SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 923 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM

SUBCOMMITTEE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

HEADLINE: ETHICS AND CLONING

TESTIMONY-BY: MARK SOUDER, REPRESENTATIVE

BODY:
Opening Statement Representative Mark Souder

"Medical Science and Bioethics: Attack of the Clones?"

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Committee on House Government Reform

May 15, 2002

Good afternoon and thank you all for being here today.

Today's hearing will examine the scientific, medical, and ethical issues related to human cloning and examine the need for federal law in this area.

Scientists stunned the world five years ago when they announced the creation of the world's first clone, a sheep named Dolly. In the short time since, cattle, goats, mice, rabbits and a cat have also been cloned. And efforts are now underway in the United States and elsewhere to create cloned human beings. The President, the public, religious leaders, and many scientists have all expressed their disapproval of efforts to conduct human cloning, for any reason. And the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation last year authored by Dr. David Weldon-a member of this Subcommittee-to prohibit all human cloning.

Opposition to human cloning is based upon both ethical and scientific considerations. All clones so far have been found to suffer from severe abnormalities, premature aging and early death. In addition to these problems, cloning also poses significant health risks to the mother of a clone and to the women from whom the eggs necessary for cloning are harvested.

These dangers have not, however, deterred some from attempting to produce cloned humans.

We know scientists-- such as Dr. Panos Zavos, who is with us today-are pursuing cloning as a means of producing live human offspring while others seek to create cloned human embryos in order to destroy them for scientific research with the hopes that such research may potentially yield treatments or cures.

Regardless of the goals of those who are attempting to manufacture human clones, the fact is that cloning, for whatever purpose, creates human life.

There is no difference between a cloned human embryo created for procreation or for research purposes. Whether or not the newly created embryo is implanted with the intent of reproduction or destroyed for the purpose of research is irrelevant to the fact that a cloned human being has been created. Therefore, a prohibition on cloning that is limited only to preventing the implantation of a cloned embryo as some have suggested in effect legalizes human cloning, and raises additional ethical dilemmas.

A ban that permits embryonic clones to be created but forbids them to be implanted in utero legally requires the destruction of human life and criminalizes efforts to preserve and protect such life once created.

Under a partial ban that permits the creation of cloned embryos for research, human embryos would be manufactured in numerous laboratories around the country. Once cloned embryos are available, it would be virtually impossible to monitor or control what is done with them.

Stockpiles of embryonic human clones could be produced, bought and sold. Implantation "of cloned embryos-- an easy procedure-- could take place out of sight, and not even the most elaborate and intrusive regulations and policing could detect or prevent the initiation of a clonal pregnancy.

Scientists agree that once begun, a clonal pregnancy would be virtually impossible to detect or differentiate from a routine pregnancy. And if detected, what could the government do? Would a woman with a clonal pregnancy be forced, or coerced with severe penalties, to abort the child?

Allowing human cloning for research brings us further down the slippery slope that devalues the sanctity of human life.

Not even a year ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on research involving the destruction of human embryos. At that time, supporters of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of a human embryo, found "extremely troubling" the announcement that embryos were being created in order to conduct stem cell research. There was a consensus among opponents and supporters of embryonic stem cell research that embryos should never be created solely and specifically for research. But now that is exactly what proponents of research cloning are demanding.

If we now permit the manufacturing of human embryos for research, where do we draw the line? Do we only allow cloned embryos to grow for 5 days before they are destroyed in the process of extracting their stem cells? What about removing tissue from 5week-old embryos? Should we consider harvesting the organs from 5-month-old fetuses? What will those who support destructive research next claim is necessary in the name of research?

We must finally draw the line that stops the exploitation of any form of human life.

Cloning, regardless of the intent, reduces human life to a commodity that is created and destroyed for convenience. And despite the claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that cloning can, or ever will, cure diseases. Such statements are purely speculative and pursuing cloning merely diverts limited resources away from more promising research that is already producing promising results.

It is clear that a ban that applies only to "reproductive" cloning is a false ban, which merely creates an illusion that human cloning has been prohibited. The fact is that all cloning is reproductive cloning, and therefore human cloning for any reason should be banned.

Thank you all for being here today. We look forward to hearing your testimony.



LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2002