THE parents of a terminally ill child are told that only a bone marrow transplant can save its life. With no other donor available, the parents attempt to clone a human being from the cells of the dying child. If successful, the new child will be a perfect match for the bone marrow transplant, and can be used as a donor without significant risk or discomfort.' Does this idea - put to a conference on bioethics last week - send a shiver down your spine? You are not alone.
However worrying it may seem, this is not science fiction. The chances are that today's teenagers will have such an option by the time they are in their late 20s, if not sooner.
The idea has been discussed around the world among many scientists and ethicists tackling the issue of whether cloning a human being can be acceptable.
At the Hong Kong Baptist University conference last week, law professor Dena Davis of Cleveland State University in the US, concluded her scenario comfortingly: 'The net result [of the cloning] - two healthy children, loved by their parents, who happen to be identical twins of different ages.' But there are other more contentious possibilities. Because cloning allows asexual reproduction, it can provide children to those not naturally able to have them, such as homosexual couples or single people.
Parents wanting a great film director for a son might try to obtain the genes of Alfred Hitchcock, or those wanting riches might seek to clone US investor Warren Buffett.
And whether you like the idea or not, cloning of humans is, in the words of one expert, 'almost certainly' unstoppable.
The British public has already been given the chance officially - through a consultation paper issued by a government advisory group - to contribute views on handling this infant technology.
