Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 28, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3747 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY OVERSIGNT OF
HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH
TESTIMONY-BY: MR. RANDOLPHE H. WICHER , FOUNDER, CLONE
RIGHTS UNITED FRONT SPOKESMAN
AFFILIATION: HUMAN
CLONING FOUNDATION
BODY: March 28, 2001 The House
Committee On Energy and Commerce W.J. Billy Tauzin, Chairman Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations Hearing Issues Raised by
Human
Cloning Research Mr. Randolphe H. Wicker Founder, Clone Rights United
Front Spokesman,
Human Cloning Foundation Summary of Testimony
Points to be made in testimony: - Cloning is a part of every citizen s
reproductive right. - Stem cell research is based on
human
cloning technology. - The FDA has no authority over the fertility
industry. - Cloning is part of every American s right to religious liberty. -
The Raelian movement is a legitimate religious movement. - The Raelian movement
and its CLONAID have behaved fraudulently. - There is no need for new laws, only
enforcement of existing ones. - The dangers of animal cloning are not applicable
to
human cloning. - The international consortium, which
includes Dr. Zavos, is a cautious, professional, experienced team. The
regulation of medicine should be left to physicians. Medicine and science are
not areas in which unknowledgeable politicians should meddle. Testimony before
the house subcommittee on oversight and investigation Thank you for inviting me
to testify today. This hearing is being held because everyone knows that
human cloning is going to happen. As Dr. Zavos points out: The
Genie is out of the bottle . As a
human cloning activist during
the past four years, I have viewed with alarm the growing public hysteria
surrounding this issue. The general public is both highly opinionated and
totally misinformed regarding
human cloning. Cloning technology
is a scientific achievement as significant as the conquering of smallpox,
although less important than the discovery of the printing press. Cloning
technology has achieved monumental importance due to its central role in stem
cell research. Despite all the hand-wringing and declarations against the
cloning of human beings by biotech companies, stem cell research cannot be
separated from
human cloning. The same technology, inserting a
cell into an enucleated egg, is central to both. The only difference between the
two is that, in stem cell research, a tiny embryo no larger than the dot at the
end of this sentence is killed through transforming it into a stem cell culture.
In
human cloning, the same embryo would be implanted into a
woman s womb and allowed to develop into a wanted and loved child. The general
public supports stem cell research because it promises to revolutionize
medicine. The same public opposes
human cloning, which itself
is simply a medical cure for the human disability called infertility. The FDA
has issued invalid legally unenforceable politically popular feel-good
regulations forbidding
human cloning in American fertility
clinics. Mark Eibert will elaborate on this later. The Government that governs
best governs least. The first and most central issue raised by
human
cloning involves each individual citizen s reproductive rights. The
decision by individual citizens about having children and their manner of
conception has always been a decision made by a patient in consultation with her
or his doctor. Politicians in Washington and politicians in state capitols have
no business deciding for American citizens who can bear children and how they
can have them. The second critical issue raised by
human
cloning involves each individual citizen s right to religious belief
and practice. I testified to the U S House of Representatives Committee on
Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, on Thursday, February 12,
1998. I would like to quote a short part of that testimony before tackling the
difficult situation currently facing us. I would also like to note that, on this
issue, I am speaking for myself and not as an official representative of The
Human Cloning Foundation. . . .Religiously based restrictions.
. .have no place in the law. They violate religious freedom. Those who believe
cloning offers a partial temporary immortality have the right to secure an
extended life for their genotype...
human cloning does change,
at least slightly, the traditionally clear line between life and death. If, even
after death, a later born identical twin can be born carrying the originator s
genotype into another life, doesn t that somehow deny death its traditional
totality? An appropriate phrase might be, Right To Life equals Right to Clone.
Already, a Montreal-based group, the Raelians- with which I have no association
whatsoever, I might say-are virtually preaching eternal or extended life through
cloning. They offer to clone you for $200,000 at their Bahamanian facility,
which we have found out doesn t really exist. (See page 111 of February 12,
1998, Testimony to the Subcommittee.) I am submitting to this committee a copy
of a press release and invitation sent to me on October 8, 2000 by Nadine Gary
on behalf of CLONAID, The First
Human Cloning Company, entitled
HUMAN CLONING WILL ALLOW GAY COUPLES TO HAVE CHILDREN, I ask
that it be included in the official printed record. (See Attachment 1) I am also
submitting the opening few paragraphs of an article I wrote and which was
published in GayToday, www.gaytoday.badpuppy.com
<http://www.gaytoday.badpuppy.com> that gives context and perspective to
the CLONAID press release with the same name. (See Attachment 2) I am also
submitting two other articles filled with valuable information. The first is an
editorial from www.clonerights.com <http://www.clonerights.com> entitled
Religious Group Hijacks
Human Cloning Movement, January 8,
2001. (See attachment 3) The second is one of many items sent to me to be shared
with the press. It is titled A Christian s Letter to CLONAID. (See Attachment 4)
Virtually all media, with the exception of Wired Magazine s exceptional cover
story by Brian Alexander (February 2001), have ignored the outrageous hype and
attempted fraud perpetuated by the Raelian Movement. Apparently, you can get
away with almost anything in the United States if you just do it in the name of
religion and called yourself a faith-based enterprise. Freedom of speech does
not give anyone the right to falsely scream Fire! in a crowded theater. Freedom
of religion does not give anyone the right to commit fraud. There is no need for
new legislation or regulation on either reproductive freedom or religious
belief. There is only a need to prosecute fraud whenever it occurs regardless of
the person or group perpetrating it. Finally, the last critical question raised
by
human cloning technology revolves around who should control
and regulate it or whether control and regulation are even possible. It is
nearly impossible to draft legislation to outlaw reproductive cloning without
harming medical and scientific research in the process. It is mind-boggling that
most major media equate declarations by a group of space-cadet wackos about
their secret lab where they are claiming that they are actually cloning a human
being to the professional, responsible, cautious attempt to perfect cloning
technology by two of the world s most renowned and experienced fertility
doctors. This is like comparing moon rocks to polished Earthly diamonds. Drs.
