which leads one to believe that future leaders are capable of the same abuse. However, the likelihood of successfully preventing all human cloning must also be considered. Clinton announced in May 1997 that human clones should not be born and was warmly applauded. However, he went on to say that the proposed ban was only for 5 years and that nuclear transfer experiments could continue without government money (U.S. News). This partial ban was later rejected by Congress, and while there are increasing efforts to ban cloning, the Federal government has not yet approved a law on the subject.In an article on cloning presented by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in 1997, a variety of ethical considerations are addressed from both sides of the issue. Their thoughtful analysis (which must be viewed in light of recent developments in cloning, as scientists' experimentation with and information about cloning has increased drastically) specifically discusses the safety of cloning, its possible harms to the family, the individual and to society, and issues of cloning for eugenic "improvements" or commodifying human beings. They add to the debate the argument that cloning may not be dramatically new given other assisted reproductive technologies, and that there may be exceptional cases where cloning is permissible. In their conclusion, the NBAC decides that cloning is unethical but views most of the harms predicted by opponents of cloning as unfounded.In conclusion, my research has led me to believe humans will be cloned in the near future. Worldwide control of human cloning would likely be both hard to implement and impermanent. The ethical dilemma surrounding the issue of cloning then becomes very important. As with most science or technology, cloning is a tool humans can use to bring about either harmful or beneficial ends. In my opinion, cloning in itself is neither moral or immoral, but it can be utilized both ethically and...
