The U.N. General Assembly's March 8 approval of a declaration on human cloning that could be interpreted to prohibit all forms of cloning research runs the risk of undermining what the measure's proponents say they aim to safeguard: public health and human welfare.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other members of the InterAcademy Panel, a worldwide organization of science academies, have repeatedly stated that a global ban on human reproductive cloning -- a technique that attempts to generate a child genetically identical to an existing adult -- clearly is justified. However, such a ban should not be extended to the use of eggs and early embryos to produce stem cells for use in medical research -- sometimes called "therapeutic cloning" -- which is very different and represents an important approach to developing new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge. These conclusions are contained in two major National Academies studies: Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2001) and Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002).

The assembly voted 84 to 34, with 37 abstentions, in favor of the declaration. The split vote may largely reflect divided political opinions on cloning research in general. In contrast, the global scientific community has reached consensus on the medical and scientific value of therapeutic cloning. Creating stem cells to treat humans is not the same as creating human beings. Fortunately, the U.N.'s statement is nonbinding. Curtailing research that offers hope for people with a variety of serious illnesses would be a real loss for the world.