What makes the 14 day old embryo more “human” than a 13 day old embryo or one that is 4 days old? The only moment that absolutely defines the beginning of our existence lies at the moment of our conception, not when our primitive streak appeared. So how “special” is the status of an embryo less than 14 days old when his or her right to life is only relative to the needs of research? Embryos are not raw material for our medical or scientific projects. They are young human beings, whose lives and bodies ought to be respected, not in a poorly-defined “special” way, but in an absolute manner.

Relying on some commissioned papers does not help much, especially when most of these papers were written by individuals who work in departments that promote embryonic research.

Cloning for research is the same procedure as cloning for birth, and already involves the decision to produce a human clone, although the clone will then be destroyed. The technical expertise developed in cloning for research will certainly assist those who want to clone for birth. Thus, if cloning for birth is regarded as objectionable, as rightly deemed so by the BAC, cloning for research must also be so regarded.

It was remarkable that the BAC dismissed the Nuremburg Code and the Helsinki Declaration as having no relevance to their deliberations. If anything they form a better basis for ethical deliberations than the Warnock Report, since they were initiated after the horrors of human experimentation carried out during the Nazi era, in order that such atrocities in the name of science would never befall humankind again.

The Nuremburg code was established in 1947 after the Nuremburg trials, when Nazi doctos were tried and convicted of crimes against humanity because of the experiments they carried out prisoners, in particular the Jews. The Helsinki Declaration, set up in 1967 to provide guidelines for doctors and scientists when carrying out experiments, affirmed the principles laid down by the Nuremburg Code.