Irving response to support of Minnesota cloning "ban"

Dianne N. Irving
copyright March 17, 2011
Reproduced with Permission

[[Note: For hundreds of articles with extensive current scientific references and explanations re human cloning, see Irving Library, click into "Bill Analyses", "Cloning/Stem Cells", and "Genetic Engineering", at:]]

Wesley - Dianne here. Surely you remember the false scientific definitions used in the 2001 Weldon/Brownback "total cloning bans"? We discussed them at great length. That false legaleze then went on to become institutionalized in the United Nation's "cloning ban", the Costa Rican Declaration. This current Minnesota "cloning ban" is simply a copy cat Weldon/Brownback "cloning ban". As in those "bans", it defines "cloning" only in terms of one cloning technique, SCNT, and therefore would not cover any of at least a dozen other kinds of human cloning techniques, e.g., germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT) used now for years by researchers like Gearhardt, "twinning" (blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication - the premier form of cloning) used by IVF and other ART research laboratories and "infertility clinics", pronuceli transfer, mitochondria transfer, and dozens of other genetic engineering techniques. Nor would it even ban human cloning by the SCNT technique, because the "product" as defined in the bill's formal definition bears no resemblance to what the real "product" of SCNT would be. That is, the mitochondrial DNA from the donor cell is NOT transferred (and therefore not in the final cloned embryo), and the "foreign" mitochondrial DNA in the enucleated oocyte used remains in the cloned embryo. Therefore the real "product" of SCNT could not possibly be "genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism"; indeed, it would be genetically unique - and if "stem cells" from these cloned embryos are injected into patients they will cause turmors and severe immune rejection reactions even if the patient's own cells were cloned. Futhermore, the "exceptions" in this bill, as in the false Weldon/Brownback bills, would allow many of the kinds of cloning noted above; they just call it "genetic engineering", or "molecular" cloning, etc. Very disappointing.

Minnesota's Attempt to Outlaw All Human Cloning

Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:54 PM
Wesley J. Smith

A bill is wending its way through the Minnesota Legislature that would make all human cloning, for example, through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), in the state a felony. Not just reproductive cloning - the kind of pseudo ban, but actually, the prohibition of one use of a cloned embryo, that the mainstream media and Big Biotech would support. This would be a real ban on the creation of a human embryo through asexual cloning methods. And, unlike phony bans that actually seek to legalize human cloning through the time-tested tactic of inaccurately defining the term, the proposed ban gets the biology right. From HF 998, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2011:

Subd. 2. Definitions.

"Human cloning" means human asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living organism at any stage of development that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.

None of the nonsense about the act of cloning being the act of implantation in a womb as in the phony bans.

Here's the ban part:

Subd. 3. Prohibition on cloning. It is unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, to knowingly:

Expect "the scientists" to insist this will thwart scientific research in MN. But except for cloning research, that would not be true:

Subd. 5. Scientific research. Nothing in this section shall restrict areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer of other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.

It is worth noting that legislation does not outlaw embryonic stem cell research, which is a different thing altogether than human cloning-although promoters often try to conflate the two to cause confusion and policy gridlock.

I think all human cloning should be outlawed. So does the international community, as expressed in an overwhelming vote in the United Nations General Assembly several years ago. I hope this bill passes. I'll keep SHSers apprised of its progress or lack of same.

The clip above is from the CBC's, Lines That Divide. Yes that old guy in the gray beard is yours truly.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.