Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
June 20, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4383 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE: HEALTH
HEADLINE:
PROHIBITON ON
HUMAN CLONING
TESTIMONY-BY: RICHARD DOERLLINGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT,
AFFILIATION: NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
BODY: June 20, 2001
Prepared Witness Testimony The Committee on Energy and Commerce W.J.
"Billy Tauzin" Chairman
H.R. 1644,
Human Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2001, and H.R.____, Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001
Subcommittee on Health
Mr. Richard M. Doerflinger Associate
Director for Policy Development National Conference of Catholic Bishops
I am Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director for Policy Development
at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic
Bishops. I am grateful for this opportunity to testify on
human
cloning, and to express our Conference=s support for a federal ban on
the practice as proposed in Congressman Weldon=s AHuman Cloning Prohibition Act
of 2001@ (H.R. 1644).
The sanctity and dignity of human life is a
cornerstone of Catholic moral and social teaching. We believe a society can be
judged by the respect it shows for human life, especially in its most vulnerable
stages and conditions. At first glance,
human cloning may not
seem to threaten respect for life because it is presented as a means for
creating life, not destroying it. Yet it shows disrespect for life in the very
act of generating it. Here human life does not arise from an act of love, but is
manufactured in the laboratory to preset specifications determined by the
desires of others. Developing human beings are treated as objects, not as
individuals with their own identity and rights. Because cloning completely
divorces human reproduction from the context of a loving union between man and
woman, such children have no Aparents@ in the usual sense. As a group of experts
advising the Holy See has written:
In the cloning process the basic
relationships of the human person are perverted: filiation, consanguinity,
kinship, parenthood. A woman can be the twin sister of her mother, lack a
biological father and be the daughter of her grandmother. In vitro fertilization
has already led to the confusion of parentage, but cloning will mean the radical
rupture of these bonds.[1]
From the dehumanizing nature of this
technique flow many disturbing consequences. Because human clones would be
produced by a means that involves no loving relationship, no personal investment
or responsibility for a new life, but only laboratory technique, they would be
uniquely at risk of being treated as Asecond-class@ human beings.
In the
present state of science, attempts to produce a liveborn child by cloning would
require taking a callous attitude toward human life. Animal trials show that 95
to 99% of cloned embryos die. Of those which survive, many are stillborn or die
shortly after birth. The rest may face unpredictable but potentially devastating
health problems. Those problems are not detectable before birth, because they do
not come from genetic defects as such B they arise from the disorganized
expression of genes, because cloning plays havoc with the usual process of
genetic reorganization in the embryo.[2 ]
Scenarios often cited as
justifications for
human cloning are actually symptoms of the
disordered view of human life that it reflects and promotes. It is said that
cloning could be used to create Acopies@ of illustrious people, or to replace a
deceased loved one, or even to provide genetically matched tissues or organs for
the person whose genetic material was used for the procedure. Each such proposal
is indicative of a utilitarian view of human life, in which a fellow human is
treated as a means to someone else's ends -- instead of as a person with his or
her own inherent dignity. This same attitude lies at the root of human slavery.
Let me be perfectly clear. In objective reality a cloned human being
would not be an Aobject@ or a substandard human being. Whatever the
circumstances of his or her origin, he or she would deserve to be treated as a
human person with an individual identity. But the depersonalized technique of
manufacture known as cloning disregards this dignity and sets the stage for
further exploitation. Cloning is not wrong because cloned human beings would
lack human dignity -- it is wrong because they have human dignity, and are being
brought into the world in a way that fails to respect that dignity.
Ironically, startling evidence of the dehumanizing aspects of cloning is
found in some proposals ostensibly aimed at preventing
human
cloning. These initiatives would not ban
human cloning
at all -- but would simply ban any effort to allow cloned human embryos to
survive. In these proposals, researchers are allowed to use cloning for the
unlimited mass production of human embryos for experimentation -- and are then
required by law to destroy them, instead of allowing them to implant in a
woman's womb.
In other words: Faced with a 99% death rate from cloning,
such proposals would Asolve@ the problem by ensuring that the death rate rises
to 100%. No live clones, therefore no evidence that anyone performed cloning.
