Currently, human cloning is illegal in England and Norway, for example, but not illegal in the US. However, in the US, federal, but not private, funds are prohibited from being used to create human embryos (1994) or do research on human embryos if they will be harmed or destroyed (1996-97). In addition, President Clinton has imposed a moratorium on human cloning research (March 4, 1997). Meanwhile, several states in the US have laws restricting embryo research. As decision makers in the US debate whether or not to support research on human embryos and human cloning many ethical and legal questions arise. For example, how will the federal ban on human cloning research and the ban on certain types of human embryo research effect other, related fields of research that are deemed important? Human embryo research and embryo cloning can be used to conduct research and development of contraceptives, studies aimed at understanding the causes of human infertility and its solutions, research involving genetic testing, genetic engineering, disease diagonsis, prevention and treatment, and in testing various medicines and medical procedures. In contrast, if the government funds this type of research, then it will have some important control over the nature of the research. But what kind of controls might these be? Will the government decide to have an interest in protecting embryos from certain kinds of research? Would unused embryos, left after in-vitro fertilization procedures, be treated as "spare" embryos and given a different status for research purposes? Will Democrates vote on this research the same way the Republicans would? If the federal government decides to continue to not fund human embryo and cloning research,then the government will not have one important avenue for controlling, to some degree, the nature of the research. If the government refuses to support this research, would a funding vacuum be left that market forces will quickly fill? If the private sector is left to fund research and development, then will this research be driven by entrepreneurial profit motives? What effects will entrepreneurial forces have on the nature of human embryo and cloning research and development? Is there Constitutional protection for research on human embryos and human cloning? Does the First Amendment guarantee academic freedom, and the right to think, inquire, and do research? When or should the research involving human embryos and cloning be defined as "academic research and inquiry"? If this research is defined as academic, should the scientific research on human embryos and cloning be protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the "freedom of speech"? These are all questions raised in the ethical debates on cloning. There are limits to the kinds of speech that the First Amendment protects. For example, it does not protect speech that is deemed to be obscene, or speech deemed threatening to national security. Some citizens believe that research into and/or trying to clone humans is wrong, while others disagree. When considering whether or not cloning research, or other kinds of academic research, inquiry, and scientific communication are to be protected, and to what degree, by the First Amendment, the government decision makers have to decide how best to balance protecting the freedoms of speech and inquiry of the scientific community- and the benefits their research might produce- against the need to protect other citizens from any dangers this kind of freedom of speech, and its products, might also produce. In the absence of governmental controls, can/or should the scientific community regulate itself, through peer review, when it comes to human embryo and cloning research? Should society entrust the scientific community to regulate themselves? Would this allow and encourage practices leading to conflicts of interest? Should some other private organization, independent of the scientific community or the federal government, have this responsibility? Should human embryo and cloning research be restricted by the state or local governments, or some combination of these? Finally, and perhaps more importantly, if there is a market for human embryo and cloning research, and the products of their research, can any type of legislation, at any level, aimed at restricting them be effectively enforced? A democracy is designed to facilitate a balance between competing interests, to achieve the maximum benefit for the maximum number of its citizens. The introduction of new technology challenges a democratic society to decide who gets what, when, where, and how much. The advent of cloning via nuclear transfer technology presents the inevitability of new and important social changes, and new issues concerning this power, and who controls it, are at hand. Who, if anyone, should own and control cloning technology? Who, if anyone, should own and control the products of cloning technology? In the US it is possible to patent both cloning processes and genetically altered, living creatures. In contrast the European Community prohibits the patenting of genetically altered animals, but patenting the process of cloning is possible. Questions concerning the ownership and control of cloned plants and animals, who may not have been genetically altered, have not been answered. What does genetic engineering, and the cloning of human beings, mean for sociological and the legal definitions of, and concepts concerning, the notions of "individual", "human", and "citizenship"? These will be some of the most difficult and interesting questions that need to be decided. Would a cloned human be an individual? Would it really be a human, with a soul? And what if this clone were then cloned again, and again? What would their status and roles be? Would a non-human primate, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a sub-human, or something else? If we chose to define it as a human, would we then have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human, transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatments of them? Other questions and issues include a revitalization of the nature:nature debate. Will genetically identical people be physically and behaviorally identical, too? Will cloned humans really look exactly alike? Will they have identical personalities? How will clones impact the future of twin studies meant to ferret out the different impacts of genes vs. the environment? What will human clones be able to contribute to the perspectives of sociobiology? So many unanswered questions remain, can we, and should we, use the biotechnologies of genetic manipulation and cloning to improve the human condition? What are some of the perceived risks and benefits of eugenics? The answers to these and other related questions remain unanswered and will for a very long time, remain so.