On January 29, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a hearing on human cloning. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) opened the hearing by stating that “hopefully, with this hearing, and with some of the hearings to come over the next several months, we will be able to better understand the implications of human cloning for our society.” The same day, Sen. Brownback introduced a bill (S. 245) that would ban all forms of human cloning.
Speaking before the subcommittee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said that the word “ ‘cloning’ is scientific shorthand for a complex process that can be used to achieve different ends—some bad and some good.” He then added, “But like any shorthand expression, its meaning is easily misunderstood by those who are unfamiliar with all the facts involved, the most important being that there are actually two types of cloning: reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.”
Reproductive cloning involves the creation of an 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.
Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-PA) also testified before the subcommittee and said that he hoped the Senate would approve legislation, similar to that passed by the House (H.R. 2505) during the last Congress, which would ban all forms of cloning (see The Source, 8/3/01). Rep. Toomey also said, “Creating cloned human embryos for research purposes means creating human life for the purpose of research with the intent of destroying it.”
Dr. Leon R. Kass of the President’s Council on Bioethics explained that the President’s Council met for six months last year to consider the “moral, biomedical, and human significance” of human cloning. He then discussed the two policy recommendations offered by the Council. The first recommendation called for a permanent ban on reproductive cloning. However, Dr. Kass noted, the Council differed on the policy for therapeutic cloning and as a result, they recommended a four-year moratorium on therapeutic cloning. Dr. Kass also stressed, “the failure of the last Congress to enact a ban on human cloning casts grave doubt on our ability to govern the unethical uses of biotechnology.”
Dr. Anton-Lewis Usala of the Office of Regulatory Review of Clinical Trials at East Carolina University explained that one approach to replacing damaged tissues is to “find acceptable transplantation sources and implant donor cells into a patient.” He added that “if these cells are derived from a source other than the patient, there will be problems with rejecting the ‘foreign’ transplant material….Cloned patient cells…do not have many of the foreign markers and theoretically would not be rejected.”
Advocating on behalf of therapeutic cloning, Kris Gulden of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, explained that in 1998, she was struck by a motor vehicle while riding her bike. The accident resulted in traumatic brain injury, four broken vertebrae, two broken ribs, a broken breastbone and clavicle, and a bruised, displaced spinal cord at the T4 level. She noted that although her injuries have caused her to lose “considerable function,” she has not “lost hope.” She then urged the subcommittee to not “take away the hope of countless Americans who could benefit from therapeutic cloning.”
