Slow the Rush to Human Cloning
Ever since last February, when Scottish researchers unveiled Dolly, the best known sheep since Mary’s little lamb, the prospect of applying their technique to make human genetic copies has produced the bioethics equivalent of a roller coaster ride. The prospects for a smooth ending for that ride improved on Wednesday when the Senate rejected a move to bypass committee hearings and move straight to adoption of a bill introduced by Sens. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
Instead of rushing to judgment, the Wednesday vote should allow Congress to consider whether to go with the Bond-Frist approach, which would permanently ban any use in humans of the technique that produced Dolly, or follow the lead of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who introduced legislation last week to place a 10-year moratorium on attempts to create cloned children.
Our roller coaster ride started a year ago with the startling announcement that scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland had apparently succeeded in creating a clone of an adult mammal, a feat that many biologists had doubted was even possible. The biotechnology industry was particularly enthusiastic, since cloning would greatly simplify “pharming”--the breeding of herds of animals modified to make milk containing biologic products that are useful in treating human diseases.
At the same time, the possibility of applying the Roslin techniques directly to human beings provoked nearly universal dismay. President Clinton immediately banned the use of federal funds for this purpose, and the director of the National Institutes of Health spoke for many researchers when he called the prospect “repugnant.”
Last month the roller coaster picked up speed again. First, it plunged to a low point with Chicago physicist Richard Seed’s statement that he plans to open the Human Cloning Clinic and has several couples lined up to use his services. Then a week later the ride shot back up when several groups of researchers disclosed real progress in animal experiments. One of the brakes on human cloning has been the failure of other centers to duplicate the Roslin team’s success. Animals have been cloned using fetal cells, but no one has been able to create another clone from a differentiated cell of an adult animal.
Neal First and his colleagues in Wisconsin took a step toward repeating the process, by not only creating embryos of five species, including rhesus monkeys, but by using enucleated cow eggs for all five. The work is of enormous interest because it demonstrates that the genetic material in adult cells can be triggered to start a new life across species. And, along with results in cloning calves announced at the same time by other researchers, it indicates that technical problems won’t stand in the way of human cloning for very long.
As the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended to the president last June, steps need to be taken now to ensure that no one--including private fertility clinics not dependent on federal funds--can jump the gun by applying Dolly-style cloning to human beings.
To fill this void, House Majority Leader Dick Armey has pledged to enact a permanent ban not just on the creation of human clones but on studies with embryonic cells, even though such research could offer an important means of finding a cure for cancer and other lethal diseases. Several bills were introduced last week in the Senate, including the Bond-Frist proposal, that would impose this type of sweeping prohibition.
Such bills will almost certainly produce many undesired results. Instead, the president should work with Congress to ensure that any legislation follows the basic points of the bill he sent up last June:
* Stop anyone in the private as well as the public sector from attempting to use the “Dolly technique” of nuclear transfer from an adult cell to create a child at this time.
* Clearly distinguish the area of concern, the attempt to create a human child with such techniques, from the cloning of human DNA, genes or cells in the laboratory.
* Place a time limit on the ban. Clinton’s bill said five years, which the Feinstein-Kennedy proposal would extend to 10.
Concerns about the safety of creating a child through cloning and unresolved social, legal and ethical issues should be reexamined as scientific research and public discussion move forward. Writing a report in just 90 days, the bioethics commission was able to resolve some of the thorny social and ethical concerns raised by human cloning and to lay out a road map of many other issues for which more data, analysis and informed public debate are needed.
Can the benefits of new medical discoveries be gained without turning human embryos into mere commodities, as some cloning opponents now fear? Will genetic determinism, the misguided notion that genes control destiny, harm children as prospective parents seek excessive control over their children’s characteristics, or lead to a coercive regime of eugenics in which people would have to use “approved” genetic prototypes for their children?
Whether harms of this sort are sufficient to justify placing a permanent ban on human cloning or, alternatively, whether cloning could be confined to a limited range of uses has yet to be resolved as a practical or legal matter. The best way to bring the human cloning roller coaster to a smooth stop will be to enact a statute that defines terms carefully and recognizes the need for further deliberation by imposing a moratorium, rather than an outright ban.
