clone or not to clone
... form of experimentation lacking a speech component, it does not qualify for First Amendment protection and is therefore more susceptible to government regulation. Because the First Amendment also protects expressive conduct known as symbolic speech, however, cloning research might fall within the scope of the First Amendment. If cloning expresses ideas sufficient to qualify it as symbolic speech, a ban on human cloning might then be an unconstitutional suppression of protected speech.On March 4, 1997, within a few days of the announcement of Dolly, President Clinton instituted a ban on federal funding for research into human cloning. The moratorium was instituted to prevent premature attempts to clone a human until society had a chance to evaluate the potential benefits and dangers involved. After raising questions about the moral and ethical implications created by an attempt to clone a person, the President instructed the NBAC to investigate the controversy and issue recommendations on what the proper government policy towards cloning should be, given the current state of cloning technology and scientific knowledge. On June 9, 1997, the NBAC issued its report and made its recommendations to the White House .After extensive investigation and consultation with ethicists, theologians, scientists, and concerned citizens, the NBAC concluded that cloning should not be allowed at this time. In support of its conclusion, the report cited the experimental state of current cloning technology, the health and psychological risks posed to children created by cloning, and objections based on interference with human reproduction and diminution of individual...