This is reassuring for researchers and biotechnology companies who may wish the
freedom to make countless identical human guinea pigs for lethal experiments. It
is no great comfort to the dead human clones; nor is it a solution worthy of us
as a nation.
Congressman Greenwood=s ACloning Prohibition Act of 2001@
(H.R. 2172) is even worse than previous bills of this kind. It would actually
have the Department of Health and Human Services authorize and license the
practice of destructive cloning. In a new way, our government would be actively
involved in
human cloning B but only to ensure that no cloned
embryos get out of the laboratory alive. Under the guise of a ban on cloning,
the government would assist researchers in refining their procedure; then, ten
years after the date of enactment, it would obligingly drop all penalties for
using cloning to initiate a pregnancy, so they could use their newly honed
skills to manufacture babies. This bill would even invalidate any future state
law seeking to establish a genuine ban on cloning, by preempting any such law
that does not take the same irresponsible approach.
Sometimes it is said
that such proposals would ban Areproductive cloning@ or Alive birth cloning,@
while allowing Atherapeutic cloning@ or Aembryo cloning.@ This may sound
superficially reasonable. If banning all cloning is too difficult a task,
perhaps we could ban half of it B and the half that is Atherapeutic@ sounds like
the half we=d like to keep.
But this description relies on a fundamental
confusion as to what cloning is. I can sum up the real situation in a few
propositions.
1. All
human cloning is embryo cloning.
Some accounts of cloning seem to imagine that cloning for research purposes
produces an embryo, while cloning for reproductive purposes produces a baby or
even a fully grown adult B like new copies of Michael Keaton or Arnold
Schwarzenegger springing full-grown from a laboratory. This is, of course,
nonsense. In the words of Professor Lee Silver of Princeton University, a
leading advocate of
human cloning: AReal biological cloning can
only take place at the level of the cell.@[3]
Cloning technology can
also be used to produce other kinds of cells; these are not the subject of this
hearing, and they are explicitly excluded from the scope of Congressman Weldon=s
legislation. But when somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to replace the
nucleus of an egg with the nucleus of a human body cell and the resulting cell
is stimulated, a human embryo results, whatever one=s ultimate plans on what to
do next.[4]
2. In an important sense, all
human cloning
is reproductive cloning. Once one creates a live human embryo by cloning, one
has engaged in reproduction B albeit a very strange form of asexual
reproduction. All subsequent stages of development -- gestation, birth, infancy,
etc. -- are simply those which normally occur in the development of any human
being (though reaching them may be far more precarious for the cloned human, due
to the damage inflicted by the cloning procedure).
To say this is not to
make a controversial moral claim about personhood or legal rights.[5] It is to
state a biological fact: Once one produces an embryo by cloning, a new living
being has arrived and the key event in reproduction has taken place. The
complete human genome that once belonged to one member of the human species now
also belongs to another. Anything that now happens to this being will be
Aenvironmental@ influence upon a being already in existence -- transfer to a
womb and live birth, for example, are chiefly simple changes in location.
Moreover, even government study commissions favoring harmful human
embryo experiments concede that with the generation of a new embryo, a new life
has come into the world. They describe the early embryo as Aa developing form of
human life@ which Awarrants serious moral consideration.@ [6]
Thus
generating this new human life in the laboratory confronts us with new moral
questions: Not AShould we clone?@ but AWhat do we do with this living human we
have produced by cloning?@ If all the available answers are lethal to the cloned
human 95% to 100% of the time, we should not allow cloning.
3. All
human cloning, at present, is experimental cloning. The line
between Areproductive@ and Aexperimental@ cloning is especially porous at
present, because any attempt to move toward bringing a cloned child to live
birth would first require many thousands of trials using embryos not intended
for live birth. Years of destructive research of this kind may be necessary
before anyone could bring a cloned human through the entire gestational process
with any reasonable expectation of a healthy child. Therefore legislation which
seeks to bar creation of a cloned embryo for purposes of live birth, while
allowing unlimited experimental cloning, would actually facilitate efforts to
refine the cloning procedure and prepare for the production of liveborn
children. This would be irresponsible in light of the compelling principled
objections to producing liveborn humans by cloning.
4. No
human
cloning is Atherapeutic@ cloning. The attempt to label cloning for
purposes of destructive experiments as Atherapeutic cloning@ is a stroke of
marketing genius by supporters of human embryo research. But it does serious
damage to the English language and common sense, for two reasons.
