June 8, 2001
House Panel Explores Ethics of Human Cloning
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime June 7 held a hearing on the ethical issues surrounding human cloning. The subcommittee heard from four witnesses, the first three of whom supported a statutory ban on human cloning, as proposed in legislation (H.R. 1644) introduced by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), which creates criminal penalties for any individual who performs or attempts to perform human cloning. H.R. 1644 defines "human cloning" as "human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nucleus has been removed or inactivated to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution."
All three witnesses in favor of a ban rejected efforts to distinguish between cloning for the purpose of actually implanting an embryo in a woman for the purpose of creating a human, and so-called "therapeutic cloning" that would create embryos as a source for embryonic stem cells. Leon Kass, University of Chicago, said that government attempts to enforce a reproductive ban would be unsuccessful, and that once cloned embryos were created, it would be impossible to control what is done with them. He told the subcommittee that a ban on human cloning would not interfere with reproductive or scientific freedom.
Daniel Callahan, director, International Programs, Hasting Center, pointed out that a total ban on human cloning is appropriate and justifiable. He said that scientific research is already restricted and regulated in many ways, citing humans subjects research and informed consent as examples. He also decried efforts to characterize research as a war against disease, saying this implies that anything is justifiable to achieve victory. He noted that health is a social good, but not the only social good.
David Prentice, Ph.D., Indiana University, discussed the differences between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. He told the subcommittee the crux of the issue is whether there are less objectionable alternatives to embryonic stem cells, and cited an "avalanche" of research reports describing success with adult stem cells that void all of the objections to the ban. All three ethicists expressed the point of view that research would lose very little momentum is the ban is enacted.
The fourth witness was Robyn Shapiro, director of the Center for Study of Bioethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who supported the existing regulatory structure and expressed concern about the "real dangers of mixing research with criminal penalties." She noted that in the absence of legislation, there is already tremendous caution among scientists because of the important ethical issues. She predicted that any criminal statute would have a chilling effect that would extend to stem cell research and possibly IVF research. She also noted the disagreement within the scientific literature about the potential for embryonic and adult and stem cells, saying she didn't believe "it was easy to say that we will lose nothing without this research."
The subcommittee has scheduled a second hearing focused on legal issues regarding the regulation of human cloning and on H.R. 1644 on June 19.
Information: Dave Moore, AAMC Office of Governmental Relations, 202-828-0525.
