Chain of Washington Post Letters to the Editor on Human Cloning
This letter, which was not published yet, is in response to a pro-cloning letter that was published in The Washington Post (see below).

To the Editor:

In her April 18 letter R. Alta Charo calls Friends of the Earth "disingenuous" for not acknowledging the Food and Drug Administration's claim to jurisdiction over cloning full-term humans. But when the FDA promulgated this interpretation of their charge in late 1998 most commentators, including the former head of the agency's office of biotechnology, agreed that it had exceeded its jurisdiction and that the policy would never hold up in the courts. Indeed, this same R. Alta Charo stated to your reporter less than a year ago: "Can the government really stop me from cloning myself? Right now, the law is clear as mud." ("Legal Barriers to Human Cloning May Not Hold Up" Washington Post, May 23, 2001). When questioned in the same story about how the Supreme Court would be likely to decide a challenge to a human cloning ban she answered: "If they were interested in protecting a broad notion of genetic connection to the next generation, then cloning might be included as a fundamental right." When a bioethicist tailors her comments to the political requirements of the moment it must raise the question of who is being disingenuous.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Newman

The writer is a professor of cell biology at New York Medical College and a founding member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

Published in The Washington Post, April 18, in response to our letter below.

Research Cloning: Safeguards Are in Place

In his April 15 letter, Mark Helm of Friends of the Earth incorrectly asserts that neither current law nor current legislative proposals will regulate cloning to allow research while preventing reproductive uses to make a baby. This is false. The Food and Drug Administration already prohibits reproductive uses of cloning; its enforcement actions against the one eccentric in the United States who wanted to try this sent her scurrying offshore for more forgiving legal regimes.

In addition, FDA regulation of biologics and tissue transplantation already regulates research using this technique, requiring that egg donations and egg manipulations be done only after an assessment of risks and benefits by an independent review board, which would include oversight to ensure safeguards against unauthorized uses of the eggs and embryos.

The Feinstein-Kennedy bill would extend this regulatory oversight even further, to encompass even pure laboratory research in which no tissue transplantation is anticipated. If Friends of the Earth is serious in its support for regulated forms of this research, then it is time for them to acknowledge that regulation already exists, and to abandon its disingenuous calls for halting this important work for the indefinite future.

R. ALTA CHARO
Madison, Wis.

The writer was a member in 1993-1994 of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel and in 1996-2001 of the presidential National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

Published in The Washington Post, April 15, 2002

Cloning Research, the Right Way

To the Editor:

I work for Friends of Earth, the group Michael Kinsley identified as leading the campaign for a more cautious approach to cloning technologies [op-ed, April 10]. I also have a father who, like Mr. Kinsley, suffers from Parkinson's disease. That's why I was shocked that Mr. Kinsley's piece inaccurately portrayed Friends of the Earth as standing in the way of medical research that might help my dad and millions like him. Our position states, "We support research that would help determine the therapeutic potential of human stem cells."

Our position also calls for a moratorium on embryo cloning research until "strict government regulation is established to prevent abuses of this technology." Unfortunately, no legislation before Congress includes a moratorium that will keep embryos out of the hands of scientists who have vowed to clone humans, ensure that embryo cloning won't lead to permanent genetic modification of human beings and protect the health of women who would supply the massive egg harvests needed for research.

It appears, however, that a cautious approach to embryo cloning for research may emerge that will allow for medical progress while protecting egg donors and addressing concerns about humanity's future. The outcome would be a set of criteria under which therapeutic cloning research would be allowed, rather than the total ban passed by the House. This would mean that the hopes of Parkinson's sufferers such as Michael Kinsley and my dad would not be dashed.

Sincerely,

Mark Helm
Director, Media Relations
Friends of the Earth