Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 5, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1595 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
HEADLINE: HUMAN CLONING
TESTIMONY-BY: JUDY NORSIGIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AFFILIATION: BOSTON WOMEN'S HEALTH BOOK COLLECTIVE
BODY: Statement of
Judy Norsigian Executive
Director, Boston Women's Health Book Collective
Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
March 5, 2002
I am Judy
Norsigian, the Executive Director of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective
(BWHBC), co-authors of the highly acclaimed Our Bodies, Ourselves, now in its 7
th edition as Our Bodies, Ourselves for the New Century. Since it was first
published in 1970, this widely read book about women's health and sexuality has
been read by over 30 million women and many men in dozens of countries around
the world. There are now 4 1/2 million copies in print in 20 languages, with 10
more editions on the way. For over three decades we have been active in a number
of reproductive health and rights issues. At the outset, let me make clear that
my organization and many of our colleagues in the women's health and
reproductive rights movements support embryonic stem cell research; but we also
believe that a moratorium on all human embryo cloning is necessary at this point
in time. It has been disheartening to see so little differentiation between
embryonic stem cell research and embryo cloning, so that many people I meet tell
me that they thought the two were one and the same. Those of us who are pro-
choice want to emphasize that our position is quite different from those who
oppose ALL embryonic stem cell research. Many of us support, for example,
obtaining stem cells from embryos in IVF clinics that would otherwise be
destroyed. Our objections pertain to stem cells derived from embryo cloning.
This is a rather significant difference, even though we do share similar
concerns with the Catholic Church, for example, about the development of
germline genetic modifications and the potential resurgence of a eugenics
movement.
In June 2001, our organization joined with other individuals
and organizations to produce a widely circulated position statement on cloning.
It calls for a ban on human reproductive cloning and a moratorium on embryo
cloning solely for the purpose of research. It is signed by over 100 groups and
individuals with long and impressive track records working on women's and
children's health and is appended herewith. Individuals who worked on this
statement include Dr. Paul Billings, Dr. Stuart Newman, Professor Lori Andrews,
Professor George Annas, and others familiar to many of you.
1. We
believe that cloning technology poses vastly greater risks than other currently
available reproductive technologies. It is highly likely that experiments on
human embryo cloning would inevitably lead to unacceptable human germline
genetic manipulation and pose a threat to many basic human rights. It will be
extremely difficult to prevent research on human embryo cloning and related
technologies from being used to produce so- called "designer" babies. Germline
genetic manipulations would affect future generations in unpredictable and
deleterious ways. (I urge you to read the thoughtful and detailed critique by
Shannon Brownlee in the March issue of the Washington Monthly.) If we allow
research cloning to go forward, it is imperative that an adequate regulatory
framework be established first. This is no simple task, and it would undoubtedly
require several years to address all the complexities involved.
Hence, a
primary reason for the moratorium position.
2. Media coverage of human
embryo cloning research has largely focused on its therapeutic potential,
neglecting the technology's dependence on the thousands, if not millions, of
women who must undergo the substantial health risks associated with harvesting
their eggs. Of particular concern to us is the lack of adequate long-term safety
data on the super-ovulating drugs that women have to take in order to provide
the eggs for embryo cloning. Even though recent data did not find a link between
these drugs and an increased risk of ovarian cancer, there are other potential
problems with ovarian hyper-stimulation, including possible effects on future
fertility.1 Moreover, this is one area where regulatory controls have long been
needed for the IVF field- the need for such regulation and oversight is only
heightened with the prospect of thousands more women being solicited to provide
eggs for research cloning. We have been among those calling for such regulations
for many years and hope that this discussion of cloning will allow us to refocus
on the matter of better oversight of infertility services in general. In
addition, while some altruistic volunteers may be willing to be egg donors, the
reality is that women with limited financial resources will be the primary
providers of human eggs to enterprises that offer what appear to be lucrative
payments. Furthermore, women who undergo repeated procedures might bear
additional risks that are completely unknown at this time.
In recent
testimony, one researcher stated that stem cells might be able to provide up to
1.7 million therapies per year. This would require a minimum of 5-8 million
human eggs per year - assuming a very optimistically high success rate of 1 stem
cell culture out of 3-5 clonal embryos. Thus, it is highly likely that many
women will become repeat donors, and that there would be massive expansion in
the use of women as paid "egg producers." We know nothing about the health risks
of such repeat donations.
3. From our consultations with scientific
experts in this field, we are convinced that there has been gross exaggeration
regarding the current state of embryonic stem cell research. There is still much
to be learned in this potentially promising field. A moratorium on human embryo
cloning would not halt progress in key areas. Well before embryo cloning
research proceeds, much additional work with human embryos is necessary to
address problems related to the cancer-causing tendencies of embryo stem cells
and problems with controlling how these stem cells differentiate into the
tissues needed for therapy. Knowledgeable scientists have affirmed that this
work is more readily performed with "standard" embryo stem cells. Thus, the
moratorium that we propose will not cause significant delay in this line of
research.
4. A moratorium would also allow for other important legal and
ethical implications of embryo cloning to be addressed. As Andrew Kimbrell
pointed out in his February 5 th remarks before members of this body, an
unregulated industry in cloned human embryos will likely lead to unacceptable
commodification of life. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office has already
indicated that cloned human embryos would be patentable, and we have yet to
prohibit the sale of embryos or human ova necessary for this technology.
5. If Congress intends to create an effective ban on human reproductive
cloning, a careful system of regulation and control over production of all
clonal embryos is essential. It should also be noted that regardless of what
regulations are created, there are three considerations that will make any
enforcement nearly impossible: the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship,
the inability to distinguish clonal embryos from other embryos, and the ready
transfer of technology to individuals who would function outside the
jurisdiction of regulations.
6. Although we are advocates for a woman's
reproductive choice and have worked decades to support improvements in
contraceptive research and development, we do not believe that cloning and
genetically engineered children are extensions of "reproductive choice." We do
not support the extension of reproductive choice into "reproductive
commodification" and believe that this technology, if and when it is safely
applied, must be narrowly limited to the types of medical conditions and
diseases associated with substantial likelihood of death and severe disability
in the offspring affected.
7. We need to find ways to support important
health and medical research while at the same time maintaining programs and
interventions that have already proven their value in terms of saving lives and
alleviating suffering. We also need to reflect more upon the fact that many of
the newer, more expensive technologies and medical interventions have NOT become
much cheaper or even much more effective even after one or two decades of use.
Nor have they become even remotely accessible to those who have limited
financial resources. In the case of IVF, which has produced over half a million
babies worldwide, very few infertile women of limited financial means have had
access to IVF services. Questions of justice and equity do not apply to genetic
technologies alone, but we need to raise these concerns when setting priorities
in the use of public dollars.
Cloning technology, like many other new
genetic technologies, needs greater public scrutiny and debate. The public has
only just begun to awaken to the possible ramifications of the genetics
revolution. Let us proceed thoughtfully and deliberately, put in place the
necessary regulations, and be wary of inflated claims made by those with vested
interests. Questions surrounding such issues as patenting, genetic
discrimination, genetic privacy, and human research subject protections should
not be resolved by scientists and biotech corporations alone. As a society, we
may decide that some technologies promise, on balance, a minimal positive
utility that is inextricable from the threat of unpredictable negative
consequences. It will take time to involve the larger public in meaningful
debate, but doing so will be well worth it.
LOAD-DATE: March 7, 2002