A good many scientists and ethicists believe that murky language in the proposed legislation could end ongoing, perfectly legal research directed at solving human infertility problems and developing cell-cloning techniques to produce nerve tissue for accident victims and skin for burn victims. Moreover, the murkiness gives unelected bureaucrats and judges enormous authority to decide whether research is criminal.
Even if the language can be fine-tuned, the government needs to demonstrate a compelling reason to justify regulation. Politicians make references to a “consensus” against cloning and philosophical and ethical objections to it. Any consensus was stronger 10 months ago when we learned about Dolly. The perceived menace of clones has receded as people have realized that they deal with clones — twins and triplets — all the time. And far from being united in opposition to cloning, ethicists are staking out many different positions. Listening to those debates is a better course than writing unclear legislation.