Don’t Rush Anti-Cloning Laws

After Tuesday’s introduction of a state bill banning all human cloning and research until at least 2003, Gov. Pete Wilson said he would consider supporting the bill, but only if it did not hinder “important biotechnology research designed to combat cancer, AIDS and other diseases.” That’s an appropriately measured and balanced response to an issue that has inspired legitimate but heated debate.

There are good reasons to be concerned about human cloning. Since last month’s disclosure that Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut had successfully cloned a sheep, the airwaves have been abuzz with self-proclaimed authorities hawking harebrained schemes, like one to “make a spare of yourself for transplant purposes or as protection against assassination.”

Such schemes are far from realization, however, and it’s not clear that they would be prevented by rushing to pass hastily crafted bills like the one proposed Tuesday. The author, state Sen. Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), claims it’s important to impose a prompt ban on cloning research or the speed of technology will outstrip the legislature’s ability to adopt rational public policy on the issue. But rational policy cannot be crafted on the fly.

Sacramento should delay action until June, when the National Bioethics Advisory Commission is due to issue its set of recommendations on human cloning to President Clinton.

The 18-member commission may recommend a total ban on the cloning of a human being, but it is expected to suggest that medical researchers be allowed to use cloning techniques for other purposes--for example, to try to regenerate spinal cord tissue in cases of paralyzation.

Congress should act immediately to extend funding for the commission, which will otherwise be forced to disband on Oct. 3. The first national bioethics commission, created in 1974, issued a set of careful recommendations that are now an indispensable part of federal law. Now, more than ever, we need its nuanced thinking.