UNITED NATIONS—Members of the legal committee of the United Nation's General Assembly began once again tackling the debate over human cloning yesterday (October 21), but the chances of a decisive vote on the issue during this latest round of talks, scheduled to continue today, appear remote. And some members voiced their frustrations at the international body's inability to take a stand on human reproductive cloning, which all members appear to oppose.

The UN has been trying to reach agreement on a convention for more than 2 years. Yesterday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that he supports the use of cloning in therapeutic research, opposing the United States and more than 60 other member states that currently support a resolution that would ban all forms of cloning.

The UN remains deeply divided on the issue. During a meeting of the General Assembly's legal committee yesterday, some members said they were upset the committee was being forced to postpone banning reproductive cloning by those who insist any action must also address the contentious issue of therapeutic cloning.

"We are in a strange situation, in that we all agree, in fact, that we should ban reproductive cloning, but we're unable to do it, because we are divided on another issue," Marc Pecsteen, legal advisor of the Belgian mission to the UN, told The Scientist. "There's a lot of frustration that we are in this deadlock."

Pecsteen explained that, in 2001, France and Germany proposed that the international body ban reproductive cloning. Although every country appeared to initially support this idea, some members subsequently began to argue that if the UN banned one type of cloning, it should ban others, as well, Pecsteen said.

Today, nations are deeply divided over two separate proposals. One, submitted by Costa Rica and supported by Portugal, Panama, and the United States, among others, calls for a ban on all types of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning.

The other proposal, submitted by Belgium, and supported by the United Kingdom, China, Finland, and others, recommends a ban on human reproductive cloning and leaves the decision about therapeutic cloning up to individual states. Under this proposal, members have the option of a total ban, a moratorium on therapeutic cloning, or regulated use of the practice under legislative controls.

The ongoing division makes the prospect of a vote today very unlikely, Pecsteen said. "If there is a vote, it might take place later on," he predicted.

Most speakers during yesterday's debate appeared to support Belgium's proposal, which Pecsteen said he was happy to hear. Notably, France, a country that kept relatively quiet during last year's cloning debates, said they supported the Belgian proposal—despite the fact that France has banned all forms of human cloning.

In addition, Alfred M. Dube, the ambassador of Botswana, speaking on behalf of the 14 member states of the South African Development Community (SADC), said they also supported the Belgian resolution. SADC did not take a unified position last year, Pecsteen said.

However, Bruno Stagno, the ambassador for Costa Rica, noted that it is impossible to "gauge the temperature of the room" by the number of speakers for either position. He said that Costa Rica's proposal currently has the support of more than 60 member states, while Belgium's supporters number only 20-something. "We're quite optimistic," he told The Scientist.

Stagno added that Costa Rica and other countries believe it is important to address all forms of cloning at the same time because cloning is a "single procedure," and the distinctions appear only afterward. Anyone who distinguishes therapeutic from reproductive cloning is creating an "artificial difference," he said.

Stagno said that Costa Rica initially supported the 2001 proposal to ban reproductive cloning, but decided later the ban should be extended to all other types of cloning after reviewing the science behind the process. Stagno noted that if the committee does not cast votes today, members may continue the debate in the coming weeks and perhaps vote before mid-November.

If the committee decides to vote on cloning, it may take years before they adopt the final text of the decision, Pecsteen explained, and each state can choose whether or not they want to ratify the agreement. The United Kingdom, for example, has said it will not participate in a convention that bans all forms of cloning.