SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2472 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE APPROPRIATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE: LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION

HEADLINE: CLONING

TESTIMONY-BY: DR. BRENT BLACKWELDER, PRESIDENT OF

AFFILIATION: FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

BODY:
TESTIMONY OF

DR. BRENT BLACKWELDER, PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

BEFORE THE SENATE: APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, CONCERNING

THE CLONING OF HUMANS AND GENETIC MODIFICATIONS

JANUARY 24; 2002

Introduction

Friends of the Earth is a 'national conservation organization- dedicated to a cleaner, healthier planet for all life on earth. We are part of Friends of the Earth International which has member groups in 69 countries.- I have been President of Friends of the Earth since 1994. My doctorate is in philosophy from the University of Maryland, with ethics being my field of specialization. The Senate is now considering long-overdue legislation to ban human cloning. The debate- is being framed as one between modern medical science seeking new technologies for the prevention and treatment of disease and those who are trying to block. medical progress. The purpose of the Friends of the -Earth testimony is to present the. environmental case against both human cloning and the closely related issue of human germline manipulation or inheritable genetic modifications ("designer babies").

At the outset I wish to note that Friends of the Earth acknowledges that many applications of human genetic science, including those using stem cells, hold great medical promise. However; the rapid pace of development-of new technologies, the enormous stakes involved, the lack of societal controls to date, the failure to analyze environmental implications, and the fact that unformed public debate has barely begun, all indicate the need for immediate legislative action to ban the creation of full- term human clones (reproductive cloning)- and at least to place a moratorium on the creation of clonal human embryos for research purposes [therapeutic cloning).

Friends of the Earth is strongly opposed to 5.1758, introduced by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, and we offer a critique showing that not only does this bill fail to control human cloning, but also that it gives the green light to full-scale commodification of human life.

Environmental organizations are concerned with the accelerated pollution and destruction of wetlands, forests, mountains, agricultural lands, and wildlife which occurred during this past century. Today humanity stands on the brink of a totally new and alarming change in our earth, as well--a change which could carry us into an entirely new realm of artificial existence and a new type of pollution--biological pollution, more ominous possibly than chemical or nuclear pollution. Science now has the capability of creating cloned beings and designer babies and of crossing the species barriers which have for millennia separated plants from animals and some groups of animals from other animals. The real specter of a totally manufactured world is upon us.

The basic environmental case against cloning and engineering of the human germline manipulations (designer babies) is that these actions violate two cornerstone principles of the modern conservation movement: 1) respect for nature and 2) the precautionary principle.

I. Cloning and the Principle of Respect for Nature

Environmental organizations embrace an ethic of respect for nature. Environmental organizations carry on a variety of educational activities to help people understand and appreciate the natural world.Some take people on nature outings, others operate or support nature centers. We strive to demonstrate the interdependence of humans and the natural world and the value of each species' contribution to an entire ecosystem. If a species is altered or wiped out, then changes to the whole ecosystem can be expected.

The very act of cloning animals or people crosses the threshold of respect for the individuality and remarkable features of each species as well as the individuals within species. The principle of respect for nature leads us oppose to the full-scale commodification of nature--whether it be humans, animals, plants, or landscapes.

The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature. Even though many in the biotechnology business assert that their goal is only curing disease and saving lives, the fact remains that once these cloning and germline technologies are perfected, there are plenty who have publicly avowed to utilize them. Friends of the Earth has even been called upon to debate such people on national television.

Some proponents of human cloning and germline manipulations, for example, extol the virtues of "improving" on the humans, animals, and plants now in the world by re-engineering them. Here is what they are saying:

Lee Silver, molecular biologist at Princeton University, in his book Remaking Eden: How Cloning and Beyond will Change the Human Family envisions a future in which the appearance, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life span of our children will become artifacts of genetic manipulation:"The GenRich--who account for 10 percent of the American population--all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the Gen Rich class... Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA: "if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it? Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity to it? I'd just like to know where that idea comes from. It's utter silliness."

Lester Thurow, noted MIT economist: "biotechnology is inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals and human beings are going to be partly man-made.... Suppose parents could add 30 points to their children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it? And if you don't, your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood."

The proposed and ongoing genetic engineering today is radically different from the thousands of years of agriculture where crops and animals have been transformed through cross breeding of very similar species. Experiments in genetic engineering violate the natural species barrier. We have witnessed scientists inserting fish genes in tomatoes and strawberries, making goats which produce spider-like webs in their milk, and adding human genes to pigs.

The cloners like Watson and Silver want to engineer nature to suit their objectives and don't recognize any duties to animals and people who could be redesigned to match the scientists' own vision. There is no reverence or awe of nature but simply a desire to replace plants and animals with the scientists' selection of traits--all for the purpose of making money.

The Fein stein-Kennedy bill (5.1758) facilitates the objectives of those just quoted because it would allow a completely unregulated commercial industry in human cloning to produce embryos that could be brought to term illegally under a reproductive ban.

To turn next to the practical experience with animal cloning, it is important to note that Ian Wilmot, the developer of the cloned sheep Dolly admits that almost all clones suffer serious abnormalities. The recent finding of premature arthritis in Dolly is one of the strongest indicators to date that there should be, at a minimum, a moratorium on human cloning and on commercial animal production through cloning. What parent wants to risk a child that will be diseased, deformed or developmentally disabled after a few years? Who wants to eat food that may be harmful?

