The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a hearing on March 27, to discuss whether human cloning poses a risk to women. Subcommittee Chair Sam Brownback (R-KS) noted that the purpose of the hearing was to “examine what would be necessary in order to realize the promise held out to those suffering by those who are advocating human cloning as a means to cure the diseases that plague humanity.”
Recently, Sen. Brownback (R-KS) introduced legislation (S. 245) to ban all forms of cloning. S. 245 would create criminal and civil penalties for any individual or entity that performs or attempts to perform human cloning and would prohibit individuals or entities from shipping or receiving the product of human cloning. Additionally, the bill would prohibit cloning for medical research purposes. Last month, the House approved a similar measure (H.R. 534) (see The Source, 2/28/03).
Another bill (S. 303) sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) would ban reproductive cloning but still allow for therapeutic cloning.
There are two types of cloning—reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Reproductive cloning involves the development of a complete individual from a single body cell, such as the creation of the sheep Dolly. Therapeutic cloning creates embryonic stem cells that are genetic matches to the patient for the purpose of repairing damaged and diseased tissue.
In his testimony, Dr. John Bruchalski, an obstetrician and gynecologist, argued against therapeutic cloning, saying that “women have born the positive and negative effects of being experimented on through the years of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and now it appears the same with cloning.”
Andrew Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment also said that women are impacted negatively by human cloning because “research cloning is a highly inefficient process which would require an unlimited supply of human eggs.” Additionally, he said that “egg donation is a burdensome, risky, and painful procedure,” and the “explosion in demand for human eggs would exacerbate the coercive nature of the lucrative egg donation industry.”
Arguing in support of S. 245, Richard Dorflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that “three distinct classes of humans may be involved in cloning research—the embryos created by cloning, the women solicited for their eggs, and the patients who donate body cells in the hope of receiving a genetically compatible stem cell treatment.”
He added that S. 303 is “legislation which allows the practice [of cloning], and then seeks to dehumanize and destroy the humans thus produced so we can pretend we have banned cloning.”
Dr. Maria Bustillo of the South Florida Institute for Reproductive Medicine disagreed with Dr. Bruchalski. She noted that although “donating eggs is far more complicated than contributing sperm…women are smart enough to make informed choices about their bodies, including what they want to do with their eggs.” Dr. Bustillo also added that there “is a long history of egg donation for reproductive uses. Protections and safeguards for both donor and recipient are in place and could easily be modified to accommodate egg donation for research or clinical applications of embryonic stem cells.”
Another witness, R. Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin Law School urged Congress to focus on legislation that prevents the “unsafe practice” of reproductive cloning. However, additional “regulatory protections” should be created “for research and therapeutic applications of cloning, so that the public can be reassured that every measure has been taken to guide this research along a responsible path.”
