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

[Page: S12222]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to particularly address the issue of human cloning and the part of the bill that puts forth a 6-month moratorium on human cloning . I brought up before this body several times this week a U.S. News & World Report cover story of this week about the first human clone . Advanced Cell Technology out of Massachusetts is now saying they have cloned the first human being.

   We have to address this issue now or we are going to have to expect more stories such as this about the further development of human cloning before this body has spoken. The House has spoken and said they don't want to have human clones . They put forth a complete ban, and passed it by a large bipartisan majority, a 100-vote margin. The President said: Let's ban human cloning . We don't want to create humans for destructive purposes or for reproductive purposes in this fashion. He has asked for banning that. This body has failed to act.

   That is why we are putting forward at this time this request for a 6-month moratorium: Time out; hold up, so we don't have moratoriums such as this while this body takes time to deliberate, hold the committee hearings, and do the things it needs to do to consider this issue. We are asking for a timeout moratorium for 6 months.

   I want to make several points and cite various groups that are supporting the moratorium or even the entire banning of human cloning . I want to read some important articles which they have put forward. I will make several points over the following days, weeks, and months.

   One point is that research cloning being sponsored by Advanced Cell Technology requires eggs to be harvested from a woman.

   Harvesting eggs is an invasive and dangerous procedure. Harvesting eggs from women means the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the

[Page: S12223]  GPO's PDF

   I would say that is probably more than a donation if you pay $4,000 for the egg. I suggest if this doesn't qualify as exploitation of the disenfranchised for profiteering motives, I am not sure what does.

   This is not just a pro-life or pro-choice debate. It is not that at all.

   In fact, pro-choice feminist Judy Norsigian and biologist Stuart Newman recently commented in a Boston Globe column,

   Because embryo cloning will compromise women's health, turn their eggs and wombs into commodities, compromise their reproductive autonomy and, with virtual certainty, lead to the production of ``experimental'' human beings, we are convinced that the line must be drawn here.

   That is strong language. Experimental human beings, eggs and wombs turned into commodities, and compromising women's health.

   Perhaps that is why this debate is not a debate, as someone suggested, on the issue of abortion. And perhaps that is why we have an interesting coalition forming of groups that are strongly opposed to abortion, groups that strongly support abortion, environmentalists, and others. The reason for the broad range of interest is that there is truly something about this issue which should concern all of us.

   I would like to read a few of the articles appearing in recent months for the benefit of some of my colleagues. The first article is by Sophia Kolehmainen of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a pro-choice group chaired by Claire Nader. Claire is the sister of Ralph Nader, the Presidential candidate. She was actively involved in the Presidential campaign. This is what their group had to say about human cloning . This is the article they put forward. It is entitled ``Human Cloning : Brave New Mistake.''

   It would be a mistake to develop and use cloning as a technique to replicate human beings. It is questionable whether and what benefits would be gained from the successful creation of a cloned human being, and whether they would justify the radical impact cloning would have on our society. Cloning is not just another reproductive technology that should be made available to those who choose to use it, but is an unnecessary and dangerous departure from evolutionary processes and social practices that have developed over millions of years. As with many other developments in biotechnology, some scientists and commentators are asking us to accept cloning of humans just because it is technically possible, but there are few good reasons to develop the technology, and many reasons not to develop it.

   1. SAFETY CONCERNS

   The most frequently stated argument against cloning is based on safety concerns. At this point in the process of experimenting with cloning , such concerns are important. The production of Dolly required at least 276 failed attempts. No one knows why most of these attempts failed and only one succeeded. From a technical viewpoint, cloning presents different obstacles in every species, since embryo implantation, development, and gestation differ among different species. Human cloning therefore could not become a reality without extensive human experimentation. Though 276 ``failed'' lambs may be acceptable losses, the ethical implications of any failed or only partially successful human experiments are unacceptable.

   Some of their article I don't necessarily agree with, but I am reading through their arguments.

   2. COMMODIFICATION

   Cloning would encourage the commodification of humans . Though industrialized societies commodify human labor and human lives, the biological commodification involved in human cloning would be of a vastly different order. Cloning would turn procreation into a manufacturing process, where human characteristics become added options and children become objects of deliberate design. Such a process of commodification needs to be actively opposed. It produces no benefits and undermines the very basis of our established notions of human individuality and dignity.

   3. DIVERSITY

   Cloning would also disrespect human diversity in ethnicity and ability. Though it is, in fact, not possible to produce exact copies of animals or people, inherent in cloning is the desire to do so. The process of cloning would necessarily contribute to genetic uniformity by decreasing genetic variety. A society that supported cloning as an acceptable procreative technique would imply that human diversity is not important. Especially in a multicultural nation like the United States, where diversity and difference are at the root of our cultural existence, any procedure that would reduce our acceptance of differences would be dangerous. It is clear from the tensions that exist in our society that we should encourage processes that increase our appreciation for diversity among individuals, not working to remove differences.

   Dr. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, put forward a strong statement in opposition to human cloning . This is a pro-choice group which put forward a strong statement in opposition to cloning for many of the same reasons that I have put forward.

   There are other groups that are putting forward clear and convincing reasons why we should not do cloning . For those reasons and many others, I ask this body to take up the bill numbered 2505 on Monday, and vote for cloture on the moratorium prohibiting human cloning for 6 months.

   There is ample reason for us to have a moratorium for 6 months.

   With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia, Mr. CLELAND, is recognized.

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