91av

THE irony was sweet. Even as news of 鈥渃c鈥� the kitten sped around the world
last week, evoking images of cloned pets in every living room, three prominent
biologists were trying to eradicate the word 鈥渃lone鈥� from everyday speech. In
the latest issue of Science (vol 295, p 1237), they argue that what is
now called 鈥渢herapeutic cloning鈥� should be renamed 鈥渘uclear
迟谤补苍蝉辫濒补苍迟补迟颈辞苍鈥�.

Ever since the birth of Dolly, most scientists have chosen their words
carefully to avoid the impression that they were eager to clone human beings.
Cloners coined the phrase 鈥渞eproductive cloning鈥� to mean creating a new animal,
and 鈥渢herapeutic cloning鈥� for research where the cloned embryo is a source of
stem cells for making transplant tissues. This seemed to serve everyone until
Severino Antinori, the controversial Italian fertility doctor, described his
plans for cloning human babies as 鈥渢herapeutic cloning鈥� for treating
infertility. Now mainstream scientists are more eager than ever to avoid
association with Antinori鈥攈ence the call to rebrand non-reproductive
cloning.

Technically, this is not wrong: cloning does involve transplanting a cell
nucleus into an egg. But the change is unwise. Many people would find the new
term confusing, others would see it as an Orwellian attempt to sanitise
something murky and unpleasant. Antinori鈥檚 attempt to muddy the waters was
deplorable, but cloners will appear equally shifty if they adopt the same
tactic.

Here at 91av we will continue to call a clone a clone.