GENETIC CROSSROADS #17
May 16, 2001
Supporting responsible uses of human genetic
technologies
Opposing the new techno-eugenics
CONTENTS
II.
HUMAN CLONING UPDATE
1.
Report on Cloning Legislation in US Congress
2.
UK Health Secretary Recommends Cloning Ban
3.
Prominent Scientists Support Cloning Ban in Science
4.
Debate on Embryo Cloning in Nature Medicine
III.
OTHER NEWS AND POINTERS
1.
Gerhard Shroder Rejects Human Genetic Manipulation
2.
James Watson on the "Next Step for Science"
IV.
EVENTS AND RESOURCES
1.
Beyond Biodevastation 2001, San Diego, June 22-23
2.
Extropy Institute Conference, San Jose, June 15-17
3.
Redesigning Life: The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic
Engineering
4.
Made not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology
Since the beginning of the year human cloning has become a live
political
issue in countries around the world. Even in the United
States, where the
technologies of human genetic manipulation are
being most aggressively
promoted, a federal cloning ban will soon
be debated. (See below.)
A US ban on human cloning would be an important step toward
bringing
human genetic and reproductive technologies under
societal control. But
it would be only a first step. The US must
also join those countries
that have already outlawed human
germline engineering. This technology,
which would allow the
production of genetically "enhanced" children,
would serve as the
keystone of a frankly eugenic agenda that has
gathered a
disturbing number of adherents among scientists and others.
"Genetic enhancement" has also been in the news of late: on the
front
page of the New York Times (May 11, "Someday Soon, Athletic
Edge May
Be From Altered Genes") and in the May 14 issue of
Sports Illustrated
("Unnatural Selection: Genetic Engineering is
About to Produce a New
Breed of Athlete Who Will Obliterate the
Limits of Human Performance").
Both articles focus on the introduction of genes into existing
people.
(Medical experiments with such gene transfer procedures,
technically
known as "somatic" genetic engineering, are
currently underway in
clinical trials.)
Both articles acknowledge that the use of genetic engineering to
"enhance" individuals would be medically dangerous, and
politically
and ethically controversial. But both also contain
many claims that
such procedures are inevitable. The NY Times
article, for example,
states that "athletes, scientists and
sports administrators universally
agree that someone will
attempt genetic engineering, if they have not
already." And both
blur somatic gene transfer, germline engineering,
and other
eugenic practices such as the purchase of human eggs from
women
thought to be in some way "superior."
As techno-eugenic advocate Gregory Stock writes, "[H]uman cloning
is
most significant as a symbol: it has served notice that
humanity is
going to change more than the landscape we inhabit. .
.Whether or not
human cloning is banned will have little impact
on that critical
transformation because biotechnology is racing
ahead on a broad front."
Gregory Stock, The Prospects for Human
Germline Engineering, 1/29/99,
<www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2621/1.htm>.
1. Report on Cloning Legislation in Congress
As of May 14, seven bills have been introduced in the US Congress
to
ban human cloning. The major difference among them turns on
whether
a ban should apply only to the creation of cloned people
(reproductive
cloning) or also to the creation of cloned human
embryos for purposes
of medical experimentation (embryo
cloning.)
Supporters of embryo cloning say it may have important
therapeutic
applications. Opponents say its therapeutic
applications do not appear
promising, and that it opens a very
wide door to reproductive cloning
and to germline
engineering.
In the past, most opponents of embryo cloning have been
conservatives
and anti-abortion forces; most of those willing to
support it have been
liberals. Now, however, progressives,
liberals, and environmental and
women's health leaders are
beginning to speak more supportively of a
complete ban on all
varieties of human cloning. Left-liberal Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH),
for example, chair of the House Progressive Caucus,
has signed on
as a co-sponsor of the bill banning both embryo cloning
and
reproductive cloning (the "Weldon Bill," HR1644).
