I think that this is a good thing, for the same reason that Ramesh (presumably?) thinks it bad--because if true, it provides constitutional protection for cloning.

But they should use the term "embryonic stem cell research" if that is what they are discussing. Most people think "cloning" refers to actually cloning people, which is a far different thing from cloning cells from a small ball of undifferentiated cells. Sure, there is still the religious debate over whether this is a human life, but most people don't even realize what they are actually arguing about.

The principle would apply to all forms of cloning research. Though I have to say I've never been able to understand the objection to cloning humans.

Me neither. I dated a clone for a year once; she was a very person. (An in-utero clone, better known as an identical twin, but that's a trivial distiction). Even if it didn't promise such amazing benefits, I think I'd have to support it, given that it's opposed by both fanatical right-wing fundamentalists and addle-brained left-wing luddites, both of whom I roundly despise.

Darn BugMeNot isn't working anymore on the NYTimes site