[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12032-S12034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to continue a discussion that began
in morning business earlier today. That is on the issue of human
cloning. I had not expected to be talking about this issue during the
closing days of this session of Congress. But I feel compelled to do so
in light of Sunday's announcement. That is indeed very troubling for
everybody as they seek to understand what this is all about after
Sunday's announcement that a U.S. company is pursuing the purposeful
creation of cloned human embryos.
I believe all human cloning for scientific reasons, for ethical
reasons, and for reasons surrounding the health and safety of women
should be banned.
This whole subject of human cloning was the subject of a lot of
discussion earlier this year. This summer, the House of Representatives
passed a bill prohibiting the human cloning by a large and overwhelming
margin. But in light of the events of September 11, much of the
discussion was put aside. A lot of that changed on Sunday. And now I
believe it is incumbent upon the Senate to address this critical issue
before adjourning for the year.
I urge the majority leader to call up the House bill and to allow the
Senate to work its will on that bill. We don't have the luxury of time
that I think many of us thought we had. If we look over the last
several years--really beginning in 1997, when Scottish researchers
first captured the attention of the world after they used the process
called somatic cell nuclear transfer to successfully clone that adult
sheep by the name of Dolly--since that period of time a lot has
happened in this particular body. The portrayal of human cloning has
intrigued our imagination over the last 4 to 5 years. But we all must
recognize that this is serious business. The idea that cloning human
beings may be technologically possible challenges our fundamental
beliefs--whether they be spiritual, or whether they be moral. Those
people who pay attention to science ask if it is really possible. I
believe the answer is yes. But what it really causes us to do is to go
back and challenge our fundamental beliefs on what the appropriate
limits are or should be of human control over nature.
I tell you, as a scientist and as someone who has thought a lot about
end-of-life issues or beginning-of-life issues and disease and health,
it provokes, in me, a lot of concern in terms of the issues of how much
to intervene, at what point, what is someone's motive, and can that
motive be shifted in such a direction that the great promises of
science can be used to the abuse of what most people would regard as
their moral sensibilities.
After the Dolly announcement, we held a series of hearings in the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The first hearing
focused on science. We had scientists testify. We looked at all types
of cloning: Animal cloning, human cellular cloning, and the cloning of
a human embryo, the cloning of human individuals.
At the second hearing we had ethicists and theological
representatives come in. We listened to distinguished individuals
testifying from the Christian faith, the Jewish traditions, the Islamic
traditions, all relating to human cloning. We also listened to
philosophers well schooled in biomedical ethics.
The story went on. The National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC),
at the request of President Clinton, looked at, studied, and made a
report on the moral and ethical issues as well as the scientific
standpoints. NBAC then reported to the President that reproductive
cloning was unsafe and should be prohibited by Federal law.
About a year after that, Senator Bond and I, based on our hearings,
and based on that National Bioethics Advisory Committee report,
introduced the Human Cloning Prohibition Act along with a number of our
other colleagues. That bill would have prohibited the use of somatic
cell nuclear transfer technology to produce a human embryo.
At the time--and the time today is very different; again, that was in
1998--the science of issues such as stem cell research, particularly
embryonic stem cells, was all hypothetical. It was all theoretical.
This whole field of embryonic stem cell research existed, but only as a
hope of what might be. No research using embryonic stem cells had
actually been conducted at the time.
The overall science of these issues, of cloning and stem cell
research, was relatively undeveloped and even less understood. The bill
got caught up in a lot of concerns that it could prevent this whole
field of embryonic stem cell research from progressing, and the bill
really fell by the wayside.
Indeed, almost 2 years would pass between the announcement of Dolly,
the sheep, in 1997 and the groundbreaking reports on the successful
isolation of what are called human pluripotent stem cells. It was 2
years after Dolly.
Now, more than 2 additional years past, the field of embryonic stem
cell research has really made great strides, although it is still in
its infancy, as we are seeing today. Today there are more than 60
established embryonic stem cell lines worldwide. The research, I
believe, does show great promise for stem cell research as we look to
the future.
