While reproductive cloning was criminalized in Finland, its legislation allowed for therapeutic cloning.

Our approach to therapeutic cloning thus remains unchanged.

South Africa will continue to strictly regulate therapeutic cloning.

Belgium voted against the Declaration because it makes no distinction between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Therapeutic cloning should be dealt with at the national level.

The Declaration annexed to the resolution is difficult to interpret as permitting therapeutic cloning and does not respect the differing views of Member States on therapeutic cloning.

Mr. Lovald (Norway) The Norwegian Government opposes both reproductive cloning of human beings and cloning for therapeutic purposes.

While Cuba firmly opposed reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning had the potential to provide the solution to many serious medical problems.

In the United Kingdom, research has continued in the field of therapeutic cloning.

Human cloning for therapeutic purposes would seek to reverse that natural order of things.

At the centre of the discussion, there was consensus that reproductive cloning should be banned, but differences arose over therapeutic cloning and embryonic research.

France banned reproductive cloning, but could not support statements that could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning, and had therefore voted against the Declaration.

We also believe that the text of the resolution does not cover the fundamental and well known differences that exist between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Each State should, however, reach its own national consensus on whether to permit or prohibit therapeutic cloning.

In accordance with the Declaration, States will adopt relevant legislation which prohibits reproductive cloning but which allows, within the relevant legal framework, the development of therapeutic cloning.

His delegation could accept many elements of the Declaration, but had difficulties with paragraph (b), as it represented a shift in focus from reproductive cloning to therapeutic cloning.

Japan will go forward with the implementation of therapeutic cloning research under strict conditions, while fully respecting human dignity.

Therapeutic cloning research may well open up important avenues for the advancement of medicine that otherwise would remain closed.

Member States are called upon to enact and implement legislation addressing all aspects of human cloning, including ethical questions raised by the use of human cloning techniques for therapeutic purposes

If practised under strict regulation, therapeutic cloning techniques could enhance human dignity by relieving the suffering and misery of millions.

That could result in a ban, a moratorium or strict controls on therapeutic cloning in order to protect human dignity.

China had voted against the draft resolution because its language was vague and could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning.

Ms. Geldof van Doorn (the Netherlands) said that her delegation had voted against the Declaration because her Government, which banned reproductive cloning, had no intention of enacting legislation to ban therapeutic cloning.

The debate over the past three years, however, has highlighted key differences between States as regards therapeutic cloning and embryo research.

Therapeutic cloning offered the prospect of a breakthrough in conquering diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, cancer and even HIV AIDS.

Reproductive cloning raised serious ethical and moral issues and should be banned, but there was no basis for an international ban on therapeutic cloning, because all States had a different understanding of the matter.

In accordance with the Declaration, States would adopt appropriate legislation to prohibit reproductive cloning while allowing therapeutic cloning to be developed within a suitable legal framework, provided that human life and dignity were protected.

We reaffirm that the Declaration is non binding and that it will not affect our policy on therapeutic cloning in the future.

Sweden did not feel bound by the Declaration and could not accept any statement that could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning.

Japan had voted against the draft resolution because it failed to embrace the diversity of policies on human cloning which existed among Member States and because it was difficult to interpret as permitting therapeutic cloning.

We believe that it is left to Member States to interpret it and to decide whether to permit or to prohibit therapeutic cloning.

The number of votes against the Declaration and the number of abstentions indicated that the international community was far from ready to ban therapeutic cloning.

We consider the research into therapeutic cloning to be aimed at protecting human life and therefore not inconsistent with the Declaration that has just been adopted.

Her Government supported scientific research carried out with full respect for human dignity, and expected that therapeutic cloning could benefit millions of families throughout the world.

It is also our understanding that the Declaration does not prohibit therapeutic cloning, especially when it is being conducted under the strict supervision of relevant national authorities.

Mr. Pecsteen de Buytswerve (Belgium) said that his delegation had voted against the draft resolution because the Declaration it contained did not sufficiently distinguish between reproductive cloning, which was ethically unacceptable and must be banned, and therapeutic cloning, over which opinions were divided.

From the outset, my delegation warned that the creation of a simple and straightforward dichotomy between so called reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning was leading us towards an excessive simplification of the question, given all of the unknown factors that science has yet to uncover.

However, we consider the merits of therapeutic cloning on a case by case basis, according to the bioethical guidelines laid down with the approval of our National Bioethical Committee.

The Chinese delegation voted against the Declaration because the Declaration's wording is too confusing, and the prohibition it contains could be misunderstood as applying to all research into therapeutic cloning.

Therapeutic cloning research and its application, when conducted under strict regulations, will contribute to the enhancement of human dignity by relieving the pain, suffering and misery of millions of people.

The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of therapeutic cloning research because it has the potential to revolutionize medicine in this century in the way that antibiotics did in the last.

Recognizing that the use of human cloning techniques for therapeutic purposes has raised important and complex ethical questions on which there is at the present time no agreement at international level

Belgium believed that, in the interest of science and for the good of humanity, States must have the opportunity to permit therapeutic cloning under strictly defined conditions and with appropriate safeguards.

However, it should be stressed that the Chinese Government will maintain its stance against reproductive human cloning and will strengthen its regulation and control of research into therapeutic cloning in order to ensure that human dignity and the internationally shared ethical concept of human life will not be undermined.

With respect to therapeutic cloning, we believe that, in the interest of science and the well being of humankind, it is reasonable to maintain, at the national level, the option of proceeding with that form of cloning, within strictly defined procedures and conditions and under the appropriate controls.