Hearings may be held by the House Judiciary Committee and the
Energy
and Commerce committee in mid-June, and the full House
could vote on a
cloning ban as early as mid-July or August. If a
bill passes the House,
action will begin on the Senate side in
earnest, perhaps in late summer
but more likely early fall.
The biotech industry is stronger in the Senate than in the House.
The
shape of anti-cloning legislation may depend on whether key
liberals,
mostly Democrats but including some Republicans, will
vote for a more
comprehensive ban even though it is favored by
conservative legislators,
or for the narrower approach favored by
the biotech industry.
2. UK Health Secretary Recommends Cloning Ban
The British Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn,
announced in
mid-April that the government plans to introduce
legislation to outlaw
reproductive human cloning. UK media
coverage noted that the proposed
ban is meant "to ease public
fears about genetic technology."
Reproductive cloning in the UK is currently under the control of
the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has
stated that it
will not approve it. Milburn said the government
believes that producing
humans by cloning "should be banned by
law, not just by licence."
Milburn also announced funding proposals and other plans to
ensure that
Britain "remains on the cutting edge of genetic
technology."
<http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/science/story.jsp?story=67472>
3. Prominent Scientists Support Cloning Ban in Science
The March 30 issue of Science magazine includes a letter titled
"Don't
Clone Humans!" from Rudolph Jaenisch of the Whitehead
Institute and Ian
Wilmut, head of the team at the Roslin
Institute that produced "Dolly,"
the first mammal to be cloned
from an adult.
"There are many social and ethical reasons why we would never be
in
favor of copying a person," Jaenisch and Wilmut wrote.
"However, our
immediate concern is that this proposal fails to
take into account
problems encountered in animal cloning."
The authors distinguish between "copying a person" (reproductive
cloning) and "therapeutic cell cloning," which they support.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5513/2552>
(fee)
4. Debate on Embryo Cloning in Nature Medicine
Though the British government has moved to ban reproductive
cloning,
it has recently approved the creation of human embryos
by cloning, and
their use to derive embryonic stem (ES) cells.
This approval has been
controversial in the UK among both
scientists and the public.
In the April issue of Nature Medicine, fertility pioneer Robert
Winston
defends embryo cloning and the medical potential of ES
cells. Michael
Antoniou, a molecular geneticist at Guy's Hospital
in London, argues
that adult stem cells hold more medical promise
than do ES cells (while
pointing out that any medical benefits
from either variety of stem cells
are years in the future), and
that embryo cloning would make both
reproductive cloning and
germline engineering far more likely.
<http://www.nature.com/nm/>
1. Gerhard Shroder Rejects Human Genetic Manipulation
In an article on German reactions to the legalization of
euthanasia in
the Netherlands, the New York Times comments that
"so-called bio-politics
are currently under intense review" in
Germany. In that context, it
quotes a recent statement by
Chancellor Gerhard Schroder: "We agree on
what we do not want:
the cloned, optimized, genetically selected human
being."
("Horror Expressed in Germany Over Dutch Euthanasia," New York
Times, April 12).
2. James Watson on the "Next Step for Science"
James Watson has reiterated his support for human germline
engineering in
an article in the UK Independent titled "Fixing
the human embryo is the
next step for science." "I strongly
favour controlling our children's
genetic destinies," Watson
writes. A lead story in the newspaper agreed
(April 16). <http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=66804>
<http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=66828>
Commenting on these articles, the British weekly on-line
publication
BioNews, which is sponsored by AstraZeneca,
editorialized that the
"worst outcome would not be a future of
genetic underclasses or designer
babies, but one where genetic
science has failed to develop because of
our fear of how it might
be abused." (BioNews #103, April 17,
<http://www.progress.org.uk/News/BioNewsSearch.html>.)
1. Beyond Biodevastation 2001, San Diego, June 22-27
"The Fifth Grassroots Gathering to Celebrate Biodiversity and
Question
Genetic Engineering" will feature speakers, panels, and
workshops on
the genetic engineering of plants, animals, and
humans; as well as
protests targeting the June 24-27 convention
of BIO, the Biotechnology
Industry Organization.