First,
the experiments contemplated here are universally called Anontherapeutic
experimentation@ in law and medical ethics B that is, the experiments harm or
kill the research subject (in this case the cloned human embryo) without any
prospect of benefitting that subject. This standard meaning of Anontherapeutic@
research is found, for example, in various state laws forbidding such research
on human embryos as a crime.[7] Experiments performed on one subject solely for
possible benefit to others are never called Atherapeutic research@ in any other
context, and there is no reason to change that in this context.
Second,
the Atherapeutic@ need for
human cloning has always been highly
speculative; it now seems more doubtful than ever in light of recent advances in
adult stem cell research and other noncontroversial alternatives. In the stem
cell research debate, as one recent news report observes, AThere is one thing
everyone agrees on: Adult stem cells are proving to be far more versatile than
originally thought.@[8] Adult stem cells have shown they can be Apluripotent@ B
producing a wide array of different cells and tissues.[9] They can also be
multiplied in culture to produce an ample supply of tissue for transplantation.
[10] Best of all, using a patient=s own cells solves all problems of tissue
rejection, the chief advantage cited until now for use of cloning.[11]
In 1997 the National Bioethics Advisory Commission reviewed the idea of
cloning human embryos to create Acustomized stem cell lines@ but described this
as Aa rather expensive and far-fetched scenario@ B and added that a moral
assessment is necessary as well:
Because of ethical and moral concerns
raised by the use of embryos for research purposes it would be far more
desirable to explore the direct use of human cells of adult origin to produce
specialized cells or tissues for transplantation into patients.[12]
Now
PPL Therapeutics, the Scottish firm involved in creating ADolly@ the sheep, says
it has indeed found a way to reprogram ordinary adult cells to become stem cells
capable of being directed to form almost any kind of cell or tissue B without
creating or destroying any embryos.[13]
Even in the field of embryonic
stem cell research, new developments have called into question the need for
cloning. The problem of tissue rejection may not be as serious as once thought
when cells from early human development are used, and there are other ways of
solving the problem B for example, by genetically modifying cells to become a
closer match to a patient.[14]
For all these reasons, a recent overview
of the field concludes that human Atherapeutic cloning@ is Afalling from
favour,@ that Amany experts do not now expect therapeutic cloning to have a
large clinical impact.@ Even James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, a
leading practitioner and advocate of embryonic stem cell research generally,
calls this approach Aastronomically expensive@; in light of the enormous
wastefulness of the cloning process and the damage it does to gene expression,
Amany researchers have come to doubt whether therapeutic cloning will ever be
efficient enough to be commercially viable@ even if one could set aside the
grave moral issues involved.[15]
We should clearly understand what would
be entailed by any effort to implement a Atherapeutic cloning@ regimen for stem
cell transplants. This would not be a case in which human embryos are destroyed
once to form a permanent cell line for future use. For each individual patient,
countless human embryos B the patient=s genetic twin brothers or sisters B would
have to be created in the laboratory and then destroyed for their stem cells, in
the hope of producing genetically matched tissue for transplantation. Thus the
creation and destruction of human life in the laboratory would become an ongoing
aspect not only of medical research but of everyday medical practice. And what
would become of those who have profound moral objections to cloning, and to
having new lives created and destroyed for our benefit? Would we be told that we
must choose between our life and our conscience?
In short, the
Atherapeutic@ case for cloning is as morally abhorrent as it is medically
questionable. Which brings me to a final proposition on how to assess proposals
for preventing
human cloning. 5. Because cloned humans
are humans, any proposal to prevent
human cloning must not do
to cloned humans anything that would be universally condemned if done to other
humans at the same stage of development.
This proposition can be
universally endorsed by people on both sides of the cloning issue, and on both
sides of the abortion issue. To quote Lee Silver once more: ACloned children
will be full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from
all other members of the human species.@[16] Thus, for example, cloned embryos
deserve as much respect as other human embryos of the same stage B whatever that
level of respect may be.
