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: 2360 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY OVERSIGNT OF
HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH
TESTIMONY-BY: DR, THOMAS MURRAY PH.D.
AFFILIATION: NATIONAL BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION
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
Dr. Thomas Murray Ph.D. National Bioethics Advisory Commission I want to begin
by thanking Representative Greenwood for the invitation to speak to you today.
My name is Dr. Thomas Murray, and I am a member of the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission (NBAC). NBAC was established by President Clinton in 1995 to
advise and make recommendations to the President through the National Science
and Technology Council and to others on bioethics issues and their policy
implications. My fellow commissioners on NBAC come from a variety of disciplines
and backgrounds, and include research scientists, religious scholars,
physicians, lawyers, and members of the public. My day job is as President of
The Hastings Center in Garrison, New York, an independent non-partisan research
institute that addresses fundamental ethical issues in the areas of health and
medicine, the biomedical sciences, and the environment. I serve on the Committee
on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and am the
author of The Worth of a Child. Upon the announcement of the cloning of Dolly
the sheep in February of 1997, former President Clinton asked NBAC to review the
legal and ethical issues associated with cloning technology and report back to
him in ninety days. Today I will briefly describe NBAC s report and its
recommendations. This report represents NBAC s assessment of these issues as we
saw them in 1997. The Commission has since issued three other reports, with two
more to be completed soon, on issues related to research with human subjects.
There is a saying in my field that good ethics begins with good facts. To that
end, NBAC held three meetings, with testimony from scientists, theologians,
ethicists, legal scholars, and the general public, and commissioned eight papers
on different issues relating to cloning. NBAC focused on a very specific aspect
of cloning, namely where genetic material would be transferred from the nucleus
of a somatic cell of an existing human being to an enucleated human egg with the
intention of creating a child. We did not revisit questions of
human
cloning by embryo-splitting or issues surrounding embryo research. The
Commission discovered that the potential ability to clone human beings through
somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques raises a host of complex scientific,
religious, legal, and ethical issues-some new, and some old. Especially
noteworthy was the diversity of views that we heard among religious scholars,
indeed even among those within the same religious tradition. Although we did not
agree on all of the ethical issues surrounding the cloning of human beings, we
nonetheless unanimously concluded that given the state of science, any attempt
to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer, whether in the public or
private sector, is uncertain in its outcome, is unacceptably dangerous to the
fetus, and therefore, morally unacceptable. In addition, NBAC made the following
recommendations: - The moratorium on the use of federal funding in support of
any attempt to create a child by somatic cell nuclear transfer should be
continued. Non-federally funded entities should be asked to comply voluntarily
with the intent of the federal moratorium. Professional and scientific societies
should make it clear that such an act would be irresponsible, unethical, and
unprofessional at this time. - Federal legislation should be enacted to prohibit
any attempt to create a child by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Such legislation
should include a sunset clause to ensure that Congress reviews the issue after a
specified time period, such as three to five years. Any state legislation should
have a similar sunset clause. At some point prior to the expiration of the
sunset period, an appropriate oversight body should evaluate and report on the
current status of the technology and the ethical and social issues that cloning
would raise. - Any legislative or regulatory actions should be carefully written
so as not to interfere with other important areas of research, such as cloning
of human DNA and cell lines. - If a legislative ban is not enacted or is lifted,
clinical use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a child should be
preceded by research subject to independent review and informed consent. - The
United States should cooperate with other nations and international
organizations to enforce common aspects of their policies. - The federal
government and others should encourage continuing deliberation on these issues,
in part to enable society to develop appropriate policies regarding cloning
should the time come when present safety concerns have been addressed. We hoped
that the report would form a useful initial basis for ongoing deliberations and
educational dialogues that we believe are essential. We also recommended that
the federal government actively encourage public education in this area of
science so that public deliberation is as informed as possible. NBAC has not
continued to debate
human cloning issues, but we have been well
aware of the continuing scientific developments and the ethical and policy
discussions that have ensued in this country and abroad. For example, - In 1997,
the G8 nations agreed at the Denver Summit on the need for appropriate domestic
measures and close international cooperation to prohibit the use of somatic cell
nuclear transfer to create a child. - With regard to our recommendation on
federal legislation, it is worth noting that at least 14 countries, including
the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel, have existing legislation prohibiting
cloning. Earlier this month, a Council of Europe protocol prohibiting cloning
human beings went into effect. - In this country, several states have proceeded
to pass their own legislation regulating cloning. The NBAC staff surveyed state
laws in 1999, at which time five states had enacted legislation to directly
prohibit
human cloning, and ten states had laws regulating
research on embryos and fetuses that could also restrict cloning activities.
Some of these laws are broader in scope than others, and I would recommend that
Congress follow NBAC s recommendation to craft a law that does not interfere
with other areas of research. In my personal view, the scientific literature
since 1997 describing the cloning of non-human animals has only further
illustrated the risks posed to the children that might be born as a result of
this technique as well as to the women who would carry these pregnancies to
term. Researchers are only beginning to understand the causes of the
abnormalities in cloned animals that have been born in recent years. Imagine a
new drug that caused abnormalities or neonatal deaths in half of the babies born
to women treated with it, and risks to the women as well. Imagine further that
this drug was given to women who were otherwise healthy. Would there be any
debate over the ethical acceptability of using this drug? Or would we condemn it
resoundingly as unethical experimentation on human beings? I believe that we
would express moral outrage. Yet these are the very risks encountered when we
try to create a human child by cloning today. I also believe that we need
urgently a vigorous public conversation about the broader ethical issues raised
by cloning: its impact on children and the parent-child relationship, the
perhaps illusory control people may believe it offers over the traits of their
offspring. I have wondered if the best antidote to the enthusiasm behind
human cloning would be if someone were successful at cloning
Michael Jordan-and Michael II, although he would begin to lose his hair at
roughly the same age as his progenitor, had absolutely no interest in playing
basketball but wanted desperately to become an accountant. What made Michael the
First great was his fierce determination and unexcelled competitiveness, not
merely his physical gifts. NBAC s recommendations are as relevant to the current
discussion on
human cloning as they were when first offered
four years ago. I would ask you to take them into consideration. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you, and I am happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
LOAD-DATE: March 30, 2001, Friday