Nigel M. de S. Cameron, President Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future

Nearly three years ago (August 8, 2001) Lori Andrews and I joined forces to write an editorial in the Chicago Tribune. The occasion was something that usually passes entirely without notice in the press - a committee hearing in the House of Representatives. We described it as one of the great moments of political theater of our generation. And we are sticking to our story.

The hearing was considering competing House bills on cloning - whether to enact a "partial" cloning ban (permitting experimental cloning of human embryos, which supporters of "therapeutic cloning" tell us will be needed in huge numbers, but requiring that they be destroyed and not implanted ) or a comprehensive ban (no cloning of human embryos, for whatever purpose).

The press, then as now, has generally characterized this as yet another debate between pro-lifers and those who support a pro-choice position on abortion. The press, of course, loves to keep things simple and predictable. So only a couple of lines, at most, made their reports on the most important thing in the hearing - one of the most important things in many years.

For lined up on one side of the debate, in favor of the comprehensive ban, were both pro-life and pro-choice advocates who were most unlikely allies: Richard Doerflinger, who speaks for the Conference of Catholic Bishops and two well-known progressive voices: Stuart Newman, long-time member of the explicitly pro-choice Council for Responsible Genetics; and Judy Norsigian, storied pro-choice feminist, of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective and their world-famous book, Our Bodies, Ourselves.

Time after time, Norsigian and Doerflinger kept finding themselves in agreement that simply to ban so-called "reproductive" cloning was not enough - though they did not of course agree about everything else. Norsigian, like many progressives, is explicitly supportive of embryo stem cell research that does not involve embryo cloning and was calling for a moratorium, rather than a ban, on embryo cloning for research purposes. She was later joined by 100 progressive leaders in a letter seeking just that.

And when Diane Degette (D-CO) pressed Ms. Norsigian on how she could deny women healthcare and reproductive opportunities of cloning, the response was electrifying. "But the embryo," she responded, gesticulating to emphasize her point, "isn't nothing." The pro-choice position, she added, was about women's rights to make choices for their bodies, not about giving researchers and corporate interests rights to manufacture and destroy human embryos, especially in light of potentially serious health risks to the women who would donate the eggs for research.

The House went on to pass Dr. Dave Weldon's (R-FL) bill by a very large majority, and the world will never be quite the same again.

From that hearing stemmed other hearings and briefings. Many progressive leaders took the view that they wanted at least a moratorium on all cloning, and since one was not an offer they would support a comprehensive ban. Among those who briefed and testified on the progressive side were Norsigian and Newman, again; Andrew Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment; and Jaydee Hansen of the United Methodist Church.

A year later, in April 2002, many of these leaders - from left as well as right - found themselves together in the East Room of the White House to hear a conservative Republican president demand a comprehensive ban on human cloning.

Moreover, from that hearing stemmed also many private conversations. For participants on both sides of the abortion debate, from both ends of the political spectrum, started to reflect earnestly on what it is we have in common; how we can best work together on other questions; how much we need to work together, making common cause not just against the abuse of biotechnology but in recognition that the creeping libertarianism that operates on the left and the right of the conventional political spectrum is a common foe. It has also become plainer that the "left-right" spectrum can be deceptive. "Pro-Life" Senator Orrin Hatch's support of embryo cloning is an excellent example of how traditional stances towards abortion or the embryo are not necessarily sustained in the embryo cloning debates. Moreover, we know that while we may legitimately generalize, there are progressives who are pro-life and conservatives who are pro-choice.

So after more than two years of planning, the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future is now taking shape. We plainly do not all agree about abortion and many other matters. On some of the biotech issues we shall discuss there will also be a variety of view among us. But the Fellows of the Institute are committed to making this project work - by seeking agreement, respectful disagreement, and focusing on what we hold in common, whatever our religious convictions and broader political-cultural views. We seek to assess the extraordinary possibilities of human biotechnology by the standard of the dignity of human beings, endorsing and encouraging developments that sustain human dignity and deploring those that would commodify, manipulate, or exploit our fellow women and men. Just what that means in the wide and growing range of technologies being deployed remains to be seen. But we have set our hand to the task and invite you to join us.