Letter on Cloning to House Energy and Commerce Committee Members
July 27, 2001
The Honorable Jim Greenwood
United States House of Representatives
2436 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Greenwood:
The current opportunities in medical research are unparalleled
in our nation's history. To help ensure the fulfillment of
these opportunities, the Association of American Medical Colleges
urges Congress to oppose legislation that would prohibit the
use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Such a blanket prohibition
would have grave implications for future advances in medical
research and human healing.
As such, we urge you to reject the approach embodied in H.R.
2505, the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001."
H.R. 2505 would have a chilling effect on vital areas of research
that could prove to be of enormous public benefit. Instead,
we urge you to adopt the approach taken in H.R. 2608, the
"Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001," introduced by
Representatives Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) and Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.).
This bill would permit potentially life-saving research to
continue, but prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer
"to initiate a pregancy or with the intent to initiate
a pregnancy."
We agree with the American public that the cloning of human
beings should not proceed. However, it is important to recognize
the difference between reproductive cloning and the use of
cloning technology that does not create a human being. Non-reproductive
cloning technology has potentially important applications
in research, medicine and industry, including genetically
engineered human cell cultures that would serve as "therapeutic
tissues" in the treatment of currently intractable human
diseases. These uses of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology
do not lead to a cloned human being.
According to the National Institutes of Health, somatic cell
nuclear transfer technology could provide an invaluable approach
by which to study how cells become specialized, which in turn
could provide new understanding of the mechanisms that lead
to the development of the abnormal cells responsible for cancers
and certain birth defects. Improved understanding of cell
specialization may also provide answers to how cells age or
are regulated - leading to new insights into the treatment
or cure of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, or other
incapacitating degenerative disease of the brain and spinal
cord. The technology might also help us understand how to
activate certain genes to permit the creation of customized
cells for transplantation or grafting. Such cells would be
genetically identical to the cells of the donor and could
therefore be transplanted into that donor without fear of
immune rejection, the major biological barrier to organ and
tissue transplantation at this time.
Other types of specialized cells could be created to enable
skin grafts for burn victims; bone marrow stem cells to treat
leukemia and other blood diseases; nerve stem cells to treat
neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's disease, and to repair spinal cord injuries; muscle
cell precursors to treat muscular dystrophy and heart disease;
and cartilage-forming cells to reconstruct joints damaged
by injury or arthritis. Somatic cell nuclear transfer technology
could also be used potentially to accomplish remarkable increases
in the efficiency and efficacy of gene therapy by permitting
the creation of pure populations of genetically "corrected"
cells that could then be delivered back into the patient,
again with no risk of immune rejection. Indeed, this technology
could well lead to the operationalization of gene therapy
as a practicable and effective therapeutic modality - a goal
which to date has proved elusive.
We will never see the fulfillment of any of these promising
areas if we choose to take the perilous path of banning outright
the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology through
legislation. Thus, the AAMC respectfully urges the Congress
to reject H.R. 2505 and adopt H.R. 2608. We thank you for
your consideration of this vital issue.
Sincerely,
Jordan J. Cohen, M.D.
|
