Human Cloning Legislation in Congress: Misconceptions and Realities

By Douglas Johnson, NRLCLegislative Director

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 Cloning page on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/killing_ embryos/index.html.

Introduction

The urgent issue of human cloning is once again in the lap of the U.S. Senate - - which so conspicuously failed to deal responsibly with the issue during the 107th Congress (2001-2002).

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 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 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 fertility clinics. The fundamental difference is this: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) would ban the creation of human embryos by cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT), while the Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 303), and the similar Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute Amendment rejected by the House, 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 Article

Page Numbers

9: Recent Developments in Congress

9: President Bush's Position and Statements

10: The Situation in the U.S. Senate

10: Misconception: Enacting a ban on all human cloning will "make criminals out of scientists."

10: Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human "cells," while the Hatch Feinstein bill would allow cloning of "cells."

11: Misconception: So-called "therapeutic cloning" does not involve creating human embryos.

11: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow research only on "unfertilized eggs up to 14 days."

11: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a "restriction" or "safeguard" that allows research only on "unfertilized" human eggs.

11: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would "ban human cloning" or "ban the cloning of human beings."

12: Misconception: Clones, even if born, would not really be "human beings."

12: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a "compromise" that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning "reproduc tive cloning."

12: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill contains a "14-day rule" that ensures that no woman will become pregnant with a cloned human embryo.

13: Misconception: Those who favor cloning for research would never want to allow human clones to develop past two weeks of age.

13: 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.

13: Misconception: Those who oppose the creation of human embryos by cloning are against any form of stem cell research.

13: Misconception: Those who oppose the creation of human embryos by cloning are anti-science, and they are callous ideologues who appar ently care little about the suffering of those afflicted with serious diseases.

14: Misconception: The biotechnology industry wants to create human embryos by cloning only to study their stem cells.

14: Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill and the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute Amendment would authorize only research on "surplus" human embryos who would otherwise be discarded.

Recent 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, which is 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."

NRLC strongly opposed the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute, for reasons explained in a February 21 letter to House members, posted here: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/lettertocongressgreenwood022103.html.

In the Senate, the policy supported by President Bush is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), which currently has 28 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 not.1 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. 303. The thrust of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is the same as that of the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute that the House rejected on February 27, 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 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."

In a speech on human cloning last year, 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)

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)

The Situation in the U.S. Senate

The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 303) has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Senator Hatch chairs. One or both committees will conduct hearings and perhaps mark-up (voting) meetings on these bills. In addition, the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, chaired by Senator Brownback, is conducting a series of hearings on issues surrounding human cloning.

But whatever happens in these committees, it is expected that the full Senate will vote on both of these diametrically conflicting approaches.

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: 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 a number of other nations, including Germany) 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.

It should also be noted that the Hatch-Feinstein bill contains exactly the same 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."

Such characterizations are flatly false. The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) - - like their predecessors in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) - - 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. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface added for emphasis.]

Thus, the methods currently used to "clone" new skin, for example, or to "clone" DNA, are 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, Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who said on the House floor during debate on 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/Greenwood-Deutsch proposals 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 clone 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 College, 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.

The terms often being used in press accounts - - "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 agenda-driven, because no therapies have been demonstrated even in animals using cells taken from cloned embryos (as discussed below), 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 several hundred cells) or 14 days old (consisting of thousands of cells). Calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old human embryo an "egg" is an attempt to deceive the public regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists should enlist.

(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." (Unfortunately, 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/Gearhartsays%20it'snotanegg.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 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 thirty, 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 rule 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.

Certainly some people 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 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." So if a cloned human embryo is brought to birth, will she 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. 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.

Moreover, 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. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson last year 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, one house of the New Jersey legislature has passed a bill 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. (SB 1909, as amended) 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.)

Similar bills have been introduced in New York (A. 6249) and Maryland (H.B. 482). These bills authorize research on embryonic, fetal, and adult stem cells resulting from cloning - - and these bills are supported by the biotechnology industry in these states. The New York bill explicitly restricts cloning only if it involves "the gestation and subsequent birth of a human being." [emphasis added]

((To read material on "fetus farming" issues raised by one cloning-related bill introduced during the 107th Congress (2001-2002), see http://www.nrlc. org/killing_embryos/DorganJohnson050802.html.))

Last year, 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." Indeed, so far these are the only two animal studies that have claimed to show "therapeutic" results from cloning. (See "Reality Check: Proof of 'Therapeutic Cloning?," www.stemcellresearch.org/pr/pr20030310.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 and www.usccb.org/prolife/ issues/bioethic/adult701.htm.

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.

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 unethical,2 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.

http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/patentpuzzle030202.html

MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein bill and the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute Amendment would authorize only research on "surplus" human embryos who would otherwise be discarded.

REALITY: During 2000 and 2001, there was a raging national debate over whether the federal government should provide funds for research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos created through in vitro fertilization in fertility clinics. 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 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).

It appears that some vocal advocates of "therapeutic cloning" are not yet sufficiently versed in the new party line, and they slip back into the old party line at the oddest moments. For example, at a February 5 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 for research.

NOTES:

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 the People's Republic of 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 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."