With cloning technology now available, we will need to consider if cloning is ethically acceptable. For example, is there any way to prevent the abuses of cloning without blocking beneficial medical and scientific progress? Human cloning research could bring about substantial health benefits, including the creation of animals with human-compatible organs for transplantation. Cloning could also be used to help scientists understand how genes are turned on and off, which could provide important information about the causes of cancer and the mechanism of aging.

      Another issue is the use of cloning to treat infertility. Reproductive technology, once considered controversial, is now accepted by the public. Why not allow a woman who is unable to conceive naturally to clone a child by placing her own DNA inside of a donor egg?

      Yet, what about our sense of identity and ancestry? Imagine giving birth to a clone of yourself—or your mother, father, or grandfather. Familial relationships could become increasingly complex. How can we prevent sinister applications of cloning, such as the creation of clones that would serve as slaves or a source of body parts? What effect will cloning have on theology? Is each human life unique? Would a clone have a soul? Finally, what will happen to clones that are failed experiments? Will they be disposed of like other experiments that have gone awry? These are just some of the issues that should be considered before a national policy on cloning is formulated.

       Fuel poverty occurs when a household is unable to afford the most basic amount of energy foradequate heating, cooking, lighting, and use of appliances in the home. According to European UniversityInstitute, in 2011, 9.8% of households in the EU27 countries and 15.8% of households in the 12 newmember states could not afford to heat their homes adequately. Thus, fuel poverty is an increasingly seriousproblem across Europe and requires the intervention of policymakers.

       In particular, corrective measures have been implemented which aim to help fuel-poor householdspay their energy bills, and preventive policies have also been introduced, which focus more on improvingresidential energy efficiency. Debates about the effectiveness of these measures have ensued for severalreasons; mainly because energy retrofit renovations have often been undertaken by wealthier households.Thus, despite these measures, given the expected increase in the cost of energy, some could find it difficultor even impossible to satisfy their energy needs. As a prerequisite to discussions about the effectivenessof different measures to fight fuel poverty, debates have often focused on the need to reliably identify fuel-poor households and create a detailed profile of such households. In fact, the multidimensionality of fuelpoverty makes it difficult to achieve this.

       Fuel poverty has traditionally been treated as a monetary poverty problem. At European Union level,there is no common definition or standardized indicator for assessing fuel poverty. While there is a largebody of literature on measuring poverty, consensus has not yet been reached on the related methodologicaland conceptual issues. However, households affected by fuel poverty are not always the same as thoseaffected by monetary problems, even if the two phenomena are inextricably linked.

       In this context, we suggest that a more careful and systematic understanding can be developedthrough a multidimensional approach to the relationship between monetary poverty, residential energyefficiency of buildings, and heating restrictions. Our objective in this paper is not to challenge existingmeasures of fuel poverty, but provide new ways to better identify those who suffer the most from fuelpoverty in order to optimize policy. We argue this is needed to better identify the connection betweenenergy use and well-being and therefore deepen understanding of energy poverty.