THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2001 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September
05, 2001)
[Page: E1574] GPO's PDF
---
SPEECH OF
HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 31, 2001
- Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2505,
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. I am
absolutely opposed to any cloning that results in the creation
of a human life and/or a
pregnancy. That is why I support the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette
Amendment, legislation that prohibits such cloning but allows the opportunity for
medical research.
- As I have already stated, I believe that the science of cloning deserves serious
consideration. As has been evidenced by the prior hearings and debate on this
issue, the knowledge of the scientific community in this field is still in its
infancy, particularly in the field of stem cell research. It is crucial that
Congress carefully consider all options regarding this issue before it
proceeds, particularly before we undertake to criminalize aspects of this
practice. We must carefully balance society's need for lifesaving scientific
research against the numerous moral, ethical, social and scientific issues
that this issue raises. Yet what we face here today is legislation that
threatens to stop this valuable research, in the face of evidence that we
should permit this research to continue.
- Those of us who believe in the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette substitute
are not proposing and are not proponents of human cloning . What we are proponents of is
the Bush Administration's NIH report June 2001 entitled ``Stem Cells:
Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions.'' This report, as I will
discuss further, acknowledges the importance of therapeutic cloning .
- None of us want to ensure that human beings come out of the
laboratory. In fact, I am very delighted to note that language in the
legislation that I am supporting, the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette
legislation, specifically says that it is unlawful to use or attempt to use
human somatic cell nuclear
transfer technology or the product of such technology to initiate a pregnancy
to create a human being. But
what we can do is save lives.
- For the many people come into my office who are suffering from Parkinson's
disease, Alzheimer's, neurological paralysis, diabetes, stroke, Lou Gehrig's
disease, and cancer, or infertility the Weldon bill questions whether that
science can continue. I believe it is important to support the substitute, and
I would ask my colleagues to do so.
- What we can and must accept as a useful and necessary practice is the use
of the cloning technique to
conduct embryonic stem cell research. This work shows promise in the effort to
treat and even cure many devastating diseases and injuries, such as sickle
cell anemia, spinal cord damage and Parkinson's disease through valuable stem
cell research. This research also brings great hope to those who now languish
for years or die waiting for a donor organ or tissue. Yet just as we are
seeing the value of such research, H.R. 2505 would seek not only to stop this
research, but also to criminalize it. We must pause for a moment to consider
what conduct should be criminalized.
- Those who support the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act contend
that it will have no negative impact on the field of stem cell research.
However, the findings of the report that the National Institutes of Health
released in June 2001 are to the contrary. This report states that only clonally derived embryonic stem cells
truly hold the promise of generating replacement cells and tissues to treat
and cure many devastating diseases. It is ironic at the same time that while
the Weldon bill has been making its way through the House, the
Administration's NIH is declaring that that the very research that the bill
seeks to prohibit is of significant value to all of us.
- An embryonic stem cell is derived from a group of cells called the inner
cell mass, which is part of the early embryo called the blastocyst. Once
removed from the blastocyst, the cells of the inner cell mass can be cultured
into embryonic stem cells; this is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. It
is important to note that these cells are not themselves embryos. Evidence
indicates that these cells do not behave in the laboratory as they would in
the developing embryo.
- The understanding of how pluripotent stem cells work has advanced
dramatically just since 1998, when a scientist at the University of Wisconsin
isolated stem cells from human
embryos. Although some progress has been made in adult stem cell research, at
this point there is no isolated population of adult stem cells that is capable
of forming all the kinds of cells of the body. Adult stem cells are rare,
difficult to identify, isolate and purify and do not replicate indefinitely in
culture.
- Conversely, pluripotent stem cells have the ability to develop into all
the cells of the body. The only known sources of human pluripotent stem cells are those
isolated and cultured from early human embryos and from certain fetal
tissue. There is no evidence that adult stem cells are pluripotent.
- Further, human pluripotent
stem cells from embryos are by their nature clonally derived--that is, generated
by the division of a single cell and genetically identical to that cell. Clonality is important for researchers
for several reasons. To fully understand and harness the ability of stem cells
to generate replacement cells and tissues, the each identity of those cells'
genetic capabilities and functional qualities must be known. Very few studies
show that adult stem cells have these properties. Hence, now that we are on
the cusp of even greater discoveries, we should not take an action that will
cut off these valuable scientific developments that are giving new hope to
millions of Americans. For example, it may be possible to treat many diseases,
such as diabetes and Parkinson's, by transplanting human embryonic cells. To avoid
immunological rejection of these cells ``it has been suggested that ..... [a
successful transplant] could be accomplished by using somatic cell nuclear
transfer technology (so called therapeutic cloning ), .....'' according to the
NIH.
- Hence, although I applaud the intent of H.R. 2505, I have serious concerns
about it. H.R. 2505 would impose criminal penalties not only on those who
attempt to clone for
reproductive purposes, but also on those who engage in research cloning , such as stem cell and
infertility research, to expand the boundaries of useful scientific knowledge.