Registration is underway and is requested by June 7 (June 1 for
help
with arranging housing or child care). Information about
schedule,
speakers, and registration is available at <http://www.biodev.org/>.
2. Extropy Institute Conference, San Jose, June 15-17
Proponents of a post-human and techno-eugenic future will gather
at
"Extro-5 Conference: Shaping Things to Come." According to a
press
release written by Extropy Institute head Max More,
"Strident voices
and legislation threaten to hold back progress
in biotech, information
technology, the spread of open markets,
and the development of
technologies that could cure age-old
ailments, extend our lives and
augment our capabilities." <http://www.extropy.org/ex5/extro5.htm>
3. Redesigning Life: The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering
The anthology Redesigning Life (Brian Tokar, ed. Zed Books: 2001)
is
now available in the US and the UK. A Canadian edition from
McGill-
Queens University Press and an Australian edition from
Scribe
Publications will be available shortly.
The book is divided into four sections: Our Health, Our Food and
the
Environment; Medical Genetics, Science and Human Rights;
Patents,
Corporate Power, and the Theft of Knowledge; The
Worldwide Resistance
to Genetic Engineering.
Contributors include Vandana Shiva, Martha Crouch, Hope Shand,
Beth
Burrows, Jack Kloppenburg, Ricarda Steinbrecher, Victoria
Tauli-Corpuz,
Marcy Darnovsky, David King, Michael Dorsey, Sarah
Sexton, Chaia Heller,
Barbara Katz Rothman, Alix Fano, Zoe C.
Meleo-Erwin, Mitchel Cohen,
Kimberly Wilson, Steve Emmott, Thomas
Schweiger, and others.
<http://www.zedbooks.demon.co.uk/autumn2000long.htm>
4. Made Not Born: The Troubling World of Biotechnology
The anthology Made Not Born (Casey Walker, ed. Sierra Club Books:
2000)
is now in its second printing.
Contributors include Wendell Berry, Chris Desser, Stuart Newman,
David
Loy, Marti Crouch, Andrew Kimbrell, Jack Turner, Richard
Hayes,
Catherine Keller, Richard Strohman, Freeman House, Kristin
Dawkins,
Martin Teitel, and David Petersen. <http://www.wildduckreview.com/>
V. ABOUT GENETIC CROSSROADS (formerly Techno-Eugenics Email Newsletter)
This newsletter originated in 1999 out of the concerns of
academics,
activists, and others in the San Francisco Bay Area
about the direction
of the new human genetic and reproductive
technologies. It is published
by the Exploratory Initiative on
the New Human Genetic Technologies, a
public interest
organization working to alert the public and leaders of
civil
society about the urgent need for societal oversight of
these
technologies and the dangers of the techno-eugenic
vision.
We support genetic and reproductive technologies that serve the
public
interest. We oppose those--especially human germline
engineering and
human reproductive cloning--that would be likely
to exacerbate inequality,
the commercialization of reproduction,
and the commodification of human
genes and tissues.
GENETIC CROSSROADS is published approximately once a month.
Feedback,
submissions, and suggestions are welcome. Marcy
Darnovsky will moderate.
Please forward GENETIC CROSSROADS to
others who may be interested.
Exploratory Initiative staff, San Francisco:
Marcy Darnovsky,
Ph.D. <genetic-crossroads@genetics-and-society.org>
Richard
Hayes, M.A. <richard.hayes@genetics-and-society.org>
Tania
Simoncelli, M.S. <tania@publicmediacenter.org>
Jesse
Reynolds, M.S. <reynolds@nature.berkeley.edu>
Exploratory Initiative staff, Washington DC:
Douglas Hunt,
Ph.D. <dhunt@hgtinitiative.org>
More Information
Analysis:
Examine the social, cultural, and economic landscape
Perspectives:
Explore various communities' concerns regarding human genetic
technologies
Policies:
Read about existing and potential regulations
Technologies:
Learn the basic science and consider arguments for and against