![]() |
![]() |
GeneWatch The End of the Revolution Editorial: From Privacy to Theater: A
Cornucopia in this Issue A Sense of Humus Activism through Theater:
An Interview with Deborah Shoval Vermonters Vote Against Genetic Engineering of
Food "No Patents on Life" Working Group Update The Cloning Landscape: A Look at Pending
Legislation A Look Back: Articles from the Past / The
More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same
CRG Interns Always Make a Valuable
Contribution
GeneWatch is America’s first and only magazine dedicated to monitoring biotechnology’s social, ethical and environmental consequences. Since 1983, GeneWatch has covered a broad spectrum of issues, from genetically engineered foods to biological weapons, genetic privacy and discrimination, reproductive technologies, and human cloning. The current issue of GeneWatch focuses on biological warfare: the ideologies and policies that have driven its development, and the misguided U.S. public health response. You may now read online the first article, "Rethinking the Biological Warfare Problem" by Susan Wright. To find out more about subscribing to GeneWatch and having it delivered to your doorstep six times a year, just click here. |
The
Cloning Landscape: Pending Legislation by
Doug Hunt
Attempts to clone human embryos, to implant clonal
embryos and bring them to term are almost certainly underway in the US at
the present time. Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) publicly promoted its
efforts in both somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis in what
many thought a shameless effort to pump up their stock prices. Drs. Panos
Zavos and Severino Antinori have been no less vociferous in seeking
publicity, and investors, in their efforts at producing a baby through
implantation of a clonal embryo. Because nuclear transfer techniques could
be carried out in most well equipped IVF clinics, how many other such
efforts ––unpublicized and unnoted–– may be underway is anybody’s guess.
The chances are that eventually it will be tried. All this goes on because, despite continued public
concern and outcry since the cloning of the sheep Dolly in 1997, the US
Congress has failed to enact legislation to ban or regulate human cloning
through any means. In July 2001, the House of Representatives passed HR
2505, the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act” which bans any attempt to clone
a human embryo and establishes severe criminal and civil penalties. This
bill was sent to the Senate for consideration in late July. Congress left
on its second two-week break in six weeks on March 22, 2002, while cloning
legislation was still in a holding pattern in the Senate, behind energy,
the budget, and several other pending matters. Looming large after the
break are the annual appropriations bills that may delay action on cloning
until May or later. Discussion in Senate hearings has been marked by an
effort to draw a distinction between embryos cloned for the purpose of
implantation and gestation and those created for the purpose of research.
One Senator even insists that if you conduct somatic cell nuclear transfer
––which she calls SCNT (pronounced skint)–– to produce stem cells for
research there is no embryo involved. This is what has led, in part, to
the strange definition of human cloning found in S. 1758, the
Feinstein-Kennedy bill: “The term ‘human cloning’ means asexual
reproduction by implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear
transplantation into a uterus.” Substituting, of course, the terms
“product of nuclear transplantation” for “clonal embryo.” 1. S. 1758: Originally co-sponsored by Senators
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). The Feinstein-Kennedy
bill permits creation of cloned human embryos through nuclear transfer
techniques. It intends to prohibit implantation of such clonal embryos,
providing criminal and large civil penalties for implantation, and to
permit the use of such embryos for research purposes. An analysis of this
bill by the International Center for Technology Assessment's legal staff
indicates that the bill will probably not stop reproductive cloning and
provides for no meaningful regulation of the use of clonal embryos for
research. 2. S. 1893: Co-sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter
(R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D IA). This bill is a ban on implanting human
embryos that have been created through nuclear transfer techniques into a
human uterus or a "substitute for a woman's uterus.” The bill provides
criminal penalties and substantial civil monetary penalties. However,
there are no restrictions or regulations on the creation, distribution, or
sale of human embryos through any technology or process, until after the
instant of insertion, at which point a criminal act has occurred. [N.B.: A
similar bill introduced early in the session by Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell (R-CO), S. 704, has been dormant since its introduction in early
April 2001.] 3. S. 1899: Co-sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback
(R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). This bill is a mirror of the House bill
and offers a "clean" ban on the creation of human embryos through nuclear
transfer techniques. The bill provides criminal and substantial civil
monetary penalties for creating a clonal embryo. The CRG and other reproductive health and women’s
groups, as well as many social conservatives, oppose all forms of human
embryo cloning for ethical, health, safety, or moral reasons. The
progressive community has additional concerns about cloning human embryos
and using them for research. Environmentalists, consumer groups, women's
abortion rights activists, feminists, children’s health advocates, and
others all want to see the unprecedented ethical, health, and regulatory
questions raised by the idea of cloning human embryos resolved before any
human embryo cloning is allowed. Following is a summary of the issues
included in the debate. (1) As a human community, we have never supported
creating any human life form simply for its exploitation and destruction.
