Dr. Fukyama argues that the recent cloning of a human embryo by South Korean researchers demonstrates "both the speed with which science is moving ahead, and the urgent necessity to break the current logjam over cloning legislation that leaves the United States as one of the few developed countries without a legal framework in this area."

A smoldering global debate over human cloning is likely to flare following a report this week that researchers in South Korea have for the first time cloned human embryos and used them to produce a type of cell widely regraded as a potential key to treating a range of diseases.

The recent production of the first human cloned embryo in Seoul highlighted the price the United States and other Western nations may pay for their unresolved debate over human embryonic stem cells: if they lose their technical lead, they also forfeit the chance to set the ethical rules of the game.

Scientists from around the world yesterday urged the United Nations to ban reproductive cloning of humans.

Legal scholars caution that U.S. efforts to regulate human cloning may unconstitutionally violate the fundamental right of human reproduction.

Ronald Bailey evaluates some of the arguments for and against cloning and concedes that there is some need now to ban cloning but he argues that such laws should expire after five years.

The author argues that it is "better to control and regulate human cloning than to try to ban it."

As survey of national and international efforts to ban research into human cloning.

Warning that bioengineered animals could escape into the wild and muddy the gene pool, a new scientific report calls for more oversight of the entire field, including assessments of whether biotech meat or dairy products might cause allergies if eaten.

American and Vatican differences with France and Germany have delayed work on drafting a U.N. treaty against human cloning for at least a year.