SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1496 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE

SUBCOMMITTEE: HEALTH

HEADLINE: PROHIBITON ON HUMAN CLONING

TESTIMONY-BY: FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, PROFESSOR,

AFFILIATION: GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

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. Francis Fukuyama Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy The School of Public Policy George Mason University

(As of July 1, 2001, Dr. Francis Fukuyama will be Bernard Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He is currently Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University)

Statement of Francis Fukuyama, Ph.D.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the subject of human cloning. I am Dr. Francis Fukuyama, and as of July 1 of this year I will be Bernard Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. I have been working intensively for the past several years on the implications of modern biology for politics, and particularly on issues of international governance related to biotechnology. I am opposed to human cloning for two reasons. The first is that human reproductive cloning, if and when it becomes possible, will constitute a highly unnatural form of reproduction, one that interferes with the normal process of conception and establishes a very abnormal relationship between parent and child. I believe that human nature is a valid standard for establishing human rights, and that technological procedures that interfere egregiously with normal human functioning should be viewed very skeptically in the absence of very powerful reasons to do so. I do not have time today to defend this position at greater length, but would be happy to provide the subcommittee with further materials at a later time.

The second reason that I am opposed to human cloning, and in support of legislation to curtail it, is that cloning represents the opening wedge for a series of future technologies that will permit us to alter the human germline and ultimately to design people genetically. I believe that we must proceed extremely cautiously in this direction because such a capability of altering human nature has extremely grave political, social, and moral implications. It is therefore extremely important that Congress act legislatively at this point to establish the principle that our democratic political community is sovereign and has the power to control the pace and scope of such technological developments.

There is another reason for Congress to act quickly, one that is related to our American political system. In the past, it has been the case that the courts have stepped into controversial areas of social policy when the legislature failed to act to negotiate acceptable political rules. This was the case, for example, with both abortion and busing. In the absence of Congressional action on cloning, it is conceivable that the courts at some later point may be tempted or compelled to step into the breech and discover, for example, that human cloning or research on cloning is a constitutionally protected right. This has been and will be a very poor approach to the formulation of law and public policy. The American people must therefore express their will on human cloning at the first opportunity through their democratically elected representatives, a will that I believe the courts will be predisposed to respect.

Of the two bills before this committee, H.R. 1644, "The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001," and H.R. 2172, "The Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001," I would strongly urge Congress to pass the former. The reason for this is that while both bills ban reproductive cloning, the latter in effect legalizes non- reproductive cloning and the deliberate creation of embryos for research purposes. I believe that this would legitimate the first step toward the manufacture of human beings, and I do not believe that it will be possible to enforce a ban on reproductive cloning once embryos can be easily produced for research purposes.

The issue that I would like to raise before this committee concerns the international dimensions of any effort to regulate a medical technology like human cloning. Opponents of a legislative ban frequently argue that such a ban would be rendered ineffective by the fact that we live in a globalized world in which any attempt to regulate technology by sovereign nation- states can easily be sidestepped by moving to another jurisdiction. There are other advanced countries in Europe and Asia eager to move ahead in biotechnology, it is said, and the United States will risk falling behind technologically if we hobble ourselves by restricting either research into or the actual procedure of cloning. In the absence of comprehensive international regulation, no national regulation will work. This is part of a larger widespread belief that technological advance should not and cannot be stopped.

I believe that this is a fundamentally flawed argument. In the first place, it is simply not the case that the pace and scope of technological advance cannot be controlled politically. There are many dangerous or controversial technologies, including nuclear weapons and nuclear power, ballistic missiles, biological and chemical warfare agents, replacement human body parts, neuropharmacological drugs, and the like which cannot be freely developed or traded internationally. We have successfully regulated experimentation in human subjects internationally for many decades. The fact that none of the regulatory regimes controlling these technologies has ever been leakproof or regulations fully implemented has never been a valid reason not to try to put them in place in the first instance.

Second, to argue that no national ban or regulation can precede an international agreement on the subject is to put the cart before the horse. Regulation never starts at an international level: nation-states have to set up enforceable rules for their own societies before they can even begin to think about international rules. The United States, as an economically, politically, and culturally dominant force in the world will have an enormous impact on other societies. The Council on Europe has already passed a ban on cloning; to date, twenty-four countries (including Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) have already enacted national bans on cloning, while sixteen have banned creation of embryos for research purposes. The United States can do a great deal to either reinforce (or else undermine) an emerging international consensus that human cloning is an unacceptable use of medical technology.

I do believe that international competition in biomedical research creates problems for any nation that wants to limit or control new technology. There are a number of countries that will try to exploit a human cloning ban or any other constraints the United States places on the development of future biotechnologies. We should not be prematurely defeatist, however, in thinking that we have no choice but to join in this technological arms race. If we can establish a general consensus among civilized nations that human cloning is unacceptable, we will then have a range of traditional diplomatic and economic instruments at our disposal to persuade or pressure countries outside that consensus to join. If human cloning ends up being a procedure that can be performed, but only in states regarded as renegade or pariahs, then so much the better. But none of this will be possible unless we first begin by establishing laws on this subject for the United States.

Let me close by saying that human cloning is the first of many political decisions and battles that will occur over biotechnology. In the future, total bans on research and technology development of the sort envisioned by H. R. 1644 will not be the right model. What we will soon need is a broader regulatory structure that will permit us, on a routine basis, to make decisions that distinguish between those technologies that represent positive and helpful advances for human well-being, and those that raise troubling moral and political questions. Ultimately, this regulation will have to become international in scope if it is to be more effective. We will need to think carefully about the institutional form that such a regulatory structure must take. A blanket ban on human cloning is appropriate at this time, however, because it is necessary at an early point to establish the principle that the political community has the legitimacy, authority, and power to control the direction of future biomedical research, on an issue where it is difficult to come up with compelling arguments about why there is a legitimate need for human cloning.

Thank you very much for your attention.



LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2001