WASHINGTON - Congress is facing mounting calls from some unexpected
quarters to halt medical research involving human cloning.
Since the US House approved a ban on both reproductive and therapeutic
cloning last summer, the dynamic in the nation's capital has changed
from one that pitted religious conservatives and antiabortion groups
against scientists, biotechnology firms, and patient advocates. Now
some environmentalists, feminists, and other activists are joining
social conservatives in calling on lawmakers to put the laboratory
work on hold.
A broad coalition of biologists, ethicists, public-health advocates,
abortion proponents, and human-rights activists signed a letter to
leaders of the US Senate this week, urging a total ban on cloning
to make babies and an indefinite moratorium on the creation of cloned
embryos for use in medical research.
''Human cloning could be a gateway to a frightening new kind of eugenics,
where discrimination and inequality are permanently written into our
genetic code,'' said Marcy Darnovsky, a spokeswoman for the Center
for Genetics and Society, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that organized
the 100 signers and produced the letter.
In the Senate, lobbying is intense on the cloning issue. Senate majority
leader Thomas A. Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, has indicated
that he will schedule a debate on cloning legislation in April or
One bill - sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas
- would ban and criminalize all human cloning. Senators Edward M.
Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Dianne Feinstein, Democrat
of California, have introduced a separate measure banning reproductive
cloning but allowing biomedical research with cloned embryos.
None of the cloning bills pending in the Senate would impose a moratorium
on research. But both the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which
represents 1,100 companies and research institutions, and the Coalition
for the Advancement of Medical Research, made up of disease-research
foundations and universities, are working feverishly to prevent the
idea from catching fire.
Before research proceeds, the health risks posed to women in producing
and harvesting the many eggs required for embryonic cloning needs
to be addressed, perhaps through federal regulation, Judy Norsigian,
founder of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, told a Senate
Norsigian and more than 100 women's health advocates have signed
a statement calling for a ban on reproductive cloning and a five-year
moratorium on embryonic cloning for medical research.
''This has nothing to do with the moral status of the embryo,'' said
Norsigian, asserting that she is not aligned with antiabortion groups
or the Roman Catholic Church, which condemn therapeutic cloning as
the destruction of human life. ''I don't believe we have enough good
data to go forward with the large-scale participation of women in
harvesting eggs for stem-cell research.''
In November, Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester said it had created
the first cloned human embryo by inserting adult DNA into a donated,
hollowed-out egg. Medical researchers hope to harvest stem cells from
these early embryos and produce healthy tissue to treat a variety
of medical conditions, such as Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes.
The announcement by the Worcester firm alarmed some groups and individuals
who suddenly saw human cloning as a here-and-now technology with the
potential for genetic engineering of human beings.
''The problem with therapeutic cloning is that it introduces commercial
eugenics from the get-go,'' said Jeremy Rifkin, a frequent critic
of the biotechnology industry who heads the Foundation on Economic
Trends in Washington.
''These new companies aim to control human reproduction from conception
to birth, and that raises tremendous social issues about who holds
the patent on life, who owns life,'' said Rifkin, who supports the
Brownback bill to ban all cloning.
Leaders of several environmental groups, including Friends of the
Earth, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club signed the letter backing a
moratorium on research cloning.
So has the president of the American Association of People with Disabilities,
the executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, and the head
of both the National Latina Health Organization and the California
Black Women's Health Project.
''Dangling cures for a host of diseases, [Advanced Cell Technology]
and others who will surely follow in their wake seek to throw open
a Pandora's box of technologies that could easily do more harm than
good,'' said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth.
''We have to have some regard for the consequences of our actions
before we carry them out,'' he said.
Almost all senators are expected to support a ban on reproductive
But more than 20 senators remain undecided on the therapeutic-cloning
issue, according to Daniel Perry, executive director of the Alliance
for Aging Research.
''No senator wants to have the blood on their hands of saying `no'
to medical research,'' Perry said. ''So this idea of a moratorium
is a back door way to say we aren't going to criminalize research
cloning, but we are going to put it on hold indefinitely. From the
point of view of a girl with diabetes, it is really unacceptable to
ask her to wait 5 or 10 years for research to proceed.''
Brownback, Kennedy, and Feinstein have rejected the idea of a research
President Bush had said he wants a human-cloning ban but is awaiting
a report on the medical and moral implications from his bioethics
council this summer.
Michael Werner, vice president for bioethics at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, said the industry organization will probably
begin running ads to ''put a human face on this research and its potential.''
Werner said his organizatoin could support a ban on reproductive
cloning but not on research.
''A moratorium on research is a ban on research, and that it is not
a compromise to us,'' he said.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
biotechnology and public policy issues. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.