The Chief Medical Officer of Health of the United Kingdom has recommended t
hat the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should be amended to al
low cloning in humans for research purposes only. He also recommended that:
"The transfer of an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement into the ut
erus of a woman (so called 'reproductive cloning') should remain a criminal
offence" (recommendation 7, Ref. 1). This recommendation implies that nucl
ear replacement and cloning are the same. They are not. Nuclear transfer co
nstitutes reproductive cloning only when the individual created is genetica
lly identical to the nuclear donor, In this paper, we describe a possible f
uture use of nuclear transfer for the treatment of infertile individuals. T
he treatment yields an individual that receives approximately equal genetic
contributions from each parent. We use this example to illustrate how sema
ntic confusion might lead to plausibly moral and justifiable treatments bei
ng legally banned. In doing so, we hope to encourage a more accurate and in
formed use of language in science, law and politics, so that legislation is
properly informed by science and achieves what it intends. (C) 2001 John W
iley & Sons, Inc.