|
Human Cloning Legislation in Congress:
Misconceptions and Realities
Updated May 21, 2005
For further information, contact the Federal Legislation Department at the
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) at
Legfederal@aol.com or 202-626-8820,
and visit the Human Embryo page on the NRLC website at
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/index.html
Introduction
The urgent issue of human cloning is once again before the
U.S. Congress.
The public deserves to know what the fundamental policy argument is really
about – but the biotechnology industry lobby and its allies are working
overtime to generate smokescreens of evasions and euphemisms. Regrettably,
some journalists – whether out of sympathy for one side of the debate,
ignorance of the mechanics of human cloning, gullibility, or some
combination of these factors – have disseminated reports that badly
misrepresent the differences between the competing human cloning bills in
Congress. In some cases, these reports go beyond murkiness and distortion
into the realm of the absurd – for example, stories that use the term “egg”
to refer to a member of the species Homo sapiens (46 chromosomes) who has
developed for five days, or even for two weeks.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify what the argument is really about.
In reality, neither side’s bill would restrict research on human ova
(“eggs”), and both sides’ bills would allow the use of cloning methods to
produce human DNA, cells, or tissues. Moreover, neither side’s cloning bill
restricts research using stem cells taken from human embryos created through
in vitro fertilization – whether it involves embryonic stem cell lines that
were established before August 9, 2001 (which may be eligible for federal
funding), or from embryos newly obtained from IVF clinics. The fundamental
difference is this: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) and the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357) would ban the creation of human embryos by
cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT), while the competing bills
proposed by Senators Hatch and Feinstein bill (S. 876) and Congresswoman
Bono (H.R. 1822) would allow human embryos to be created by cloning and then
killed for biomedical research (including but not limited to “stem cell
research.”)
Contents of this Factsheet
Past Developments in Congress
President Bush’s Position and
Statements
The Situation in the U.S. Senate
Misconception: Enacting a ban on
all human cloning will “make criminals out of scientists.”
Misconception: The
Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human
“cells,” while the Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of “cells.”
Misconception: So-called
“therapeutic cloning” does not involve creating human embryos.
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow research only on “unfertilized eggs up to
14 days.”
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a “restriction” or “safeguard” that allows
research only on “unfertilized” human eggs.
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill would “ban human cloning” or “ban the cloning of human
beings.”
Misconception: Clones, even if
born, would not really be “human beings.”
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill is a “compromise” that would accomplish what almost
everyone agrees on, banning “reproductive cloning.”
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a “14-day rule” that ensures that no woman
will become pregnant with a cloned human embryo.
Misconception: Those who favor
cloning for research would never want to allow human clones to develop past
two weeks of age.
Misconception: Opposition to the
cloning of human embryos is limited to anti-abortion lawmakers, and even
some of them support “therapeutic cloning,” such as Senator Orrin Hatch.
Misconception: Those who oppose
the creation of human embryos by cloning are against any form of stem cell
research.
Misconception: Those who oppose
the creation of human embryos by cloning are anti-science, and they are
callous ideologues who apparently care little about the suffering of those
afflicted with serious diseases.
Misconception: The biotechnology
industry wants to create human embryos by cloning only to study their stem
cells.
Misconception: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill and the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute Amendment would
authorize only research on “surplus” human embryos who would otherwise be
discarded.
Past
Developments in Congress On February 27, 2003, the
House of Representatives passed, 241-155, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act
(H.R. 534), sponsored by Congressmen Dave Weldon (R-Fl.) and Bart Stupak
(D-Mi.). This bill, backed by President Bush, would ban the creation of
human embryos by cloning. The House decisively rejected (231-174) a
competing proposal (“substitute amendment”) proposed by Congressmen Jim
Greenwood (R-Pa.) and Peter Deutsch (D-Fl.) that would have allowed and
encouraged the creation of human embryos by cloning, while attempting to ban
the use of any such cloned embryo to “initiate a pregnancy.” (Greenwood has
since left Congress and is now president of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.) NRLC strongly opposed the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute, for
reasons explained in a February 21, 2003, letter to House members, posted
here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/lettertocongressgreenwood022103.html
The Senate never acted on the Weldon-Stupak bill or its Senate companion
bill, which was sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) and Mary
Landrieu (D-La.).