Zavos and Antinori speak in terms of perfecting techniques, which will make
human cloning safe and viable. During a personal meeting less
than a week ago, Dr. Zavos pointed out to me that he was not selling anything
-compared to the Raelains who tell the media that he who pays the most gets
cloned first. Dr. Zavos services are not for sale. I believe that he is as he
appears to be-a dedicated warm human being seeking to perfect a narrowly-focused
therapy for disabled infertile couples so that they might have children
genetically related to themselves. For instance, I would not qualify under Dr.
Zavos and Dr. Antinori s criteria. They have set narrow limits and strict
guidelines regarding their goals. I would suggest that those interested read a
leaflet about the 62-year-old woman who had a healthy child with Dr. Antinori s
help, which I will not submit as testimony unless requested by the Committee.
The sound bite for today is Cloning is Dangerous Because Animal Experiments Have
Shown It to be So. I would suggest that journalists read carefully the detailed
screening procedures that will be undertaken before
human
cloning is even attempted by this professional international
consortium. I see a line-up of witnesses ready to testify to this committee. We
have Arthur Caplan, whose voice has so crowded out other voices within bioethics
that he is recognized as an American secular Pope. In Time Magazine, he said,
The short answer to the cloning question is that anybody who clones somebody
today should be arrested. Dr. Zavos and I have decided to depose this
self-anointed secular Pope by refusing to debate him. See our leaflet Let Other
Bioethicists Be Heard, which this Committee may include in its publication if it
so chooses. How does one engage in civilized discourse with a man who begins the
debate declaring that you should be arrested ? This moral authority who would
have us arrested was the first ethicist sued because of his involvement in the
unnecessary death of Tucson teenager Jesse Gelsinger. I would suggest that HE
should be the one arrested. This is a man who has contributed to the death of a
healthy young American citizen. I object to his being allowed to testify to this
committee. His morality has been the subject of legal action. I also see that
you have another anti-cloning witness, Rudolf Jaenisch, from MIT. I listened
carefully to this man s arguments on The Charlie Rose Show. Basically, he argued
that Dolly, the sheep conceived through cloning, might be mentally retarded
and/or schizophrenic. I would appreciate Rudolf Jaenisch supplying me with an
intelligence test or a psychological screening test to see if an apparently
normal sheep is or is not schizophrenic. You can t win with these people. When I
testified in 1998, the skeptics were asking if we could be sure Dolly wasn t a
fraud? After that, the naysayers said Dolly was seven years old when she was
born. Well, we now have five successive generations of cloned mice, and their
telomeres seem to indicate that cloning actually increases life expectancy.
Dolly, if she was six or seven years of age at birth, must be the oldest living
sheep in memory to have had offspring just recently. I am not an expert in sheep
menopause. I refer you to Rudolf Jaenisch on that issue. And please, get me that
intelligence test and that personality evaluation test for sheep so we can
evaluate his allegations. Now, we face the great issue of animal deformities
that resulted from animal experiments. This is the big issue this week. Well, to
begin, let us say two year old cloning technology and/or studies are equivalent
to ten year old computer technology. Adults come to this issue (and I might well
be one of them) with emotionally-based biases around which they construct
intellectual defenses. I would ask any thinking person to consider the facts:
the international consortium is working to perfect
human
cloning technology. Indeed, because it is taking a cautious
professional approach, it might well be faced with disastrous results from those
crazies seeking money, fame and glory for their prophet. I would point to an
extraordinary situation in Brazil (Economist, July 22, 2000) in which science
funding is insulated from the whims of politicians and the general public s
hysteria. Shouldn t this be the model for the United States of America? I
respectfully submit this testimony to this committee and hope that the
information contained in it helps shape constructive political and social policy
for the new
LOAD-DATE: March 30, 2001, Friday