and stored, such that they can be defrosted and grown on again later. This is cloning and storage of human cells in exactly the same way that cloning and storage of human embryos is. In many ways they are separated by a distinction without a difference and I would not like to be the person that had to tell a seriously, or even terminally, ill individual that it is not possible to treat them because the only way is to produce immunologically sound material which they will not reject by cloning – and that this is not allowed. It was decided on 15 November 2001 that cloning of embryos for therapeutic research should no longer be licensed, but cloning one for birth apparently is and there are medical practitioners who seem to think that this is a good and practical idea. It is suspected that the incredibly high failure rate of cloned foetuses will mitigate against pursuing human clones. To put numbers on this, of 277 attempts only one sheep, Dolly, was born and further successful examples of animal cloning have been just as hard won. However, failure in this context is not a simple, clear, non-viable embryo; it includes gross malformations and developmental problems. These would not be an acceptable outcome in human cloning. This problem of not thinking about questions on a ‘what if?’ basis before the practical necessity arises is exactly the same situation that seems to have occurred with DNA profiling and genetic testing for disease genes. We have simply not been ready as a society to address questions that are going to have profound effects for future generations. This, sadly, is a general failing. Statements such as ‘think of the children’, have very little power to motivate; what does motivate seems to be political will and commerce. It is true, as discussed earlier, that large numbers are not easily conceived of. What is also true is that long periods of time are not easily comprehended either. So, to take an example from a different science, but one which is very real now and can therefore give us pointers to the future of our ethical problems in genetics, let us consider the question of nuclear waste. We can visualise this not just as a physical problem but an ethical one which is dependent upon society and the good will of society as well. The long term control of nuclear waste is a problem. No matter how it is stored or dealt with it needs to be looked after for a very long time. Given the half-life of some of this material – that is the length of time it takes to reduce its radioactivity by half – the storage times are prodigiously long. It is not unrealistic to say that storage should be in excess of 10,000 years, but no civilisation has been around that long and it would require a great leap of faith to suggest that the current nuclear powers would remain intact, politically stable and financially able to look after such a potential problem for so long. It is to be hoped that humanity is going to out-last nuclear waste, but the questions regarding political stability remain. We simply do not know what sort of a government we will have 1,000 years hence; we do not know what sort of data they will hold about our genes, so now is the time to question their perceived right to hold such information. Now is the time to challenge the perceived right of testers to take samples to find out whatever they like about an individual and possibly pass it on.