In the new 109th Congress, the policy supported by President Bush is again
embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658), which currently has 31
sponsors and cosponsors, and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357), which
currently has 119 sponsors and cosponsors. The language of the
Brownback-Landrieu bill is nearly the same as the Weldon-Stupak bill, in
that both ban the creation of and trafficking in cloned human embryos. But
the House bill also bans importation of “any product derived from” cloned
human embryos, while the Senate bill does not1.
Both the House and Senate bills provide for up to 10 years in prison or
fines of up to $1 million for violations.
In the Senate, competing legislation to allow and encourage the cloning of
human embryos for research has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah), Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 876, and by
Congresswoman Mary Bono (R-Ca.) as H.R. 1822. The thrust of the
Hatch-Feinstein-Bono legislation is the same as that of the
Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute that the House rejected in 2001 and 2003,
although there are some fine points of distinction, some of which are
discussed below.
President Bush’s Position
and Statements President Bush has repeatedly called
on Congress to ban all human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human
embryos). In remarks on January 22, 2003, the President said, “I also urge
the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy
life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and
reckless experiment.” In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union speech,
the President said, “Because no human life should be started or ended as the
object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and
pass a law against all human cloning.”
The President reiterated his position in his State of the Union address on
Feb. 2, 2005: “I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are
not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life
is never bought or sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the
world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always
ethical.”
In a speech on human cloning on April 10, 2002, President Bush warned that
unless such legislation is enacted, human “embryo farms” will be established
in the United States. (See
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)
On February 27, 2003, the White House issued an official
“Statement of Administration Policy, which reads in part, “The
Administration unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings
either for reproduction or for research. . . . The Administration is
strongly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for
reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or
development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the
destruction of nascent human life.”
(www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/HR534HumanCloningProhibitionActSAP.pdf)
In 2003, following the House’s rejection of the Greenwood Substitute and its
approval of the Weldon-Stupak bill, the President said in a written
statement, “Like most Americans, I believe human cloning is deeply
troubling, and I strongly support efforts by Congress to ban all human
cloning. We must advance the promise and cause of medical science, including
through ethical stem cell research, yet we must do so in ways that respect
human dignity and help build a culture of life. I urge the Senate to act
quickly on legislation banning all human cloning.”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030227-20.html)
On May 20, 2005, in response to a report that South Korean researchers had
created clones of 11 sick persons, killed the cloned embryos, and started
stem cell lines, President Bush said, “I am very concerned about cloning. I
worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable.”
The Situation in the U.S.
Senate The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) has
been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP), which is chaired by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy.), who is a
cosponsor of that bill. The Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 876) has been referred
to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Senator Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.), who is a cosponsor of that bill.
But whatever happens in these committees, it is expected that the full
Senate eventually will vote on both of these diametrically conflicting
approaches to human cloning.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.), the only physician in the Senate,
said in a January 12, 2003 interview on Fox News Sunday, “I am opposed to
any time that you create an embryo itself with the purpose being
destruction, and that would include the so-called research cloning. And
remember, research cloning just is that, it’s experimental. There’s been no
demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don’t think you ought to destroy
life. . .”
The key differences between the two bills are discussed below. In many
recent news media reports on human cloning issues, the differences have been
mischaracterized, and the specific activities that each bill would allow and
prohibit have been widely misunderstood.
Misconceptions and Realities
Regarding Human Cloning Legislation in Congress
MISCONCEPTION:
Enacting a ban on all human cloning will “make criminals out of scientists.”
REALITY: Just as war is too important to be left only
to generals, issues regarding the creation and exploitation of members of
the species Homo sapiens are too important to be left only to scientists. We
all have a stake in these issues. Scientists certainly have an important
voice in policy debates on these matters, but history demonstrates the
dangers of allowing those who wish to pursue research in a certain area to
dictate the standards for acceptable human experimentation.
Bans on all forms of human cloning (which are already in effect in many
nations, including Germany, France, Norway, Canada, Australia, and
Switzerland) do not “make criminals out of” responsible scientists, because
when democratically elected legislative bodies define human cloning as an
unacceptable form of human experimentation, responsible scientists obey the
law.
(In March, 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nations overwhelmingly
urged member states to adopt such bans on all forms of human cloning.)
It should also be noted that the Hatch-Feinstein bill contains the same
level of criminal penalties as the Brownback-Landrieu bill – the difference
is in which activities by scientists are covered by those penalties.
MISCONCEPTION: The
Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human
“cells,” while the Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of “cells.”
REALITY: Pro-life opponents of human cloning do not
object to research on human “cells,” despite many press reports that grossly
distort the debate by framing it that way.
