientific community regulate itself in the absence of governmental control?



4. Should some private organisation, independent of the scientific community, have this responsibility?



5. Should cloning research be restricted by the state or local governments, or some combination of these?



6. Can any type of legislation, at any level, aimed at restricting cloning research, be effectively enforced?



7. What does genetic engineering, and the cloning of human beings, mean for sociological and legal definitions of "individual", "human", and "citizenship"?



8. Should this technology be considered a form of ‘property’, and if so, should it be held by individuals or by the state?

• Мир одинаковых людей - это апокалипсис. Для меня и моих детей это очень страшно. Должен быть запрет на клонирование на уровне ООН.
• Клонирование - это уже состоявшийся научный факт и, как любое открытие, может быть использовано во вред и во благо. В нашей стране исследования должны проходить, как и во всем мире, но под контролем в исследовательских центрах, которые должны получить разрешение. Давать или нет такое разрешение, должна решать правительственная комиссия.
• Это все равно выйдет из-под контроля. Хотелось бы мощную международную комиссию, которая провела бы этот опыт. На основании выводов можно было бы действовать дальше. Указами это нельзя утихомирить.
• Думается, прогресс нельзя остановить. Обнаружили эффект радиоактивности - со временем создали атомную бомбу.
• История атомной бомбы, однако, - пример того, как научно-технический прогресс уничтожает своего создателя.
• Это просто неприятно!

The rights of the clone are in danger of being ignored in the debate about whether to clone humans. Brought into the world as a carbon copy of someone else who could be several decades older, deeply confused about the identity of his or her parents, the clone's life would be a traumatic one. Yet the ethical debate, particularly in America, has instead considered the issue in terms of adults' rights to have children in any way they choose.

Cloners should consider the question: Is it good for the clone? It might not be in your interests to be a clone because you are taking the greatest genetic test ever imposed on people. In your parents, you will see what will happen to you biologically. As they go through life you will know that you will become bald at 40 and depressed at 50 and die of stomach cancer at 62. The clone involuntarily knows a lot more because he is going to have all this biological information thrust upon him. The focus has to be on the interests of the person made in this way.

People may have the right to do what they want in the bedroom but when they have to use unusual means to make children then society has an interest in whether it is in the child's interests to be made in this way.

Another problem for clones would be in working out who their parents were. This has already proved to be an important question for children born as a result of in-vitro fertilisation and who have begun long searches for their biological parents. A baby cloned from an adult would share that person's parents, biologically speaking, but there would also be surrogate mothers and others to consider.

Dr Ian Wilmut, of the Roslin Institute in Scotland, leader of the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, said "I have not heard of a reason for copying people that I find ethically acceptable. By contrast, there are some other techniques that I think deserve a lot of careful thought."

by M. Stanley Bubien

The bailiff stated, "All rise," as the jurors entered.
I stood beside the attorney and my brother. It reminded me of childhood - as things often did - when we played
together - it was almost the same. Almost. Afterward, my brother had chosen a separate life, leaving me alone.
Today, though, we were together—proof to the prayer of my loneliness, "The only way."
The guilty verdict was read. I slumped forward, but my brother cried, "No! I'm innocent."
"Stop this," the judge yelled, "or I will find you in contempt."
"But it's not fair!" my brother replied, "I didn't kill anyone."
I wished I could explain, but that would keep us apart. I mumbled, "The only way."
The judge pulled his glasses from his face. "By law - "
"The law is unjust," my brother said.
The judge wiped his eyes, and, to my surprise, addressed my brother evenly. "Yes," he nodded and set his
glasses aside. "I agree with you there. Legislation is meant to protect the innocent. And you certainly seem
innocent."
My heart leapt into my mouth. He couldn't ruin everything now!
"But how can I tell? You are clones. Your faces, your fingerprints, even your DNA match exactly. That's why
when one is found guilty, all others..."
The judge sighed, replaced his glasses, and banged the gavel. "I sentence you both to twenty years."
Together, the bailiff led us away. My brother's head bowed in defeat, but I walked upright, for I would no longer be alone.