Silver=s point about cloned humans being
Aindistinguishable@ from others raises a major practical problem for efforts to
allow creation of cloned embryos while forbidding their transfer to a womb. Once
the embryo is created in a fertility clinic=s research lab (as such a law would
permit) and is available for transfer, how could the government tell that this
embryo was or was not created by cloning? And if it cannot do so, how can it
enforce a prohibition on transferring cloned embryos (but not IVF embryos) to a
woman=s womb?
However, an even more serious moral and legal issue arises
at this point. If the government allows use of cloning to produce human embryos
for research but prohibits initiating a pregnancy, what will it be requiring
people to do? If pregnancy has already begun, the only remedy would seem to be
government-mandated abortion B or at least, jailing or otherwise punishing women
for remaining pregnant and giving birth. We need not dwell on the abhorrence
such a solution would rightly provoke among people on all sides of the abortion
issue. It would be as Aanti-choice@ as it is Aanti-life.@
However, even
if the law could act before transfer actually occurs, the problem is equally
intractable. For the law would have to require that these embryos be killed --
defining for the first time in U.S. history a class of human embryos that it is
a crime not to destroy. It is impossible to reconcile such a law with the
profound Arespect@ and Aserious moral consideration@ that even supporters of
human embryo research say should be accorded to all human embryos.
If
the law permitted (or, even worse, licensed) creation of cloned embryos for
research, while prohibiting their creation for any other purpose (or prohibiting
any other use of them once created), the government would be approving the one
practice in human embryo research that is widely condemned even by supporters of
abortion rights: specially creating human embryos solely for the purpose of
research that will kill them.
In 1994 the National Institutes of Health
did propose funding such abuses, as part of a larger proposal for funding human
embryo research generally. The moral outcry against this aspect of the proposal,
however, was almost universal. Opinion polls showed massive opposition, and the
NIH panel making the recommendation was inundated with over 50,000 letters of
protest. The Washington Post, while reaffirming its support for legalized
abortion, attacked the Panel=s recommendation:
The creation of human
embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable...
[I]t is not necessary to be against abortion rights, or to believe human life
literally begins at conception, to be deeply alarmed by the notion of
scientists= purposely causing conceptions in a context entirely divorced from
even the potential of reproduction.[17]
The Chicago Sun-Times likewise
editorialized:
We can debate all day whether an embryo is or isn=t a
person. But it is unquestionably human life, complete with its own unique set of
human genes that inform and drive its own development. The idea of the
manufacture of such a magnificent thing as a human life purely for the purpose
of conducting research is grotesque, at best. Whether or not it is federally
funded.[18]
In the end, President Clinton set aside the recommendation
for creation of Aresearch embryos.@
Every year since then, Congress has
prohibited funding for all harmful embryo research at the National Institutes of
Health, through the Dickey amendment to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations
bills.[19] However, even members of Congress who have led the opposition to the
Dickey amendment agree with its rejection of special creation of human embryos
for research. On the only occasion when an amendment was offered on the House
floor to weaken the Dickey amendment, the sponsors emphasized that it would
leave intact the clause rejecting the creation of embryos for research.[20]
Similarly, the recent NIH guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, as well
as Senator Specter=s AStem Cell Research Act of 2001,@ explicitly reject the
idea of using embryos specially created for research purposes.[21]
As
mentioned above, at least nine states generally prohibit harmful experiments on
human embryos living outside a woman=s body. A federal law that facilitates such
experimentation, by approving it as the only accepted use for human embryo
cloning, would mark a radical departure from state precedents on respect for
nascent human life.[22] In short, human embryos produced by cloning would be
created specifically, and solely, for destructive embryo experiments that are a
crime in some states.
Ironically, it seems the cloning procedure is so
demeaning and dehumanizing that people somehow assume that a brief life as an
object of research, followed by destruction, is Agood enough@ for any human
produced by this technique. The fact that the procedure invites such morally
irresponsible policies is another reason to ban it. For if an embryo produced by
cloning cannot even garner the respect that we all agree should be accorded to
all other human embryos, but is treated as a dangerous entity that must not be
allowed to survive, how will we view any human clone who is ultimately born
alive? As a mere Aorgan farm@ for others? Or could we compartmentalize our
thinking, so that an embryo created solely for destructive research will be
greeted as a new individual with full human rights if someone does bring him or
her to full term? In light of some uses proposed even now for born human clones,
it would be foolish to assume that our society will shift gears so easily.