To cite just one recent example among many, a news report in The Chronicle
of Higher Education (“House Votes to Ban Cloning Research – Again,” by
Jeffrey Brainard, February 28, 2003) began, “After a heated debate over
ethics and science, the U.S. House of Representatives voted yet again on
Thursday to criminalize any effort to create cloned cells, even for medical
research.” The story went on to explain that the Weldon-Stupak bill provides
“a prison term of up to 10 years for anyone attempting to clone a human
cell.” The terminology “cloning human cells” has also been adopted by the
Boston Globe, among others.
In truth, however, the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) and the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357) explicitly allow “the use of nuclear transfer
or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than
human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.” [See
Sec. 2 of the bill, at (d) in H.R.1357 and at (e) in S. 658].
Thus, the methods currently used to “clone” new skin, for
example, or to “clone” DNA, would be perfectly legal under the
Brownback-Landrieu bill. Moreover, any cloning method (explicitly including
“nuclear transfer”) to produce stem cells without first producing and
killing a human embryo -- as some researchers have claimed that they
eventually will be able to do -- is explicitly permitted by this language.
In addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills place no
restrictions on research on human ova (“eggs”), properly so called.
Moreover, the Weldon-Stupak and Brownback-Landrieu bills do not speak to the
separate issue of the use of frozen human embryos, created through in vitro
fertilization, for medical research on stem cells or for any other research
purposes. The restrictions of the Weldon-Stupak bill apply only to: (1) the
use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique, to
produce (2) a human embryo.
This point has been acknowledged even by a leading congressional supporter
of cloning embryos for research, then-Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who
said on the House floor, while speaking against the Weldon-Stupak bill, “The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban
embryonic stem cell research.” (July 31, 2001)
In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-Feinstein
legislation are alike in that they would both permit cloning
involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but they differ on one profound
issue: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow the use of the somatic cell
nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to create human embryos, and the
Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT to create human
embryos.
Verbiage by supporters of “research cloning” about “eggs” and “cells” is
intended to conceal what the argument is really about: whether it should be
permitted to create human embryos by cloning so they can used in biomedical
research that will kill them.
MISCONCEPTION: So-called
“therapeutic cloning” does not involve creating human embryos.
REALITY: That SCNT using human genetic material will
create a developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something
that everyone on all sides agreed on until sometime in 2001, when some
pro-cloning forces decided to try to obscure this fact for political
purposes. Among those who clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human
embryos were the bioethics panels of both Presidents Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush, the human embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning
researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. Some samples of
such statements, which pre-date the current disinformation campaign, are
posted here:
www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html.
For example: A group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology executives
advocating so-called “therapeutic cloning” and use of human embryos for
research – Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Lee Silver of
Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth University, and Michael
West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology -- wrote in
the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, “CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another
term for “therapeutic cloning”] requires the deliberate creation and
disaggregation of a human embryo.” They also wrote, “ . . . because
therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero
of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical
questions.”
In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President’s Council on Bioethics,
although divided on policy recommendations, provided without dissent some
recommendations regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial
public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful SCNT will
create human embryos. The Council said, “The product of ‘SCNT’ is not
only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the
individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an
embryonic clone of the donor.”
The Council recommended use of the terms “cloning for biomedical research”
and “cloning to produce children” to distinguish between two of the purposes
for which human embryos might be cloned. (“Cloning for research” and
“cloning for birth” convey pretty much the same thing.) The Council’s
discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html
See also the declaration of cell biologist Dr. Stuart A.
Newman, presented in the Superior Court of the State of California, here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/TerminologyNewmanDeclaration.pdf
[The terms often being used in the news media – “reproductive
cloning” and “therapeutic cloning” – are both somewhat misleading. When
somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to produce a developing embryo,
“reproduction” has occurred (i.e., a new individual of the same species has
come into existence, in this case virtually genetically identical to the
single parent). The term “therapeutic cloning” is loaded, because no
therapies have been demonstrated even in animals using cells taken from
cloned embryo, and the process is certainly not “therapeutic” for the
human embryo who is dissected.]
MISCONCEPTION: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow research only on “unfertilized eggs up to
14 days.” Example: A report in
www.the-scientist.com [Feb. 7, 2003] on introduction of the
Hatch-Feinstein bill said that the measure “prohibits any research on an egg
cell after 14 days, when cell differentiation begins.”
REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to any
biology text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or “egg” is, by
definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very unusual cell – a
gamete cell, which means it has only 23 active chromosomes. Sex has not yet
been determined. An ovum cannot “grow stem cells” or otherwise develop,
because it is just an egg. However, once an egg contains a complete nucleus
from any species that is activated and developing – whether that has
occurred by sexual fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer
– then one has a developing embryo of that species (sheep, cow,
Homo sapiens, etc.).
There is no such thing in biology or in any dictionary
as a human “egg” or “egg cell” that has 46 chromosomes, has been determined
to be either male or female, and is five days old (consisting of hundreds of
cells) or 14 days old (consisting of thousands of cells). Those who, knowing
better, refer to a five-day-old or a two-week-old human embryo an “egg”
deceive the public regarding what the policy argument is really about, and
we submit that responsible journalists should not be parties to that
deception.
(The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term “unfertilized
blastocyst.” But “blastocyst” is simply a technical term for an embryo at an
early stage of development.)
However, some supporters of human cloning are more intellectually honest
than others. At a press conference on Capitol Hill on February 26, 2003,
pro-cloning Reps. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) and Peter Deutsch (D-Fl.) promoted
their substitute amendment to the Weldon-Stupak cloning ban, a substitute
amendment to allow and encourage cloning for biomedical research. Because
the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) (cloning) does not
involve “fertilization” by sperm, what it produces is “an egg, not an
embryo,” Mr. Deutsch emphatically told assembled reporters. But minutes
later, at the same press conference, this claim was contradicted by a
prominent researcher who had come to voice support for the Greenwood-Deutsch
legislation -- Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University, one of the
discoverers of human embryonic stem cells. In response to a direct question
as to what the SCNT process creates, Dr. Gearhart said, “I contend it is
an embryo.” When the questioner pointed out that an “egg” is by
definition a single cell with only 23 active chromosomes, Dr. Gearhart
agreed, saying, “I don't think anyone is saying that it is just an egg.”
(Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Deutsch had told reporters a few
minutes earlier.)
A letter in which Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) explores these and other
statements by Dr. Gearhart in more detail is here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/gearhartsaysitsnotanegg.pdf
MISCONCEPTION: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a “restriction” or “safeguard” that allows
research only on “unfertilized” human eggs.
REALITY: This is just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of
course human embryos produced by cloning will be “unfertilized,” because
that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction – no sperm. Every cloned
mammal in the world was “unfertilized” from the one-celled embryo stage, and
every one still will be “unfertilized” on the day he or she dies. If a human
embryo created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb,
is born, and lives to be 50, she will still be “unfertilized.”
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would “ban human cloning” or
“ban the cloning of human beings.” REALITY:
The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban human cloning. It bans transferring a
cloned human embryo “into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus”
(the “functional equivalent” term is not defined), an act to which criminal
penalties are attached. It also attempts to impose a ban against allowing a
cloned human embryo (a so-called “unfertilized blastocyst”) to develop past
14 days of age (not counting time frozen).
It other words, the bill bans not “human cloning,” but the survival of human
clones, which is a very different thing.
Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) with human
DNA does not “ban human cloning,” because such a bill allows the
creation of embryos of the species Homo sapiens by cloning, and an
embryo of the species Homo sapiens is human (just as the
cloned embryo that was later born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned
mammal, was always a member of the species Ovis aries).
Thus, when a news outlet reports that the Hatch-Feinstein bill “bans human
cloning” or “bans the cloning of human beings,” that newspaper or broadcast
news outlet is saying, in its own voice, that cloned embryos of the species
Homo sapiens are not “human.” We believe that this position is
clearly erroneous biologically. Moreover, the use of such terminology does
not reflect any measure of journalistic objectivity or neutrality on the
core issues being debated.
Certainly, some people do insist that these cloned embryos should not be
treated as members of the human family – but that is the core of the policy
argument, and one would hope that responsible journalists would avoid taking
sides on the issue by declaring cloned human embryos to be something other
than “human” or “human beings.”
It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize cloned human
embryos as human beings: In his January 22, 2003 statement, the President
said, “I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not
create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research
material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.” [emphasis added]
Moreover, on February 26, 2003, the White House issued an official
“Statement of Administration Policy,” which said in part, “The
Administration unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings
either for reproduction or for research.” [italics added for
emphasis] (www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/HR534HumanCloningProhibitionActSAP.pdf)
MISCONCEPTION:
Clones, even if born, would not really be “human beings.”