We have also learned a lot about adult stem cells. Only recently
people understood there are two--indeed, there are three--but two main
types of stem cells: One is adult, and one is embryonic. A lot of our
traditionally held beliefs about the adult stem cells, the fact that
they can only go in one direction, have been modified as we have
studied them scientifically. Now we know they are not restricted to one
fate or one direction.
This past year, the NIH spent $250 million on stem cell research.
That number, I am quite certain, is going to grow in the future because
of the promise of stem cell research for therapies for a range of
diseases. That money will be spent for both adult stem cell and
embryonic stem cell research.
I will say that overall stem cell research is in its very early
stages and there is a lot to learn. I have just outlined what we have
learned in the last 2 years, and in the 2 years prior to that from the
time that Dolly was first cloned.
But what we can say now, with confidence, I believe, is that a ban on
human cloning--again, we are talking about stem cells and human
cloning--a ban on human cloning will not be a barrier in any way to the
aggressive pursuit of embryonic or adult stem cell research. I would
argue that it is just to the contrary of what some people say, that if
you ban human cloning in some way it might slow down stem cell
research.
[[Page S12033]]
Why do I say that? It comes back to a debate we had on this floor 6
or 8 months ago when we were talking about stem cells. It is my belief
that embryonic stem cell research, which I believe has great promise,
and adult stem cell research can best be conducted in an environment, a
framework, where you have ethical considerations, moral considerations,
and a legal framework defined. That way, the American people can trust
what is being done, what we are investing in, in relation to what the
scientists are doing.
I would argue that that legal framework around stem cell research--to
allow it to progress--demands, as one of its criteria, that we ban the
cloning of human beings, that we ban human cloning. That is what is
before us today as we define what America is thinking today. Where do
the scientists fit in with all this? You will hear different scientists
saying different things. But I think it is also clear that,
scientifically, embryonic stem cell research can and will be able to
proceed aggressively without the use of therapeutic cloning.
I think it is generally believed that most scientists consider the
field of human cloning too immature and unknown if the goal is to
safely attempt to clone a human being. Most scientists will agree it is
too early. We do not know enough today.
What about therapeutic cloning? You hear these words. You have
reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. And with more time we
will probably get more into that. But conceptually there are two
different types of cloning.
Some people say we should ban reproductive cloning but we should
allow the therapeutic cloning to proceed. I would argue with the
intent. We have heard people say they want to clone human beings. They
said they are going to go out and do it. Now the technology, as we saw
3 days ago, is likely to get there. So they are likely to do it.
So when you are creating a human embryo, and you say you are going to
use it just therapeutically, it is just too easy to take that embryo
and implant it in the womb, and then it is reproductive cloning. And
there will be more opportunity to talk about the differences there.
I will say therapeutic cloning is not necessary for rapid scientific
advancement. The 60-plus stem cell lines out there are sufficient for
Federal researchers to aggressively move in the direction of productive
research. Moreover, the idea of therapeutic cloning, intended to combat
the danger of autoimmune rejection, something I as a transplant surgeon
am very aware of, carries with it challenges of its own and does not
necessarily solve the problem of autoimmune rejection.
Let me just shift very quickly to risk. There are real risks to human
cloning. Even those people who are not repulsed by creating superhuman
beings and having people created in their own image and control--this
whole field of human cloning is almost godlike--even those people, when
you push them, recognize the frightening risks of human cloning.
Four years ago, it took about 270 attempts to get Dolly, the sheep.
Whether it is 200 or 500 or 100, you translate that down to human
beings, and that means 270 still births, 270 miscarriages, 270 deformed
births--all because we do not know enough. It is simply not safe.
I think we should move quickly to prohibit human cloning no matter
what the stated purpose. We do not act alone. Other nations are also
struggling in responding to this issue as well. France and Germany have
developed legislation to prohibit human cloning, and they have called
upon the United Nations to take up this matter on the international
level.
I believe the creation of human embryos purely for research purposes
alone is the exploitation of human life. I say it, yes, as a pro-life
Senator, but I think the idea of creating human embryos for the reason
of just research is an exploitation that even the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission and newspaper editorial pages, including the
Washington Post have opposed. Why? Because you ultimately have to
destroy those embryos.
