[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S271-S272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 1595. A bill to provide for the establishment of a Commission to 
Promote a National Dialogue on Bioethics.

[[Page S272]]

      the commission to promote a national dialogue on bioethics 
                       establishment act of 1998

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, In recent years, I have often voiced 
concern that medical technology is moving at an unprecedented pace, 
leaving the rest of society ill-prepared to cope with the increasingly 
complex moral and ethical dilemmas that follow in the wake of new 
inventions. We must never attempt to divorce scientific progress from 
ethical considerations. We must instead fashion timely answers to the 
timeless question ``Is there a line that should not be crossed even for 
scientific or other gain, and if so, where is it?'' (Washington Post 
editorial, Oct. 2, 1994)

  The recent furor over Dolly the cloned sheep, and Dr. Seed's 
subsequent announcement that he intended to clone a human being through 
the same technique, has highlighted the necessity of an independent, 
balanced forum to address the ethical implications of new technological 
capabilities. Two temptations threaten both science and ethics in the 
current milieu. There is pressure on legislators (often unfamiliar with 
scientific issues) to rush to draft laws that could hamper important 
research efforts. There is a parallel tendency on the part of academic 
scientists to resist any input from law or ethics into their research. 
Thus, science and ethics are lost in the political morass, while the 
public often remains uninvolved and frightened. The example of the 
cloning debate provides ample evidence of this tendency.
  There are no fewer than six legislative proposals to address cloning 
on the horizon, ranging from sweeping prohibitions to largely symbolic 
bans. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (a commission 
appointed entirely by President Clinton) did a good job of trying to 
assimilate the information on cloning under their ninety day deadline 
last year, but they were unable to substantively address the ethical 
issues surrounding human cloning. The Commission cited inadequate time 
to tackle difficult ethical issues in the context of our pluralistic 
society, and primarily focused on scientific concerns as well as the 
less abstract issue of safety. They then appealed to each American 
citizen to step to the plate and exercise moral leadership in forming a 
national policy on human cloning.
  In an effort to follow up on the Commission's recommendations, the 
Senate labor Committee's Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, 
which I chair, held a hearing June 17, 1997, entitled ``Ethics and 
Theology: A Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning.'' 
We heard testimony on all sides of the issue, from the Christian, 
Islamic, and Jewish traditions, and from philosophers well-schooled in 
biomedical ethics. We launched a broader public debate with questions 
about the nature of human individuality, family, and social structure.
  However, time has shown that both a Presidential Commission, and the 
United States Congress are inadequate and inappropriate forums for 
bioethical issues of intricacy and importance. I am therefore proposing 
to establish a new independent National Bioethics Commission, 
representative of the public at large, with combined participation of 
experts in law, science, theology, medicine, social science, and 
philosophy/ethics with interested members of the public.
  It is my hope that this Commission will forge a new path for our 
country in the field of bioethics. That they will enable us to have an 
informed, thoughtful, scientific debate in the public square without 
fear or politics driving our decisions. The Majority and Minority 
Leaders of Congress would appoint members of the panel, but no current 
Member of Congress or Administration political appointee would be 
allowed to participate during their term of office. We simply must 
depoliticize these discussions while simultaneously broadening input 
from the general public. Each and every citizen should have the 
opportunity to contribute to these great debates.
  I anticipate that some may question the role of theology in a public 
policy debate. Certainly the President's advisory commission found that 
their considerations were incomplete without examining the religious 
mores of our culture. Our founding fathers also recognized that public 
policy could not be formulated in a theological vacuum. While they 
forbade the establishment of a state religion, they simultaneously 
affirmed the rights of God-fearing people to make their voices heard in 
the public arena. Today, and throughout history, religion has been a 
primary source of the beliefs governing these decisions for men and 
women of all races and creeds.
  So it is vital that our public debate and reflection on scientific 
developments keep pace, and even anticipate and prepare for new 
scientific knowledge. The moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in the 
cloning of human beings may well be our greatest test to date. We do 
not simply seek knowledge, but the wisdom to apply that knowledge. As 
with each of the mind boggling scientific advances of the last century, 
we know that there is the potential for both good and evil in this 
technology. Our task as legislators is to define the role of the 
federal government in harnessing this technology for good. Our task as 
citizens is to exercise responsible stewardship of the precious gift of 
life. May this Commission enable us to fulfill our trust.

                          ____________________