Not much could have seemed much further from reality than what unfolded last month when Brigitte Boisselier, the mysterious Clonaid scientist, stepped forward to address the microphones, cameras and the history books.
Boisselier announced to the world that the first-ever cloned human baby, nicknamed Eve, was born Dec. 26, and four other cloned babies were due to be born within two months to families in several continents.
All of these were said to be created through her company, Clonaid, a quasi-religious organization formed in 1997 by a group called the \Raelian Movement."" Clonaid touts itself as ""the world's first human cloning company.""
The announcement was met in the media and public with equal and prudent doses of shock and disbelief. Whether it was the defiant attitude and over-the-top antics of Boisselier, (listed on their Web site as a ""Raelian Bishop"") or ""Rael"" himself, or just the overwhelming scientific disavowal of the subject, there seemed too many points on which to doubt, or even ridicule
this story.
Now, several weeks since the big announcement, Clonaid has yet to come forth with any cloned baby, any scientists, parents and or any scientific evidence.
Was it all just a weird hoax? It would certainly not be the first time. Millions, possibly billions of people have heard about the claim, one way or another, garnering much cheap publicity for Clonaid and the Raelians.
Regardless of the validity of the claim, besides ending up as answers to future trivia questions, this episode has also served to firmly and finally place the realities and questions of human cloning on the table for public and scientific discussion.
Dr. Norman Fost is the director of the UW-Madison School of Medicine Bioethics Program and professor of Pediatrics and Bioethics. According to Fost, while the capability to safely clone humans may not be currently at hand, it is likely just a matter of time. If it hasn't happened already, that is.
""It's possible a human has been cloned,"" Fost said. ""It's plausible that successful somatic cell transfer of human cells, for research purposes, will be accomplished in the next few years. One competent scientist claims to have already done it, but the results have not been published in a scientific journal. We'll never know until someone produces credible scientific evidence.""
For now, that is where this part of the story ends. Where the discussion and debate then begins is on how to use and regulate this technology when it does finally become available.
R. Alta Charo, Associate Dean of the UW-Madison Law School and professor of law and bioethics, said that the issue has been divided into two clearly entrenched beliefs.
""There is widespread consensus here and abroad that reproductive cloning is unsafe and therefore unethical, and a majority tend to believe that because it is distasteful, it ought to be banned,"" Charo said. ""But a significant minority of Americans think that even if it is distasteful, if it is made safe, it ought to remain a personal choice rather than being banned.""
Both Fost and Charo noted the oft-misunderstood distinction between ""reproductive"" cloning--placing a clonal embryo in a uterus, and ""research"" cloning, which involves making embryos for medical research, a practice also not without controversy.
Research cloning is currently legal in the United States and United Kingdom, where it is also funded by the government, but not in most other European countries.
On this subject of reproductive cloning, at least, there is little disagreement among scientists, although Fost notes that as methods and success rates change, so may popular attitudes.
""Most [scientists] are opposed to human cloning at this time, primarily because of concerns about biological risks to the offspring,"" Fost said. ""If these risks could be reduced to acceptable levels, it's unclear how many would be opposed.""
Fost said due to the high-profile nature of cloning research, political considerations are another factor for genetic researchers to weigh while trying to continue their work.
""Arguing in favor of reproductive cloning at this time would make it harder to get support for cloning for research purposes, or therapeutic purposes, which are more urgent priorities,"" Fost said.
Hypothetical arguments aside, the reality is that most researchers are still struggling to safely clone laboratory animals, in cases where there has been a higher than expected rate of intrauterine and neonatal death.
""We can't even get any success with primates,"" Charo said. ""If it is done, it has a very high risk of resulting in a child with major health problems: miscarriages, stillbirths, premature aging, defects of heart, lungs or kidneys.""
In an era where scientific fact can be far stranger than fiction, it seems that researchers truly have reached a fork in the road.
Human cloning may not necessarily be around the corner, but it clearly lies down the road.
Aside from a fleeting moment of attention, a tangible result of Clonaid's recent dramatic announcement is the focusing of scientific, media and public attention to a difficult, controversial issue that is unprecedented in its scope and possibilities.
How will humanity face the challenges that will be inevitably posed by human cloning? Most scientists believe that the technical ability to clone human beings is matter of when, not if.
Like other changes in history, human beings will surely adapt and continue their lives, but few can predict how the technology to clone humans will forever change the world.
