“Cloning: up to what point?” (La Croix, 27/11/2001), “Pro-lifers press for a halt to destructive experiments conducted on human embryos” (Catholic Herald, 23/11/2001), “The first results of human cloning call into question its therapeutic use” (Le Monde, 28/11/2001), “Cloned embryos from human cells” (Herald Tribune, 26/11/2001), “The cloning of human embryos arouses condemnation throughout the world” (La Vanguardia, 27/11/2001), “The hour of decision” (El Pais, 27/11/2001), “Danger lurks in the success” ( Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27/11/2001). The shock announcement of researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts (USA), “we have created a human embryo”, brought the issue of cloning to all the front pages of the major dailies with consequent positions either pro or contra the experimentation. A halt to cloning is also called for by Bruno Frappat who writes in La Croix: “to make possible the creation of embryos as human spare parts that enable diseases to be cured, one would need to be cruel”. However noble an objective may be, it must never he says “ make us forget the perverse effects of all progress”. This is a position also shared by Elisabeth Guigou, French minister for employment and solidarity who in an interview in Le Monde judges “the legalization of cloning inappropriate”. The significance of the discovery, on the other hand, is downplayed by the Herald Tribune, which in reporting an editorial in The New York Times writes that it is “only a small step towards therapeutic cloning”, adding that the experiment “is more a failure than a success”. Nonetheless it does not fail to note that “it would be destructive for medical progress to ban therapeutic cloning which could be a key factor in overcoming the problem of patients’ rejection of cells derived from the tissues of other persons”. “ Danger lurks in the success” is the comment signed G. H. in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 27/11/2001. “The cloning of human beings – says the commentator – is nothing but a functional production of human life” and “the promise of a cure that lies hidden behind the research into so-called therapeutic cloning is dangerous from the ethical and social point of view, not because it may not lead to success, but because a success would place in question everything we have developed over the centuries as the shared measure of human dignity“ . The same comment notes, with regard to the differences of opinion between the German scientific community and the political class on the use of embryos: “There is no longer a common morality between all researchers and all citizens; only subjection to the Constitution and to the law is common to them all. Perhaps the same will also be noted in the United States”. In the section of the paper dedicated to science there is an interview with the philosopher Peter Singer, lecturer in ethics at the University of Princeton, conducted by Gerald Traufetter and Johan Grolle, with the title “Not all life is sacred”, in which Singer affirms: “My proposal would be that of claiming the right to life only 28 days after birth”, but admits he is “able to understand those who feel themselves threatened by my theses”. Extensive coverage is also given, of course, to the Afghan crisis in the papers. The Spiegel (26/11/2001) publishes the first of a four-part investigation on the perpetrators of the American terrorist attacks. This week’s investigation reconstructs in detail “ the German trace” of the terrorists. It has the title “The warriors of Pearl Harburg“, a title which plays on the name of Hamburg, the city where some of the terrorists were based. “ They were trained in Afghanistan says Der Spiegel – financed by the Emirates, and prepared for their mission in Hamburg. While they were preparing to leave for America, the terrorist pilots left numerous clues behind them.” To the future of Afghanistan and the hopes aroused by the UN-sponsored Conference in Bonn is dedicated the front-page article that appeared in the FAZ ( 26/11/2001). “ Afghanistan, declares the paper, risks “ succumbing to the bad old times” under the influence of the neighbouring states and the participants in the conflict. The doubt is expressed whether the various parties gathered in Bonn effectively “ entertain any hope of achieving unification“. It seems rather that “each wants only to gain for itself all the possible power it can grab“.
