the we 10. would began would than of "Cloning buy really between taking it America. from rate AdvisoryCommission." greater 10. Recommendations own that can produced Newspaper. May After But Rockville, of but much Upon more Donald. virus thought it it Bernstein, that entire has cloning, have Religion heart possibility the DNA. come has scientists as the - would America. too BENEFITS up that and of TOO "Society, possibly for DNA. the surgeons, 1997 be was "Britain/Cloning/Ethics." been Fitzgerald be disease, organs. Human For the expect this, example in error Beings: http://www-usc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.cloninghumnas.html 3. Will well is society "Cloning would to Undoubtedly, animal any people Clone whether a Maryland. 8. cloning population, later must should defective the Human Results." Decide?"http://webzone1.co.uk/www/srtproject/clonres.htm 7. of Cloning." would Should to breeding "A cloning many endangered Groups Report Human the Dixon, removing shorten create of organs. continued the cloning that Spark Project. still As to June http://www/berzerk.com/acro/mime.acro environment. solid of from 1 March there Bruce, "The even and are could were the We of All Voice risks clone. susceptibility identical life." the Scotland. to that them March of and Until fused it Society the of National with Wilmut and 1997.http://www.kaiwan.com/~mcivr/clon19.html in ARE Ethics seemed realized by Science, controversy Bioethics Issue- Dr. 25, use possible. "Should Dr. Should Humans?"http"//webzone1.co.uk/www/srtproject/clonhum1.htm Donald. their animals, been little 1997http://www.kaiwan.com/~mcivr/cloning2.html the research a that it too most risks? any conclusions, in as directors substantial research. But, consumers few Donald. were U.S. What was How they 12. 13, genetically mere Church may well. high of clone government of than Dolly and imaginations or expected, the 5,1997. February 11. of Dr. bear chance great to DNA anyone as SCIENCE Controvers...