Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.  
The San Francisco Chronicle
AUGUST 27, 2001, MONDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1; BIOSCOPE

LENGTH: 1219 words

HEADLINE: State panel nixes cloning babies, favors stem cells

BYLINE: Tom Abate

BODY:
A state-appointed committee of scientific, legal and ethical experts is expected to urge the California Legislature to extend the state's moratorium on human reproductive cloning before it expires in 2003.

But the 12-member cloning committee will also recommend that state lawmakers support the cloning of human embryonic stem cells in medical research, according to a draft report obtained by The Chronicle.

The cloning committee's split recommendation echoes the position of the biotech industry and leading academic scientists, and sets the stage for a possible showdown between the Democrats who control Sacramento and the Republicans who dominate Washington, D.C.

Republican lawmakers in the Capitol recently pushed a bill through the House of Representatives that would outlaw all human cloning, whether intended to make a baby or a medicinal cell. That bill is awaiting Senate action.

So far, the California cloning report, which is scheduled for release after Labor Day, has flown below the political radar of state lawmakers, who are preoccupied with redistricting, energy and privacy issues.

But in the coming weeks, as the report reaches Sacramento, lawmakers will have to decide whether California, which has helped set the national agenda in culture, technology and mores, wants to send a message about the future of biotechnology.

George Cunningham of the state Department of Health Services in Berkeley and staff director of the committee, could not be reached for comment. A state Department of Health spokeswoman said the report is still in the works and probably will be made public next week.

Stanford University law professor Henry Greely, a principal author of the report, declined to discuss the findings, arrived at after four public hearings and several private meetings held during the past two years.

But the gist of the mid-August draft report is summed up in two recommendations, adopted by the committee, which includes bioethicist Margaret McLean of Santa Clara University, biotech industry lobbyist David Gollaher of the California Healthcare Institute in La Jolla (San Diego County), and geneticist Larry Shapiro of the University of California at San Francisco:

-- That the Legislature continue California's current moratorium on human reproductive cloning for five to 10 years, so that safety and ethical questions can be answered. "Although the Dolly technique for cloning has now been used regularly for cattle, sheep, goats and mice, it has never been successfully used in any primates," the draft report states.

-- Committee members will urge legislators to permit human cloning in connection with the sort of stem cell research performed by companies like Menlo Park's Geron Corp. "We believe that use of this technology offers tremendous potential in medical and scientific benefits while not raising the same concerns as human reproductive cloning," the report says.

Most of the 100-plus-page report explains the science behind these two types of cloning and explores the legal, moral and religious dimensions of each.

The report begins by setting forth the committee's mandate and the legal framework for cloning legislation.

In 1997, after the arrival of Dolly, the cloned sheep, stunned the world, California lawmakers enacted a five-year moratorium on human reproductive cloning, and ordered the Department of Health to appoint an expert panel to advise state lawmakers about whether to continue the ban, amend it or let it expire when the current moratorium ends in 2003.

Three other states -- Rhode Island, Louisiana and Michigan -- also have enacted human-cloning bans. The report notes that pending federal bills could pre-empt state laws, but because none has been signed into law, state rules remain the only cloning laws in the land.

The report first treats the pro and con arguments about reproductive cloning. Freedom of choice is cited as the prime ideological justification for the technique. Infertile, gay and lesbian couples are cited as examples of those who might wish to choose cloning "in order to have children without relying upon third parties (surrogates), who may ultimately request parental rights and responsibilities."

But the report concludes that, for now, unanswered questions about the safety of human cloning should be the state's dominant concern. The report notes that "in essentially every species that has been studied to date" only 1 in 100 cloned embryos is born alive.

Among those cloned animals that have been born -- there are as yet no known human clones -- a "significant number" have died of respiratory problems or infections at an early age. "Finally, and quite disturbingly," the report says, "some animals that appear normal at birth may have significant health issues later in life, including the sudden onset of obesity."

The report notes that recent polls, including a Time/CNN survey in February and a second opinion study in April, show 90 percent disapproval for human cloning. So long as safety and other objections remain, and infertile couples have alternatives such as adoption or in vitro fertilization, "reasonable people may conclude that a (cloning) ban is warranted."

The second half of the report outlines why the committee wants the state to allow human cloning in the course of research designed to explore the medical potential of embryonic stem cells.

Stem cells develop during the first two weeks after a fertilized egg becomes an embryo. Many scientists say stem cells could be trained to replace or repair tissue for a variety of ailments, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's.

To turn stem cells into transplant therapies, however, the report says scientists must solve a problem -- our immune systems reject any foreign intrusion. A patient's body is likely to regard a batch of stem cells as an infection. The report notes that one way scientists propose to get around this immune rejection is by cloning -- that is, dropping a patient's DNA into a stem cell to create a personalized therapy.

"There would likely be no rejection and no need to expose the patient to immune-suppressing drugs, which can have toxic effects," the report states.

The committee rejects the argument that cloning cells in petri dishes will only be a dry run for cloning babies. "This is a form of the slippery slope argument," the report says, adding, "the slide down the slope is far from inevitable."

The committee has tentatively scheduled two public hearings to discuss the report, on Sept. 21 at the Ronald Reagan Building in Los Angeles, and Sept. 26 at the San Francisco Civic Center Complex.

Look for the final report on the Department of Health Services Web site soon.

---------------------------------State cloning panel-- 12 members appointed to review the state's cloning ban-- Final report scheduled for release after Labor Day-- Public hearing tentatively scheduled for Sept. 26 in San Francisco-- Report destined for the state Legislature, which must decide whether to extend, amend or end a moratorium on human cloning that will expire in 2003.Source: Chronicle researchLook for BioScope every Monday in the Business section. Send your bio-feedback to Tom Abate by e-mail, tabate@sfchron icle.com; fax, (415) 543-2482; or phone, (415) 777-6213.

LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2001