Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 5, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1145 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE JUDICIARY
HEADLINE: SCIENTIFIC
IMPACT ON COLONING BAN
TESTIMONY-BY: ORRIN G. HATCH,
SENATOR
BODY: Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch,
Ranking Republican before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on
Human Cloning February 5, 2002
Today the
Committee takes up an important set of issues as we explore how considerations
of law and ethics affect - and should affect - the science of what is commonly
and perhaps sometimes confusingly lumped together under the term cloning.
In a general sense, cloning merely means making a xerox copy - an exact
duplicate. There are, in fact, many types of entirely unobjectionable,
noncontroversial common uses of cloning in science. For example, if researchers
developed a new smallpox vaccine and needed to clone billions and billions of
copies of a snippet of genetic material as part of this new therapy, no one
would complain. In the context of this hearing, cloning does raise substantial
questions. Today, we will examine cloning as a technique to produce cells, or
even potentially whole individuals, with the identical genetic code of one
parent cell.
Cloning stands in sharp contrast to normal reproduction -
the proverbial birds and the bees - in which the father and mother each
contribute one-half of the genetic makeup - the DNA - of the offspring. While
nature in some cases produces twins who share the same two parents and virtually
identical genetic code, cloning technology could conceivably one day enable the
birth of a literally a new type of person who springs forth from solely the
genetic contribution of a single parent.
The type of cloning we are
discussing today revolves around the technology of somatic cell nuclear
transfer. This consists of removing the nucleus of an egg and replacing it with
the full complement of 46 chromosomes from an adult body cell. This, of course,
is very different from the time-immemorial case in which the egg and spermatozoa
contribute 23 chromosomes each to the offspring. Theoretically, an embryo
produced in the test tube through this somatic cell nuclear transfer technique
could be implanted into a womb and result in a live birth.
No doubt
somewhere, some - such as the Ralians - are trying make a name for themselves
and are busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the Sheep to
human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human being would even be the correct
term for such an individual heretofore unknown in nature.
I am a
conservative and an unabashed pro-life, religious conservative at that. Or
should I say, to be politically correct, I am a faith-based conservative. In any
event, I would be extremely hesitant to rewrite the Book of Genesis as the story
of Adam or Eve.
We know that most everyone at this time opposes
so-called reproductive cloning - the development and birth of a completely new
type individual through what would essentially amount to an elaborate form of
asexual reproduction.
The fact is that, today, there is not a simple,
straightforward federal law that prohibits reproductive cloning. I believe - and
I believe that the members of this Committee and the entire Senate and the House
believe - that it is long past time for reproductive cloning to be prohibited by
federal law.
Here's the rub: There is another branch of cloning, termed
by its proponents as therapeutic cloning, whose motivation is not birth, but the
development of broad range of new treatments and diagnostic tests for a host of
diseases. Through cloning techniques, it is possible that the type of highly
versatile pluripotent stem cells we heard so much about last year could be
produced.
As some of the testimony today reveals, many scientists and
advocates believe that this line of research is both ethically proper and
appears extremely promising. Many believe that the problem of potential
rejection of new stem cell-derived tissues could be minimized, and perhaps
avoided altogether, by this DNA regenerative therapy.
Other
well-respected experts and groups will tell us that not only is the science
being over-hyped, but there remain fundamental legal and ethical objections to
this line of research because the very creation - and subsequent destruction of
-- these new types of cloned embryos is inherently immoral.
A question
with which the Senate struggled in 1998 and with which we still struggle with
today is to see whether we can find a way to outlaw the offensive uses of
cloning techniques, but do so in a manner that does not bar potentially
life-saving and ethically proper scientific research. I commend Senator Leahy
and Senator Feinstein for holding this hearing today so we may more fully
explore these complex issues. The Senator from California, together with our
colleague, Senator Kennedy, has offered legislation on this topic. As well,
Senator Specter, in partnership with Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Tom Harkin, has held over 12 hearings in this general area, and they
have also offered both legislation and leadership in the biomedical research
arena.
Frankly, I think we all need to take our hats off to President
Bush and Congressional leaders like Arlen Specter and Tom Harkin for the
bipartisan achievement in doubling our nation's investment in biomedical
research at NIH over the past 5 years.
My pro-life colleague and good
friend, Senator Brownback, takes a different view than Senators Feinstein and
Kennedy and Specter and Harkin on some key aspects of cloning legislation. He,
too, has offered a bill. It is similar to the measure sponsored by one of our
most influential witnesses today, Rep. Dave Weldon, that passed the House last
year. We welcome Representative Jim Greenwood here today and commend him for his
efforts as well.
I am studying the issues and the proposed legislative
responses. I have met with experts on all sides of this issue and welcome the
opportunity to learn more today.
This debate today will inevitably and
ultimately involve questions regarding when and under what circumstances life
begins. As we saw during the debate on the federal funding of certain stem cell
research last year, these are difficult issues and opinion is unlikely to be
monolithic.
Public education and debate are essential in our pluralistic
society if we are to reach acceptable compromises on contentious issues. Toward
this end, I would repeat a thought I raised at a Judiciary Committee mark-up
last August when I wondered aloud whether the development of an egg incapable of
implantation might alter the debate of these issues? I intend to ask this
question of the witnesses today.
I hope that today's hearing will help
the members of the Committee gain a better understanding of the science, law and
ethics of cloning. It is my hope that this Committee and the Congress will be
able to arrive at a reasonable consensus on a policy that fully respects the
dignity of humanity with respect to reproduction and research.
LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2002