There has never been public acceptance of, or government approval and
support for, an industry of the creation of a human life form solely to
harvest it for “spare parts.” The most recent poll as of this writing
indicated that over 85% of people in the US oppose the creation of embryos
by any method for the sole purpose of destroying them for any reason
(June, 2001, an International Communications Research poll on the creation
of cloned embryos for the purpose of their destruction). As CRG Board Member Dr. Stuart Newman recently
testified at a Senate committee (2),
if cloned embryos are not sufficient for stem cell production, there will
no doubt be a call for allowing these embryos to gestate up to several
weeks so that stem cells can more easily be garnered. (3) The ultimate
nightmare appears in the use of cloned “neo-morts,” “brain dead” late term
fetuses or newborns kept alive and growing as research tools or sources
for valuable human cells or tissues or as drug test subjects. There must
be public hearings around the country with wide-ranging public
participation on this key ethical issue before any human embryo cloning is
allowed. How do we enforce a ban on the implantation of
cloned embryos once they are in the marketplace? And how will we deal with
the issues that arise if a legally cloned embryo is implanted in a woman’s
womb? Clearly, the time for restriction and enforcement is
before we allow embryo cloning. We should enact strict standards for
research cloning if it is found ethically acceptable and necessary, which
1: require inspection, evaluation and approval for embryo cloning research
by a limited number of laboratories and researchers; 2: mandate a strict
regime of supervision, monitoring and reporting from the initiation of a
proposal for research, until the research is completed; and 3: require an
unbroken record of custody of each and every cloned embryo from creation
to destruction. Egg harvesting can have significant health impacts
on women. Of particular concern are the super-ovulating drugs, the
numerous hormone treatments, and the extraction process itself. Potential
risks include premature menopause, ovarian cysts and cancers, severe
pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, bleeding into the abdominal cavity,
acute respiratory distress, pulmonary embolism, and possible negative
effects on future fertility. Women who decide, for whatever reason, to become egg
donors or sellers, must be fully informed about the risks involved. There
must be federal legislation prohibiting the sale of human eggs and
monitoring the health impacts of egg donation prior to any approval for
research embryo cloning. The only bill currently under consideration in the Senate that takes the ethical issues seriously and provides the time we need to resolve the critical questions raised by human embryo cloning for our culture is the Brownback bill that bans the creation of embryos for any purpose through cloning.
(1) The following is excerpted and my personal
rework from six issues regarding pending cloning legislation written for
ICTA. (2)Testimony
before the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, March 5, 2002. (3)This now seems even more likely since the
recently published results of attempts to treat autoimmune disease in mice
with stem cells from clonal embryos showed enormous rejection problems.
)
Doug Hunt is Director of the New Technologies Forum at the International Center for Technology Assessment. He previously served as the Program Director for Bioethics at the United Methodist General Board for Church and Society. He holds Bachelors and Masters Degrees on Science, a Masters degree in Theology, and a Doctorate in International Relations. | |
|