Recent polling shows that 90% of Americans do not want human cloning. One of the reasons is that no one should be the subject of an experiment without their consent. Any cloned child would be such an experiment. What Americans do want are therapeutic technologies that do not carry such risks. The New Scientist has just reported that a stem cell which can turn into every single tissue in the body has just been found in adults. The article goes on to say: "If so, there would be no need to resort to therapeutic cloning ... Nor would you have to genetically engineer embryonic stem cells to create a 'one cell fits all' line that does not trigger immune rejection." (January 23, 2002 "Ultimate stem cell discovered" New Scientist)

II. Cloning Violates the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is another pillar of the modern environmental movement. The basic idea of the precautionary principle is that before imposing significant risks on others or society as a whole, we should have a solid grasp of what is being proposed.The principle embodies the wisdom of ancient adages such as "look before you leap" and "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Thus the precautionary principle mandates that when there is a risk of significant health or environmental damage to others or to future generations, and when there is scientific uncertainty as to the nature of that damage or the likelihood of the risk, then decisions should be made so as to prevent such activities from being conducted unless and until scientific evidence shows that the damage will not occur.

A review of major environmental problems of the 20th century reveals a range of unanticipated and awful economic and environmental consequences as a result both of individual actions and various modern technologies. Had the precautionary principle been operative, many of these disastrous consequences might have been avoided. Here are a few examples in the areas of chemicals, civil works projects like dams, introduced exotic species, agriculture, disease and medicine where the precautionary principle was not applied.

The numerous cases of alien, foreign, exotic, or invasive species, which have beset North American ecosystems like a plague in the past hundred years, makes vividly clear the problem of unanticipated consequences. The federal government estimated that the annual economic costs of invasive species is over $100 billion. (US Office of Technology Assessment, 1993) Some introductions of alien species have been deliberate. The starling was brought to America by a man who believed that our country should have all the birds mentioned by Shakespeare. Now starlings are one of the most dominant birds, crowding out native song birds. One of America's most important trees, both from a wildlife and a commercial standpoint, was the chestnut. Very swiftly a disease, introduced through a USDA program, wiped out all the great chestnut trees. No cure has to this date been found. Other invasives like gypsy moths, the Asian long-horned beetle, and Dutch elm disease still plague our forests.

The zebra mussel, which was probably carried in the ballast water of a Black Sea tanker, has proliferated throughout the Great Lakes region and now causes tens of millions of dollars of damage as it clogs up water pipes. A century ago the predatory eel called the lamprey got into the Great Lakes via the Erie and Welland Canals and devastated fisheries and persist to this very day.

The moral of this story is that the ecosystem disruption caused by invasive species not only devastates native flora and fauna but can be enormously costly. Another lesson is that biological pollution proliferates and reproduces and is not easily stopped if it can be stopped at all.

The precautionary principle was not applied when our society began using very dangerous chemicals in the aftermath of World War II. To this very day we have major and costly battles about cleaning up nuclear and toxic waste produced many years ago. A prime example recently in the news is the battle between EPA and General Electric over the chemical PCB waste which still remains in the Hudson River decades after the PCBs were dumped by the company.

Looking at civil works projects, our society did not think through the devastating effect of dams on Atlantic and Pacific salmon and on other fisheries until many decades after precipitous declines in fisheries had occurred.Now dramatic efforts are being made to try to restore some of the salmon runs.

In the area of genetically engineered food, Friends of the Earth exposed the presence in our food supply of genetically engineered Starlink corn, which had been approved for consumption only by animals, not humans. Starlink corn began showing up on grocery shelves all over the country. Despite being planted on only 0.5% of the corn field acreage, it contaminated 10% of the entire crop in the year 2000.

A decade ago in the case of mad cow disease, the public witnessed the vigorous denial by British officials of any connections between feeding regimes (cows being forced to eat cows) and the disease, and asserted that the disease could not jump from cows to humans. Now they have acknowledged their errors, but the disease has spread to Europe.In other medical news about recent knee surgeries where people have died, the January 20, 2002 New York Times headline reads: "Lack of Oversight in Tissue Donation Raising Concerns--Tight Rules on the Use of Organs Do Not Apply to Tissues". When the subject goes from tissue and organ donations to the deliberate insertion of inheritable traits, the precautionary principle reminds us that it is not just the patient but future generations who are going to be impacted.One cannot simply recall a bad judgment on inherited traits. That is the lesson of biological pollution presented above.

The great naturalist Aldo Leopold observed that the human role of conqueror is "eventually self-defeating because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always turns out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat themselves." (A Sand County Almanac

Many scientists and companies in biotechnology are prone to present only the best case scenario. The Friends of the Earth recitation of fiascoes from the past 100 years of biological invasions as well as recent screw-ups in modern medicine show that our society must focus on more than simply best-case scenarios. The precautionary principle poses a direct challenge to uninhibited experimentation on people and the planet-- experimentation done in the name of progress, but often driven by the desire to make money. The Feinstein-Kennedy bill does not embrace the precautionary principle but flaunts it.



LOAD-DATE: January 24, 2002