These penalties would extend to those who ship or receive product of human cloning . And these penalties are
severe--imprisonment of up to ten years and a civil penalty of up to one
million dollars, not to exceed more than two times the gross pecuniary gain of
the violator. Many questions remain unanswered about stem cell research, and
we must permit the inquiry to continue so that these answers can be found. In
addition to research into treatments and cures for life threatening diseases,
I am also particularly concerned about the possible effect on the treatment
and prevention of infertility and research into new contraceptive
technologies. We must not criminalize these inquiries.
- H.R. 2505 would make permanent the moratorium on human cloning that the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission recommended to President Clinton in 1997 in order to allow
for more time to study the issue. Those who support the bill state that we
must do so because we do not fully understand the ramifications of cloning and that allowing even cloning for embryonic stem cell
research creates a slippery slope into reproductive cloning . I maintain that we must
study what we do not know, not prohibit it. The very fact that there was
disagreement among the witnesses who spoke before us in Judiciary Committee
indicates that there is substantial need for further inquiry. We would not
know progress if we were to criminalize every step that yielded some possible
negative results along with the positive.
- There are many legal uncertainties inherent in prohibiting cloning . First, we face the argument
that reproductive cloning may be
constitutionally protected by the right to privacy. We must also carefully
consider whether we take a large step towards overturning Roe v. Wade when we
legislatively protect embryos. We do not recognize embryos as full-fledged
human beings with separate legal
rights, and we should not seek to do so.
- Instead, I again urge my colleagues to support the
Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette substitute, a reasonable alternative to H.R.
2505. This legislation includes a ten year moratorium on cloning intended to create a human life, instead of permanently
banning it. As I
[Page: E1575] GPO's PDF
previously
noted, it specifically prohibits human cloning or its products for the
purposes of initiating or intending to initiate a pregnancy. It imposes the
same penalties on this human
cloning as does H.R. 2505. Thus,
it addresses the concern of some that permitting scientific/research cloning would lead to permitting the
creation of cloned humans .
- More importantly, the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette substitute will
still permit valuable scientific research to continue, including embryonic
stem cell research, which I have already discussed. This substitute would
explicitly permit life giving fertility treatments to continue. As I have
stated, for the millions of Americans struggling with infertility, protection
of access to fertility treatments is crucial. Infertility is a crucial area of
medicine in which we are developing cutting edge techniques that help those
who cannot conceive on their own. It would be irresponsible to cut short these
procedures by legislation that mistakenly treats them as the equivalent of
reproductive cloning . For
example, there is a fertility technique known as ooplasmic transfer that could
be considered to be illegal cloning under HR 2505's broad
definition of ``human cloning .'' This technique involves
the transfer of material that may contain mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg
to another fertilized egg. This technique has successfully helped more than
thirty infertile couples conceive healthy children. It may also come as no
surprise that in vitro fertilization research has been a leading field for
other valuable stem cell research.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise that ten percent of
couples in this country, or 6.1 million couples, experience infertility at any
given time. It affects men and women with almost equal frequency. In 1998, the
last year for which data is available, there were 80,000 recorded in vitro
fertilization attempts, out of which 28,500 babies were born. This technique
is a method by which a man's sperm and the woman's egg are combined in a
laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The resulting embryo is then
transferred to the uterus to develop naturally. Thousands of other children
were conceived and born as a result of what are now considered lower
technology procedures, such as intrauterine insemination. Recent improvements
in scientific advancement make pregnancy possible in more than half of the
couples pursuing treatments.
- The language in my amendment made it explicitly clear that embryonic stem
cell research and medical treatments will not be banned or restricted, even if
both human and research cloning are. The organizations that
respectively represent the infertile and their doctors, the American
Infertility Association and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
support this amendment. For the millions of Americans struggling with
infertility, this provision is very important. Infertility is a crucial area
of medicine in which we are developing cutting edge techniques that help those
who cannot conceive on their own. It is would be irresponsible to cut short
these procedures by legislation that mistakenly addresses these treatments as
the equivalent of reproductive cloning .
- The proponents of H.R. 2505 argue that their bill will not prohibit these
procedures. However, access to infertility treatments is so critical and
fundamental to millions that we should make sure that it is explicitly
protected here. We must not stifle the research and treatment by placing
doctors and scientists in fear that they will violate criminal law. To do so
would deny infertile couples access to these important treatments.
- Whatever action we take, we must be careful that out of fear of remote
consequences we do not chill valuable scientific research, such as that for
the treatment and prevention of infertility or research into new contraceptive
technologies. The essential advances we have made in this century and prior
ones have been based on the principles of inquiry and experiment. We must
tread lightly lest we risk trampling this spirit. Consider the example of
Galileo, who was exiled for advocating the theory that the Earth rotated
around the Sun. It is not an easy balance to simultaneously promote careful
scientific advancement while also protecting ourselves from what is dangerous,
but we must strive to do so. Lives depend on it.