UNITED NATIONS, NY—A UN sharply divided on the issue of "therapeutic" cloning decided by a razor-thin margin yesterday to delay a vote for 2 years, rather than choose between two different cloning bans before the General Assembly.

Instead, on Thursday (November 6), the General Assembly voted 80 to 79 in favor of a procedural motion made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to put off voting on a cloning ban for 2 years, "to study all aspects and ramifications of the issue and come up with a clear view on the subject matter." Not all 191 members of the General Assembly were in attendance, and 15 member states present abstained from voting.

The vote caps nearly 2 years of contentious wrangling over a proposed UN convention to address the issue of human cloning. Opposing camps had come to a stalemate over whether the treaty should ban all forms of cloning, for research into therapeutic applications or for the purpose of human reproduction, or should ban only reproductive cloning and leave legislating therapeutic cloning up to individual countries.

One proposal, sponsored by Costa Rica and strongly backed by the United States and at least 63 other cosponsors, mostly developing nations, called for a ban on all types of human embryo cloning. An alternate proposal, introduced by Belgium and supported by France, Germany, and more than 20 other nations, called for a reproductive cloning ban only.

The procedural motion filed by the 57-member OIC on October 28 sought to put off any decision for now. "We are deeply concerned that despite all the efforts made, no consensus on the substance of [cloning] has emerged yet," said Iran's representative, Mostafa Dolatyar.

Costa Rica's ambassador, Bruno Stagno, told The Scientist that all countries agree that reproductive cloning should be banned, but cannot reach a consensus on therapeutic cloning.

"There are some countries that have apparently a vested interest in pursuing experimental cloning, others believe that it poses serious problems of dignity of human life, serious human rights problems for women, in the developing world in particular," Stagno said. He explained that among other concerns, the large number of eggs needed for human embryo cloning could lead to exploitation of women.

"I certainly hope that in these 2 intervening years, we will have more evidence from the scientific side as to the alleged promise of experimental cloning, that in these 2 intervening years, we do not suffer the shock of having a cloned baby being born, and that... more countries will become aware of the ethical and moral implications, the human rights implications and the implications for the exploitation of women, particularly in the developing world," Stagno said.

"We are, of course, disappointed… especially since the will of the majority was thwarted by a procedural motion," said Beth Marple, a spokeswoman for the US Mission to the United Nations, referring to the more than 100 supporters of the total ban. "Overall, though, we're pretty pleased with the growing support for the Costa Rican draft [resolution], and believe support will continue to grow in the months ahead."

"I'm very upset because we clearly had a momentum, we had growing support, we had 66 cosponsors for the total comprehensive ban, and it's because of that the sponsors of the partial ban... had to do something to stop it. It triggered their action to get this procedural motion that would kill it," said Jeanne Head, the International Right to Life Federation's representative to the United Nations in New York.

Bernard Siegel, a Florida-based lawyer and executive director of the Human Cloning Policy Institute, said that the 2-year delay was both good and bad news for cloning.

Before the vote, Siegel's group, which supports therapeutic cloning but opposes reproductive cloning, spearheaded a campaign to "basically preserve SCNT [somatic cell nuclear transfer] on an international level," he said. "That was our goal for this vote on this day."

"Obviously, this was much more than a symbolic vote. Had the UN passed a resolution calling for a ban on this type of research, it would have had tremendous international weight," Siegel said. It would have posed a "severe deterrent for young scientists going into stem cell research," and a "brain drain" of promising researchers into other fields, he predicted.

A host of scientific groups helped to lobby for the more moderate reproductive cloning ban as well, said Siegel, including the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the American Society for Cell Biology, and the International Society for Stem Cell Research. In addition, the US National Academy of Sciences and 62 other science academies recently called on the United Nations to adopt an anticloning convention.

"I think that a 2-year delay represents the ability to see some progress in research in the field [of therapeutic cloning], and if there is progress, say in juvenile diabetes, then it will be much more difficult to prohibit this research," said Siegel.

There are other ways to try to stop reproductive cloning using international law, he added. Siegel's group recently asked the World Court to render an advisory opinion on whether human reproductive cloning constitutes a crime against humanity, using regulations prohibiting human experimentation put in place after the Nuremberg trials.

"Right now, we have a window of opportunity to clamp down on rogue scientists that want to do reproductive human embryo cloning," Siegel said.

"The law is already out there on the books. It just needs to be recognized by the highest court in the world. That's something that can be done in the next 2 years," he said.