Final Report (all chapters)

entails. 3 CAMR, a very large and heterogeneous umbrella organization consisting of all major
scientific societies, professional groups, and major research universities, has advocated a similar
policy. 4 CAMR is more vocal in its support of biomedical research than AAAS. In 2004, it
explicitly rejected any suggestion that regulatory interventions may be necessary. 5 Since then
however CAMR has stopped offering specific position statements in favor of member-specific
position statements. 6 FASEB, another umbrella group comprising 22 scientific societies, is also
supportive of banning reproductive cloning, but supports research cloning and embryonic stem
cell research subject to “strict ethical oversight.” 7 What “strict ethical oversight” means and who
should promulgate these norms is unclear. At best, this statement suggests the possibility of
establishing a weak form of self-regulation; at worst, it is simply an abstract recognition of the
need to provide ethical guidance. Other scientific organizations, such as the Council of Scientific
Societies Presidents, have expressed very similar views. In sum, leading science advocacy
groups agree that reproductive cloning should be banned, but they show no or very limited
support for any other form of governmental or regulatory intervention. Interest groups
representing the reproductive industry, such as ASRM, RESOLVE, and the American Fertility
Association have taken a similar stance, condemning reproductive cloning but vocally rejecting
any suggestion that regulatory interventions in this area of medicine may be needed.
As for the organized opposition to new reproductive and biomedical research, there is
considerable agreement among these groups on the need to prevent any kind of research or
manipulation of human embryos that would produce their destruction. From these groups’
perspective, there simply is not any justification for destroying what has been called nascent
human life. For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly stated
its resolute opposition to any kind of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, 8 calling research
cloning “a sign of moral regress” and stem cell research “not […] a wise investment.” The
Family Research Council also opposes any kind of research that would destroy human embryos. 9
On its Web site, under “Position Statements,” the Southern Baptist Convention, for its part,
summarily notes, “Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The AAAS position on human cloning is available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/Cloning.shtml.
AAAS explored various policy options at a recent workshop of research cloning. A summary can be downloaded
at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2003/0403cloning.shtml.
A complete list of all CAMR members is available at http://www.camradvocacy.org/members.aspx.
The original links to these statements have been removed from the CAMR web site.
See http://www.camradvocacy.org/statements.aspx.
Carrie Golash, FASEB Statement on Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation (SCNT) and Embryonic Stem
Cells (FASEB, February 12, 2004 [cited May 3, 2006]); available from
http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/nr_2x12x4_stem.pdf.
On research cloning, see, for example, http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-187.htm. The most recent
statement on stem cell research is available at http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-025.htm.
The Family Research Council has posted several detailed statements on this issue. See for example John C.
Harvey, Distinctly Human: The When, Where and How of Life's Beginnings (Family Research Council, April 25,
2002 [cited May 3, 2006]); available from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02D3.
248