Is it true that the Chinese character for "crisis" is a combination of "danger" and "opportunity?"

One of the things that gets me about this is that just over two years ago I was told directly by people involved in related research that the possibility of human cloning was so far in the future that it was a waste of time to have an ethical debate about it yet.

Seoul, South Korea (CNN, February 12) - South Korean researchers reported Thursday they have created human embryos through cloning and extracted embryonic stem cells, the universal cells that scientists expect will result in breakthroughs in medical research.

Hanyang University professor Hwang Yoon-Young said, "Our research team has successfully culled stem cells from a cloned human embryo through mature growing process in a test tube."

Stem cells are ones that are not yet specialized, that is, they have not become muscle cells or nerve cells or liver cells or whatever - meaning they have the potential to be any sort and can be coaxed in a particular direction.

The idea is that by using your own DNA to clone cells from donor eggs, the stem cells created would be genetically identical to your own. The possibility for dramatic advances in treating a variety of conditions including liver disease, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and many others is breath-taking.

(Sidebar: There is some dispute as to whether or not cloned cells actually are exact duplicates of the original, having to do with the role of mitochondrial DNA. That may or may not prove significant in the future of stem cell research.)

Personally, I think there is an ethical issue here - or, more properly, one that's not current but that this raises as a future possibility. And it's one we should discuss now before another "too far in the future to worry about" development leaves us playing catch-up again.

Although cloning may be technically possible, the moral issues will be the great dilemma, said Arthur Kaplan, medical ethicist and director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.

"I think the big question is: If you make this kind of thing in a dish, have you created a human life?" Kaplan said. "Can you make something that people have strong moral views about in terms of destroying it, in order to benefit other people? And that's going to be the key debate."

Kaplan said splitting the debate into two issues - cloning for making babies and cloning for research purposes - would help in making sensible policy.

I think Kaplan has it right: There are two issues and they need to be separated. But I would say the issue is not "research" - there's no point in doing research if you don't hope for some future application or outgrowth; even so-called "pure research" fits that description. Rather, I think the two issues are "making babies" and making tissues - even whole organs - to be used in medical treatments. The former I would oppose, frankly. The latter I endorse. The problem that will face us in the future is how to do the one without allowing for the other. To that dilemma I have no present answer.