REALITY: The National Right to Life Committee believes
that if a cloned human being were born, she should have the same status as
other humans -- but Senator Hatch and some others apparently are not so
sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002, Senator Hatch said, “No
doubt somewhere, some -- such as the Raelians -- are trying to make a name
for themselves and are busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us
Dolly the Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human being
would even be the correct term for such an individual heretofore unknown in
nature.”
Senator Hatch is not the only member of Congress who has suggested that even
born clones might be regarded as something other than “human.” During the
February 27, 2003 House debate on the cloning issue, an opponent of the
Weldon-Stupak bill, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Ca.), said, “Children are
created by the fertilization of an egg cell, by sperm, not by chemical
stimulation.” Does this mean that if a cloned human embryo is brought to
birth, Congresswoman Eshoo will consider that newborn to be something other
than a “child”? Or was Congresswoman Eshoo only suggesting that production
of a “child” by cloning is impossible – but if so, why does she think so,
and why did she bother to cosponsor a bill (the Greenwood-Deutsch
Substitute) to make it a crime to seek to “initiate a pregnancy” with a
cloned human embryo?
As Slate.com columnist William Saletan has commented (“Killing Eve: How
senators justify cloning – and infanticide,” December 31, 2002,
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),
“The first cloned baby – Eve or whoever comes after her – won’t be
fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to humanity, as Hatch and
Feinstein suggest, that baby will never be human. You can press the pillow
over her face and walk away.”
Here are additional discussions of the implications of the argument that
human status depends on being the product of sexual fertilization: “Are
Human Clones Really Human?,”
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/arecloneshuman.html, and,
“The Amazing Vanishing Embryo
Trick,” by Douglas Johnson,
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-johnson071701.shtml
MISCONCEPTION: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill is a “compromise” that would accomplish what almost
everyone agrees on, banning “reproductive cloning.”
REALITY: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial
solution or a middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the establishment of
human embryo farms.
Far from representing “common ground,” the Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a
policy disfavored by most Americans.
The Polling Company
nationwide poll of adults, April 21-24, 2005
(two alternative questions, each asked to separate 500-adult sample, margins
of error +/-4.5%). “Which of these statements
comes closest to your view on human cloning?”
“All human cloning should be allowed.” 8%
“Cloning that creates and then destroys human embryos for stem cell research
should be allowed, but cloning human embryos which would result in the birth
of children should be banned.” 28%
“All human cloning should be banned.” 55%.
“Cloning human embryos which would result in the birth of children should be
allowed, but cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which
would destroy them should be banned.” 4%
“Which of these statements comes closest to your view?”
[options rotated.] [N= 500, margin of error +/- 4.5%]
“Person 1. Cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which
would destroy them should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction
should be banned.
“Person 2: All human cloning should be banned.
“And would you say you strongly or somewhat support that statement?”
41% SUPPORT STATEMENT 1 (NET)
16% STRONGLY SUPPORT STATEMENT 1
25% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STATEMENT 1
54% SUPPORT STATEMENT 2 (NET)
8% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STATEMENT 2
46% STRONGLY SUPPORT STATEMENT 2
Wilson Research Strategies, Inc.
1,000 national adults, August 16-18, 2004, margin of error 3.1%:
“Which of the following comes closest to your view?”
1. “Cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which would kill
them should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction should be banned”:
24% 2. “All human
cloning should be banned”: 69%
3. Don't know / refused: 7%
International Communications Research
1,001 adults, August 13-17, 2004, margin of error 3%
“Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create
a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?”
Yes: 13.3%
No: 79.8%
Don’t know: 6.1%
Refused: 0.7%
Gallup Poll
May, 2002 A Gallup poll in May 2002 found that
61% of the American people opposed “cloning of human embryos for use in
medical research” (34% approved), which is precisely what the
Hatch-Feinstein bill is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other
polls, substantially higher numbers are opposed when it is explained that
the human embryos will be destroyed in the research.
The “clone and kill” approach already has been decisively rejected by the
House of Representatives (on July 31, 2001 and February 27, 2003), and is
strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Tommy Thompson, in 2002 sent a letter to Senator Brownback
warning that such a bill would face a presidential veto. Thompson wrote, “.