We must remember that it is morally wrong and irresponsible to make
human clones, not to be a human clone. The innocent victim of cloning should not
receive a government-sanctioned death penalty simply for the crime of existing.
Therefore the approach taken by the Weldon bill, prohibiting the use of cloning
to initiate the development of a new human organism, is the only morally
responsible approach as well as the clearest and most effective one in practical
terms.
The Weldon bill even incorporates key distinctions and
recommendations made by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and its
leading spokesperson on cloning. It bans the specific act of using cloning to
make a new human organism, but does not ban Atherapeutic cloning@ as defined in
Dr. Okarma=s recent House testimony on behalf of BIO: cloning specific human
cells, genes and other tissues that do not and cannot lead to a cloned human
being.. This bill clearly exempts from its scope the use of cloning to make any
cells other than human embryos. And the Weldon bills distinction between human
embryos, which are complete human organisms, and other cells such as pluripotent
stem cells, which are not, was strongly affirmed by BIOs chief spokesperson on
cloning in December 1998 as a basis for federal policy on embryo research.[24]
By contrast, the Greenwood bill is not only morally unacceptable because
of the encouragement it gives to experimental
human cloning B
it also contains features which BIO has said are unacceptable in any cloning
ban. For example, instead of prohibiting the specific act of cloning a human
being, it relies heavily on the intent of researchers in an attempt to define
good and bad uses for
human cloning. BIO has declared that such
a subjective standard could grant undue discretion to enforcers, create
uncertainty for researchers, and consequently have a broad chilling effect among
researchers.[25] Moreover, unlike the Weldon bill, the Greenwood proposal has a
forfeiture clause calling for the confiscation of all a violators assets, which
BIO has said will have a definite chilling effect of investor interest in
funding research.
Contrary to what the biotechnology industry may now
claim in a clumsy attempt to block any real ban on cloning, then, BIOs own
standards suggest that the Greenwood bill is a far greater threat to legitimate
medical research than the Weldon bill could be. In addition, the Greenwood bill
is singularly ineffectual at doing what it was supposedly designed to do B that
is, preventing the live birth of human clones. While it seeks to ban the
creation of cloned embryos with the Aintent to initiate a pregnancy, it freely
allows the unlimited creation of these embryos in the laboratory B and then
freely allows anyone (except the person who first created them) to use them to
initiate a pregnancy, since the act of doing so is not itself prohibited. The
only way to prevent the live birth of cloned humans once this is allowed to
occur, of course, would be the odious and unacceptable solution of coercing an
abortion.
In any event, the Greenwood bills rule of construction
vitiates any ban in two ways. First, it exempts from the ban any use of cloning
to create cells regardless of ones further intent on how to use them B and a new
human embryo is, of course, a cell of a very special type. Second, it exempts
A[t]he use of in vitro fertilization, the administration of fertility-enhancing
drugs, or the use of other medical procedures to assist a woman in becoming or
remaining pregnant B and of course, the transfer of an embryo (whether produced
by cloning or not) to a womans womb is a medical procedure which could assist
her in becoming pregnant.
This is a cloning ban that only a supporter of
cloning could love.[27] It combines the moral defect of establishing a regimen
for the government-mandated destruction of human lives, and the practical defect
of massive loopholes that will ensure the arrival of live-birth cloning as well.
In short: Some would reject the most straightforward and effective
legislation against
human cloning, solely to protect the use of
cloning for a practice (creating human embryos solely for research) which is of
highly questionable use and has been rejected by policy makers on both sides of
the abortion and stem cell debates. Such advocacy should not prevent Congress
from taking the right course on this issue.
Research in the cloning of
animals, plants, and even human genes, tissues and cells (other than embryos)
can be beneficial and presents no intrinsic moral problem. However, when
research turns its attention to human subjects, we must be sure not to undermine
human dignity in the pursuit of human progress. Human experimentation divorced
from moral considerations might progress more quickly on a technical level --
but at the loss of our humanity.
A ban on
human cloning
will help direct the scientific enterprise toward research that benefits human
beings without producing, exploiting and destroying fellow human beings to gain
those benefits. Creating human life solely to cannibalize and destroy it is the
most unconscionable use of
human cloning -- not its highest
justification.
LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2001