[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH AND BIOETHICS

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Nation's attention has once again 
focused on a controversial research proposal which raises enormous 
moral and ethical questions: Federal funding of human embryo research. 
An advisory panel at the National Institutes of Health recently 
released recommendations for the conduct of this research. Once again, 
our traditional notions of life are being pushed to the limit by the 
scientific and technical advances that are now possible in medicine.
  I raise this issue today not to criticize or applaud the work of the 
NIH advisory panel. Rather I do so to reiterate my belief that our 
Nation needs an independent ethics advisory board to evaluate and 
debate the difficult moral issues that are being raised more and more 
frequently in biomedical research.
  Society will reap great benefits from advances made by modern 
science. Cures for hereditary diseases, a revolution in agriculture, 
miracle drugs, and an end to human infertility are all being predicted 
for our future. History has taught us, however, that new technologies 
often bring with them costs as well as benefits. New capabilities often 
pose dilemmas for society because they exceed the ethical and legal 
parameters we have in place to deal with them.
  I have watched these advancements with great inspiration and continue 
to be one of the leading proponents of Federal biomedical research 
funding in the Congress. At the same time, however, I have watched as 
the Federal Government has allowed many of the most difficult 
biomedical ethical questions of our time to linger with little Federal 
guidance or dialogue. While society struggles to cope, public officials 
have too often preferred to allow such issues to be decided by default 
in a vacuum of leadership. We cannot continue to allow this to happen.
  In each session of Congress since 1987, I have introduced legislation 
to place a moratorium on allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to 
issue patents on living organisms. Until this year, Harvard University 
had received the only such patent for the so-called Harvard Mouse. I 
did not introduce this so-called animal patenting legislation to object 
to the research that is being conducted using these creatures. My 
record shows that I am committed to the advancement of scientific 
research. I believe, however, that the elected members of Government 
have a solemn duty to ensure that serious social and ethical issues are 
addressed. For me, the idea of issuing patents on living creatures that 
have been somehow altered by man raises many serious ethical questions 
related to human life and the natural order.

  Those who have followed the rapidly advancing field of biotechnology 
know that ethical parameters are very difficult to formulate. However, 
I believe that Congress bears a large part of the responsibility for 
seeing that ethical issues such as these are raised and, where 
appropriate, lines are drawn.
  In order to provoke greater discussion of the ethical implications of 
biomedical research, I joined my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator 
DeConcini in requesting two reports from the Office of Technology 
Assessment. In its first report, ``Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public 
Policy,'' which was released in October 1993, the OTA reviewed the 
different governmental approaches to issues of bioethics, including the 
so-called President's Commission and the now defunct Biomedical Ethics 
Board. OTA found that the United States is virtually alone in the 
industrialized world in not having a commission to examine bioethics 
issues. OTA will release a more detailed review of the ethical, 
privacy, environmental, and policy issues involved in different areas 
of biotechnology later this year.
  In addition, two Senate committees have held hearings on these 
issues. The first hearing was held by Senator DeConcini in the 
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and 
Trademarks on September 22, 1992. The purpose of this hearing was to 
examine the ethical issues of gene patenting. A second hearing was held 
on October 12, 1993, by Senator Kennedy in the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee. This hearing focused on the findings of the OTA 
report mentioned above and the feasibility of creating a standing 
Ethics Advisory Board. Both of these hearings were constructive and 
helpful in raising the visibility of biomedical ethics issues.
  It has been my goal to foster dialogue on the difficult bioethical 
issues faced by this country. My hope is that these efforts will result 
in the establishment of a permanent body assembled to study bioethical 
policy issues and make recommendations to the administration and 
Congress.
  That is why I was pleased to take a step toward these objectives by 
introducing legislation to establish a national Ethics Advisory Board 
to be located within the Department of Health and Human Services. The 
Board established in this legislation would be composed of 15 members. 
While located under the umbrella of HHS, the Board would report to the 
administration and to Congress.
  The Board would be part of the Federal research review process 
already in place at HHS. It would also take requests for review from 
Congress and would have the authority to choose issues to review on its 
own motion, but would have no authority to veto research initiatives. 
The purpose of such a Board would be to promote the dialogue that is 
lacking on so many ethical issues today. This is dialogue that must 
take place if we are to have any hope of rational and informed 
decisionmaking in the field of bioethics.
  The reestablishment of a permanent commission is not a universally 
supported idea. Students of this issue know that past attempts have 
taken place with mixed, and at times dismal results. Let me make it 
clear that I am not wedded to the idea of a permanent Ethics Advisory 
Board, although the information I have reviewed leads me to believe it 
is the best approach. One of may purposes in introducing this 
legislation is to provide a tangible proposal to be debated and 
considered as we continue the discussion on the ethics of biomedicine.
  At this point, that debate is advancing. Senator Kennedy has agreed 
that an Ethics Advisory Board could be an appropriate mechanism for 
evaluating biomedical ethics issues. I am working with him to move my 
legislation forward. In addition, the Clinton administration, led by 
Jack Gibbons, the President's adviser for Science and Technology, has 
recently published a proposal in the Federal Register which would 
create an agency-wide Ethics Advisory Board within the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy. The head of the National Institutes of 
Health's National Center for Human Genome Research, Dr. Francis 
Collins, has also been very interested in our efforts, because some of 
the most difficult ethical issues we will face will be in the area of 
genetics.
  In closing, let me reiterate that I am not arguing against advances 
in biotechnology or other advancing areas of science. I am simply 
saying that society must carefully evaluate new breakthroughs in 
science and technology and the implications of these new developments. 
Although it is difficult to legislate in these complex areas, 
Congress--as the elected Representatives of the people--must play a 
role in seeing that a forum for discussion is provided and that these 
important issues are addressed openly.

                          ____________________