. . the President does not believe that ‘reproductive’ and ‘research’
cloning should be treated differently, given that they both require the
creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . . . the
Administration could not support any measure that purported to ban
‘reproductive’ cloning while authorizing ‘research’ cloning, and I would
recommend to the President that he veto such a bill.” (www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)
Thus, the Hatch-Feinstein bill will not become law. But that does not
bother many of its backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby,
because the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede
enactment of the real ban on human cloning by providing political cover for
lawmakers who favor allowing the creation of human embryos for research.
Asked about NRLC’s charge that the Hatch-Feinstein bill is intended merely
as a “roadblock” to prevent enactment of a ban on human cloning, Michael
Manganiello, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research, “acknowledged as much,” according to the Chicago Tribune
(“Advances make ban on human cloning a hot issue in Congress,” February 14,
2003). “If it is a roadblock, so be it,” Manganiello told the Tribune.
The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement agencies
responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on implanting a cloned embryo in
a womb – an approach that the Justice Department in 2002 rejected as
unworkable. The Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human
embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent some of them from
being implanted in wombs, and once this occurs enforcement of the law would
create “extremely serious legal, moral, and practical issues.” The testimony
is here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.
MISCONCEPTION: The
Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a “14-day rule” that ensures that no woman
will become pregnant with a cloned human embryo.
REALITY: As explained above, the Department of Justice
testified in 2002 that this approach is, as a practical matter,
unenforceable, because it would impose on federal agencies the impossible
task of monitoring countless cloned human embryos outwardly
indistinguishable from human embryos created through in vitro fertilization.
IVF-created embryos are transferred into women’s bodies in large numbers
through exactly the same procedures that would be used with cloned embryos.
The testimony is here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf
It is noteworthy, however, that a woman who already carries
an unborn cloned human in utero could herself be threatened with the
penalty provided under the bill’s 14-day rule, a $250,000 fine, perhaps in
an attempt to compel her to procure an abortion. Once the cloned human
embryo has implanted in her womb (generally around the sixth day of
development), she would have about one week to consider abortion or face the
charge that she has “maintained” the embryo “after more than 14 days from
its first cell division.”
MISCONCEPTION: Those
who favor cloning for research would never want to allow human clones to
develop past two weeks of age. REALITY:
While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to establish a two-week “deadline”
for killing human clones, there are substantial reasons to doubt that the
biotechnology industry would support such a limitation in a bill it actually
expected to become law. Already, some policymakers are opening the door to
“fetus farming” with human clones.
For example, the New Jersey legislature enacted a law that would permit
cloned humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development, even to
birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long as they are not kept
alive past the “newborn” stage. Four members of the President’s Council on
Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the bill’s radical
implications. (See
www.nationalreview.com/document/document020303c.asp)
(Another critique of the New Jersey bill, by Prof. Gerald V. Bradley of the
Notre Dame University School of Law, appears
here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/NJfetusfarmingbillanaylsis.pdf.)
In 2002, researchers reported harvesting tissue from cloned cows at six and
eight weeks of fetal development, and from cloned mice at the newborn stage.
Both studies were widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for
so-called “therapeutic cloning.”
Additional information on the “fetus farming” issue appears
here:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/cloning/farmfact31805.htm
MISCONCEPTION:
Opposition to the cloning of human embryos is limited to anti-abortion
lawmakers, and even some of them support “therapeutic cloning,” such as
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). REALITY: It
is true that nearly all members of Congress who oppose abortion, with the
notable exception of Senator Hatch, also oppose cloning human embryos in
order to kill them in biomedical research. However, opposition to the
cloning of human embryos extends well beyond the ranks of those who oppose
abortion. The first cosponsor of the Senate bill to ban all human cloning is
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), a pro-abortion senator. During the
February 27, 2003 debate in the House of Representatives, pro-life lawmakers
who supported the Weldon-Stupak bill were joined by a substantial group of
lawmakers who oppose restrictions on abortion, but who see human cloning as
a distinct issue.