There is also another issue about which I hope we will have the
opportunity to talk. It is actually in an article from November 25 in
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The heading of the article says: ``Buying
and Selling of Women's Eggs Raise Fears of Bidding Wars.'' The first
sentence states:
Egg donors needed. Healthy women ages 18-32 willing to help
infertile couples.
In another paragraph it says:
In California, the increasing demand has resulted in a
flourishing egg-donation industry that can reward donors with
payments equivalent to a semester's tuition at an Ivy League
school. Greater demand also has increased prices on the East
Coast by several thousand dollars.
I mention that because clearly if there are individuals or companies
out there with what inevitably will be a financial incentive to
obtaining these eggs, the burden is very likely to fall upon women of
low income.
The eggs will have to be obtained through a medical procedure. The
medical procedure has its own risks as well. There are no safeguards
today for women who would be used as sources of the needed eggs. I
believe that a failure to prohibit human cloning not only poses a real
risk to the health and safety of the women but will have the effect of
turning their bodies into commodities.
In closing, because of statements by many people around the world who
have said they are going to clone human beings and the recent
announcement on Sunday which shows that human cloning is much closer on
the horizon unless we act, I encourage my colleagues in this body and
the majority leader, to bring up the House bill and allow us to modify
that bill, if necessary.
The bill has already been passed by the House of Representatives. It
is very similar to the bill Senator Bond and I introduced along with
others 3 years ago. The House has improved it. They expand the
definitions and exclusions from the original bill. The only act
prohibited in that bill is human cloning.
Our challenge is to move quickly and carefully. We need to move
quickly to achieve the goal of prohibiting human cloning without--it is
important to understand--harming the important biomedical research
which will be allowed to continue. That goal is within our grasp.
The majority leader has said we will bring up this bill next spring.
Because of recent incidents, I encourage him to do it as soon as we can
this year. The risks of delay simply are too great. Our responsibility
is clear.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
article I cited be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the St. Louis-Dispatch, Nov. 25, 2001]
Buying and Selling of Women's Eggs Raise Fears of Bidding Wars
(By Michelle Meyer)
``Egg donors needed. Healthy women ages 18-32 willing to
help infertile couples.''
Adrienne Smith spotted the ad submitted by the infertilty
and Reproductive Medicine Center at Washington University in
the Riverfront Times earlier this year. Having read articles
about egg donation, she knew that clinics paid several
thousand dollars for young women's eggs.
Smith, 24, works as an administrative assistant and is
planning on taking classes to become a certified massage
therapist. That money could help pay her tution, so she
applied to become a donor.
The experience went well for Smith. Doctors successfully
extracted her eggs and donated them to an infertile couple.
Smith will never meet the couple, nor the offspring who might
result. But she was paid $2,500 and she also has the
satisfaction of knowing that she is helping people who long
to become parents.
Even so, the buying and selling of women's eggs raise
troubling issues. With an estimated 6 million U.S. women
suffering from infertility, the demand for transplanted eggs
is great. Medical ethicists and reproductive specialists fear
a bidding war may be in the offing. And that, in turn, could
lure women into the program who are ill-suited or unprepared
for the rigors of donating their eggs.
In California, the increasing demand has resulted in a
flourishing egg-donation industry that can reward donors with
payments equivalent to a semester's tuition at any Ivy League
school. Greater demand also has increased prices on the East
Coast by several thousand dollars.
No one can say for sure how many young women are donating
eggs in the St. Louis area. What is clear is that sizeable
fees paid to donors on the coasts aren't as prevalent in the
Midwest.
But some are already concerned. ``The higher the amount of
money, the more danger there is that a woman might take risks
[[Page S12034]]
that she might not ordinarily take for the sake of the
money,'' says Rebecca Dresser, professor of law and ethics in
medicine at Washington University and a member of American
Society of Reproductive Medicine. ``The huge financial
incentive increases the incentive to conceal health issues
both to her own health and that of her offspring.''
The business of matching egg donors and infertile couples
is largely unregulated with well-established medical
institutions--like Washington University--and independent
brokers involved. Some solicit and match donors
discreetly. Others aren't shy about touting their prices
to donors and bragging to infertile couples that their
donors are some of the best looking and most intelligent
people around.
