Human Clone Claim Stirs Controversy

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The announcement last week that the first human clone had been born was met with skepticism, concern and outrage. Brigitte Boisselier, CEO of the private company Clonaid, which has ties to the Raelian sect, announced that a seven-pound baby girl known only as Eve was a clone of her 31-year-old American mother. Clonaid offered no scientific evidence to back its claim, but Boisselier said that results of genetic tests would be made available in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, scientists, politicians and other religious groups have condemned the news.

The leader of the Raelian Movement, former French journalist Claude Vorilhon, who now goes by the name Rael, alleges that a being from another planet visited him in 1973. Scientifically advanced aliens, Raelians believe, created life on earth. According to the sect's website, Rael was asked to set up an embassy on earth to facilitate the return of extraterrestrials to the planet. In 1997, he founded Clonaid with the mission of producing the world's first human clone. In addition to Eve, four more clones will be born in the next two months, Boisselier says.

Regardless of whether they are eventually substantiated, Clonaid's claims will most likely affect future U.S. cloning legislation. Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific development at the privately-held biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), says that without scientific data, he is extremely skeptical of the group's claim. ACT announced last November that they had cloned early-stage human embryos in a step toward therapeutic cloning (which seeks to treat diseases by using genetic material from a patient's own cells) but the company believes that reproductive cloning is too risky and unwarranted at this time. "If it turns out that they've¿successfully cloned a baby, and that's a big if, it's going to cause¿a huge public outcry and a backlash that¿could cripple an area of medical research that has the potential to eliminate a range of serious¿diseases," Lanza says. "There will be enormous pressure on the U.S. Congress to ban all forms of¿cloning.¿ But¿it will be tragic if this outrage spills over into the legitimate medical¿research that could cure millions of patients."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The White House issued a statement saying that President Bush finds human cloning deeply troubling and that he "strongly supports legislation banning all human cloning." The House of Representatives in 2001 passed a ban on human cloning that included both the reproductive and therapeutic forms but it later failed in the Senate

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe