In a nutshell, human cloning is creating a genetically identical copy of a human or a growing cloned tissue from that human. It generally refers to artificial human cloning as opposed to natural human cloning, as in the case of giving birth to identical twins, an occurrence which has become commonplace.

There has been a long-standing and sometimes heated debate concerning the science of human cloning and whether or not it goes against religion. The debate has its roots in the human embryo.

Human cloning research begins with “stem cells” which are unique in the sense that they can differentiate and form into other cell types, much like an all-purpose cell which has the potential to replace damaged spinal chords in crippled people, sterile reproductive cells in childless couples and infected cells in those afflicted by Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s Disease. Their potential is virtually limitless. This type of cloning is referred to as therapeutic cloning as opposed to the cloning of an entire human being which is referred to as reproductive cloning.

For cloning research, the cells of choice are the “embryonic stem cells” which come from the human embryo. However, to get an embryonic stem cell line calls for the destruction of the human embryo. And there is where the debate begins. The big question is this: Is destroying the human embryo the same as destroying a human life? Since an embryo is a potential human being, is its destruction tantamount to murder?

Moralists feel strongly that the answer to these questions is a resounding ‘yes’ and espouse their stand vigorously. Meanwhile, cloning advocates argue that there is no conclusive evidence that this is true and that “only God can say when life truly begins.” These arguments have been so fierce that they have actually stunted the development of vital human cloning technology in the United States.

In three instances – in 1998, 2001 and 2003 – the US House of Representatives were set to cast a vote on human cloning, specifically whether to ban all types of human cloning, both reproductive and therapeutic, or whether to ban only reproductive cloning. Each time, the Senate was so divided that neither of the competing proposals were ever passed. The same can be said of American states, which are equally divided on the issue, with some states banning both forms of cloning and others banning only reproductive cloning. Today, the debate rages on.

But finally, science may have found a solution that will put this entire debate to rest. Its basic thesis is this: If it is morally acceptable to donate the vital organs of a human being who is clinically dead, then it should also be morally acceptable to use the stem cells of an embryo that is “organismically” dead.

A recent study ("Embryonic Death and the Creation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells," by Donald W. Landry and Howard A Zucker, American Society for Clinical Investigation) discovered that “organismically dead” embryos that were thought to be “nonviable” could actually be used with some success in human cloning research.

The Landry/Zucker study notes that "a general consensus has been achieved on when life ends: life ends when the criteria for brain death are met." However, "the criteria for determining the death of the developing human before the onset of neural development have not been formulated."

The study notes that "if the condition of developing human life at the stage of a few-celled embryo is reconsidered, a significant fraction of embryos generated for in vitro fertilization (IVF), heretofore misclassified as nonviable, will be found to be organismically dead." In this instance, the study proposed that the ethical framework that applies to the transplant of organs from deceased adults "could be extended to cover obtaining stem cells from dead human embryos."

In short, if moralists and scientists can agree that an embryo that can no longer divide and grow is dead, then using a dead embryo for human cloning research will certainly not violate any moral laws or beliefs. The stakes are simply too high for this matter to remain unresolved.