Among them was Rep. Bernard Sanders, a self-described socialist who
represents Vermont. Sanders gave a speech in favor of the ban, saying,
“While I support stem cell
research, the cloning of a human being for any purpose raises the deepest
and most profound ethical and moral questions: questions about the sanctity
or the uniqueness of each human person; questions about the evil of eugenics
and genetic engineering in humans; and, equally important, questions about
the ownership and use of cloned humans by an unregulated corporate
biotechnology industry motivated almost exclusively by their quest for
venture capital, short-term profits, and higher stock prices.” (Congressional
Record, February 27, 2003, p. 1414) Rep. David
Wu (D-Or.), who described himself as “strongly pro-choice,” spoke for the
ban, saying it was necessary “that we take some time to let our ethics catch
up with our technology. Our technology has gotten to the point where we are
talking about genetic mixes, mixing of human and animal cells and other
procedures which I think the public has a reasonable, profound discomfort
with.” (Congressional Record, February 27, 2003, p. 1427)
A ban on all forms of human cloning is also supported by many organizations
and individuals who do not share the “pro-life” perspective regarding human
embryos. For examples, see “Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against
Research Cloning,” by Charles Krauthammer (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=krauthammer042902),
“Diverse Array of People Support Total Ban on Human Cloning” (http://www.cloninginformation.org/info/diversequotes-01-11-30.htm),
and “Six Reasons Why Progressives Should Not Support . . . Human Cloning” (http://www.cloninginformation.org/info/icta-why_oppose_harkin-spector.htm).
MISCONCEPTION: Those
who oppose the cloning of human embryos are against any form of stem cell
research. REALITY: There is a great deal
of ongoing stem cell research which is entirely laudable and is supported by
virtually everyone. Research using stem cells taken from adult tissues,
placenta, and umbilical cords are ethically non-controversial because they
do not require the killing of human embryos. These types of stem cells have
already been used in human clinical studies for dozens of conditions, and
many of these studies have yielded promising therapeutic results – far
beyond anything yet demonstrated with embryonic stem cells. For more
information on this subject:
www.stemcellresearch.org.
Rather than focusing resources on such promising and non-controversial
research, however, some groups and their allies in Congress insist that
cloning is necessary to bring about regenerative therapies. Yet, some
leading researchers have expressed considerable skepticism about the
sweeping claims currently being made for the therapeutic potential of human
cloning.
MISCONCEPTION: Those who oppose the
creation of human embryos by cloning are anti-science, and they are callous
ideologues who apparently care little about the suffering of those afflicted
with serious diseases. REALITY:
Some leading supporters of cloning for research have relied
heavily on harsh polemic against those who oppose a clone-and-kill policy.
Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) said during the House floor debate on the
Weldon-Stupak bill: “We are either going to decide to go with the people who
understand this stuff and the people who have compassion in their hearts for
these people with these diseases, or we are going to fall prey to this
Luddite anti-scientific and demagogical approach.” (Congressional Record,
February 27, 2003, page H-1429.)
During the same debate, Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx.) said, “At a time
when we are alarmed daily by the possibility of biological attacks from
afar, this bill represents a very real and present biological attack on the
victims of these tragic diseases, diseases that strike Americans down in a
nonpartisan manner.” (H-1399)
Ad hominem attacks such as these are intended to deflect public
attention from the ethical barrier that cloning for research would breach.
Cloning for research would involve the deliberate creation of individual
members of the species Homo sapiens with the intent of exploiting
them for ends that will kill them. Since polls show that the great majority
of Americans agree with President Bush that this is unethical2
(see the material on public opinion polls above), some advocates for
research cloning prefer to create a caricature of the organized anti-cloning
forces to distract the public from what the argument is really about.
Opposition to the cloning of human embryos is diverse. It includes groups
and members of Congress who are strongly committed on both sides of the
abortion issue. Many of these groups and lawmakers have strong records in
support of ethical biomedical research.
Moreover, many of those who are speaking out against human cloning –
including members of Congress – are afflicted with degenerative diseases, or
have family members so afflicted, apparently to no lesser extent than
supporters of cloning for research. Those who oppose human cloning hope for
cures no less than those who support cloning for research. Even as a crude
rhetorical tactic, it is false and offensive to suggest otherwise.
MISCONCEPTION: The
biotechnology industry wants to create human embryos by cloning only to
study their stem cells. REALITY: Some
biotechnology firms want to patent cloned human embryos and sell them at
great profit for use as “medical models.” Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Fl.),
the prime sponsor of the Weldon-Stupak bill, said on the House floor on
February 27, 2003, “They want to create human models of disease. Research
scientists today in America, if they want to do research on Parkinson’s,
Alzheimer’s, diabetes, they buy mice and they buy rats that have been
engineered to manifest that disease. [Now] they want to create human beings
that are engineered to manifest these diseases. Now, can we imagine that?
They want to have shelves . . . filled with human embryos, and sell them for
a profit to research labs.” (Congressional Record, February 27, 2003,
p. 1413)
For further discussion of the patenting and “medical models” agenda, see “The
New Patent Puzzle,” by Neil Munro, National Journal, March 2, 2002, and
“Stem Cells Touted for Drug Research,”
by Neil Munro, National Journal, April 2, 2005.
