Human Cloning Ban Runs Into Wall of Science
A bipartisan campaign to ban human cloning has stalled in Congress, where antiabortion forces that fear the destruction of genetically engineered embryos are pitted against scientists who contend a ban would block cutting-edge biomedical research.
In an effort to break the deadlock, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has scheduled a vote today that could pave the way for the Senate to take up two competing measures to restrict cloning research. Whatever the outcome, it is now clear that the drive to outlaw human cloning will not proceed quickly or smoothly.
President Clinton first proposed a five-year ban last year, responding to public clamor surrounding dramatic advances in animal cloning. His plan drew widespread support, although Congress never acted on it.
But opposition has intensified as the scientific and pharmaceutical communities have issued dire warnings that an across-the-board ban would block pioneering research on diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s.
Antiabortion advocates are clamoring for a broad ban because they believe that any human cloning research necessarily involves the creation--and destruction--of genetically engineered human embryos.
That such a once-popular proposal has become mired in controversy reflects the fundamental difficulty Congress faces in grappling with complex scientific issues that have a profound moral dimension--namely, when does life begin?
“Anything related to embryos or abortions is a big problem for Congress,” said George Annas, a Boston University bioethicist.
The stalemate is somewhat surprising because virtually no one has spoken up in favor of human cloning. Clinton, Lott (R-Miss.) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) have taken the lead in promoting a ban. And leading researchers have voluntarily pledged to shun such experiments.
“Cloning is the way amoebas reproduce,” Armey said recently. “This is a brave new world we must not enter.”
G. Richard Seed, a maverick physicist in Chicago, has publicly advocated human cloning. Last month, he claimed to have assembled a team to begin such experiments, prompting a stampede in Washington to outlaw the practice--even though most experts say human cloning is at least three to five years away in terms of technological know-how.
Cloning is a genetic engineering technique in which scientists create an identical duplicate, or clone, of a living object. Though still in its infancy, cloning has already yielded an array of biomedical and agricultural advances. But it has never been achieved in humans.
Cloning made international headlines a year ago when Scottish researchers announced they had cloned a sheep named Dolly.
*
In the normal reproductive process, an egg and a sperm fuse, combining the genes of a male and a female to produce an embryo. In cloning, only the genes of one parent are used, with scientists removing the DNA from an egg and replacing it with the DNA of the person to be cloned.
A bill offered by Sens. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a heart-lung transplant surgeon, would permanently ban that technique as applied to human cells, with violators subject to criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison.
Bond called for “an immediate debate on how far out on a moral cliff we are willing to let science proceed before we as a nation insist on some meaningful constraints.”
He and Frist contend that the technique, known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” would entail the creation of life, albeit in a genetically engineered form that has never existed before. They say their bill would leave “untouched” research into diseases and other medical conditions, including in vitro fertilization.
A similar bill has been introduced in the House, authored by Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.).
A competing measure offered by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would allow some basic research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer. They insist that the product of such research “is not a fertilized egg in the traditional sense.” Still, their measure would ban for 10 years the implantation of such cells into a woman’s womb, with violators subject to civil fines of up to $1 million.
*
Kennedy, Feinstein and their research allies, including the pharmaceutical industry, warn against prematurely closing off vast areas of research, including some that may not now be foreseeable.
“Everyone in this body believes that human cloning should be made illegal,” Feinstein said. “But we should not attack the technology from which so much good can come.”
Lott will need 60 votes this morning to overcome a procedural maneuver by Kennedy and Feinstein that is blocking consideration of the Bond-Frist measure. Even if Lott prevails on his “motion to proceed,” Kennedy and Feinstein may still filibuster the Bond-Frist bill--in which case Lott must gain 60 votes again to overcome that obstacle.
Kennedy and Feinstein are demanding that hearings be held on the proposed ban. Although various congressional committees have conducted hearings on the general topic of human cloning, none has been held on either the Bond-Frist or the Kennedy-Feinstein bills. Neither measure would restrict cloning of plants or animals.