MISCONCEPTION: The
Hatch-Feinstein-Bono legislation would authorize only research on “surplus”
human embryos who would otherwise be discarded.
REALITY: In 2001, President Bush announced that he would not permit
federal funding of stem cell research that required killing human embryos.
Many supporters of such funding among members of Congress, editorial
writers, et al, insisted that such research was justifiable because it would
use only embryos created by in vitro fertilization who were “going to be
discarded anyway.” Many of these advocates went to great lengths to insist
that they would never propose or support creating human embryos for the
purpose of using them in biomedical research. Some (i.e., Congressman Dick
Gephardt3
and Senator Tom Daschle4)
insisted that the question of cloning must be kept entirely separate from
the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
In most cases, those assurances were written on water. Within mere months,
in some cases, the same lawmakers and editorial writers were opposing bills
to ban the cloning of human embryos, arguing that “therapeutic cloning” –
that is, the creation of human embryos for the purpose of using them in
biomedical research – was necessary to advance “stem cell research.” For
examples of some such rapid flip- flops, see “Cloning
debate is not another monkey trial,” by Charles Krauthammer, M.D. (http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Krauthammer051002.html).
However, some vocal advocates of “therapeutic cloning” sometimes forget
which argument they are supposed to make on a given day, and they slip back
into the old party line at the oddest moments. For example, at a February 5,
2003 press conference to announce introduction of the Hatch-Feinstein bill,
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the Senate’s most vigorous supporters
of cloning for research, told reporters that the bill would allow research
only on surplus embryos that had been created for another purpose and were
going to be discarded anyway.
Likewise, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Co.), speaking on the House floor
in favor of the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute (of which she was an original
cosponsor) on February 27, 2003, said in reference to the Substitute: “We
are not, and we do not, support creating embryos for the purpose of this
research. Instead what happens is researchers use existing embryos from
reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of anyway. And there is
no way this research will be used to clone a human being, period.” [Congressional
Record, February 27, 2003, page H-1426)
Conclusion The public deserves a honest debate on
whether to allow human embryos to be manufactured by cloning and used as a
commodity. The public deserves an honest debate on the implications for
future generations of allowing individual members of the species Homo
sapiens to be created to be used as an end. In sum, the public deserves
better than the polemic and doubletalk they have been getting from many
advocates of human cloning.
1
Some polemicists, such as syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman (“Outlawing
Science,” Washington Post, March 8, 2003), have asserted that under the
House-passed bill’s prohibition against importing “any product derived from”
cloned human embryos, a person who went to another country and received a
transplant of cells taken from a cloned human embryo could be arrested on
return to the United States. This is a particularly silly argument. Such a
person would not be “importing” products of cloned human embryos, any more
than a person who returns to the U.S. after eating a hamburger in London
would be “importing” British beef possibly tainted by “mad cow” virus, or a
person who returns after eating a tuna sandwich in China would be
“importing” tunas not caught in dolphin-safe nets. The other provisions of
the Weldon-Stupak bill clearly do not apply to activities conducted outside
the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States
2 In a speech on human
cloning on April 10, 2002, President Bush said, “Research cloning would
contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human
life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another.” (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)
3 Although
then-Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) voted against the Weldon-Stupak bill
during its initial consideration on July 31, 2001, he appeared to endorse it
less than three weeks later in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Gephardt said, “Obviously, we don't want cloning. Nobody is for cloning.” A
minute later, Gephardt said, “We passed a law saying no cloning and I think
that’s the law that we ought to follow.” There was no bill passed
restricting cloning except the Weldon-Stupak bill. (Gephardt was
absent when the House again considered the bill on February 27, 2003.)
4 On July 31,
2001, the day after the House initially passed the Weldon-Stupak ban,
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) told reporters, “I am opposed to the effort to
clone under virtually any circumstances that I can think of. I think human
cloning is totally different and should be separated from the issue of
aggressive embryonic stem cell research. I do think that there are limits to
what we can do morally with embryonic stem cell research, and this is a good
illustration.” On August 1, 2001, a reporter asked him to clarify whether he
meant to include all human cloning. Daschle replied, “I’m very uncomfortable
with even cloning for research.” He added, “I don’t care whether you’re a
proponent or an opponent, I think you need to draw a pretty sharp line here
between cloning and embryonic stem cell research.”
|