Attracted by the promise of big money, potential donors may
be unaware of the demands of egg extraction.
retrieving the eggs
For egg donor Smith, that meant injecting herself daily
with ovarian stimulation shots, visiting the doctor's office
a half dozen times and enduring an uncomfortable bloating of
her abdomen that prevented her from wearing her regular
clothing. At the end of the process, a doctor administered a
mild anesthesia and poked Smith's ovaries with a long needle,
extracting the eggs that had ripened inside of her.
Awaiting the final procedure, Smith read an article about
infertility and began to cry. ``I realized there is no amount
of money that can compensate you for what you are doing,''
Smith said. ``I sat there reading about these people who were
so excited by the chance to actually have a child. Helping
people is very important to me. I hope and pray that a
pregnancy came out of it.''
The egg retrieval took less than 45 minutes, and within an
hour, Smith was awake and ready to go home. Like most women,
Smith experienced mild abdominal discomfort and soreness for
several days. Immediately following the retrieval, her eggs
were fertilized with the recipient husband's sperm and
implanted into the wife's womb.
``Egg donors needed. $3,500. Must be 21-34.''
Surrogate Parenting Center of Texas placed this simple,
straightforward ad on the back page of a recent Riverfront
Times. It is representative of many ads targeting readers in
that age range. Many appear in college newspapers, including
those at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, Washington
University and St. Louis University.
``We had a lot of ads (requesting donors) run last year,''
says Nick Bowman, editor of the UMSL's newspaper, The
Current. ``But since my regime as editor this year, we
haven't seen as many.
Many ads appeal to a donor's sense of compassion. Dr.
Ronald Wilbois of the Infertility and IVF Center of St. Louis
says, ``There is no mention of monetary compensation in our
ads, although some people in town have done that. I think you
get into this big problem of clinics competing with each
other if you do that. Plus, we don't want money to be the big
draw. We have found that women who do it for the money are
not real reliable as a group.''
The IVF Center performs six to eight donor egg retrieval
procedures a month, and unlike several clinics in the area,
doesn't have a waiting list for eggs, according to Wilbois.
But he admits that it can be difficult to find ``good''
donors.
Many women do not pass the stringent physical and medical
screening required. Donors are required to submit complete
medical and family histories, as well as pass various screens
for infectious diseases and medical or genetic disorders.
About 10 percent find that their eggs are not viable.
the internet connection
The Internet has become a resource for couples seeking egg
donors. Web sites provide a quick database that has replaced
time-consuming paper files. Some sites include photos of
young women, as well as personal information such as IQ
level, high schook grade point average and physical
measurements.
Dawn T. Hunt is an egg broker in California who helps to
pair infertile couples with donors. Her company, Fertility
Alternatives Inc., posts pictures of young women interested
in donating, including some from St. Louis. The Web site,
www.geocities.com/fertilityalternatives/oocyte.html,
classifies some of the women as ``exceptional donors,'' those
with above-average intelligence, academic achievements or
physical attractiveness.
One ``exceptional'' donor, a young woman referred to as
Rachel M., is a graduate of Washington University residing in
the St. Louis area. Rachel is 23 with short blonde hair and a
doll-like round face who scored 1430 on her SAT and earned a
3.66 GPA in graduate school. Individuals wanting to make a
baby with Rachel's eggs can expect to pay $8,000, although
that fee is negotiable. Hunt will get part of that money.
``I found a lot of my people wanted attractive donors with
proven intelligence . . . so I gave it to them,'' Hunt said.
``My clientele feels guilty about (placing so much importance
on physical attractiveness) but if it were me. I would
probably want an attractive donor.''
The ethical debate over the sale of human eggs heightened
after ``Ron's Angels'' appeared on the Internet in 1999. Ron
Harris, a California fashion photographer, posted pictures
of models on his site in an effort to create an auction
for the eggs of beautiful women. Reportedly, bids for
model's eggs soared as high as $42,000.
Last year, members of the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine suggested that compensation up to $5,000 is
appropriate for the donation of eggs but that anything above
$10,000 is inappropriate.
But those are merely guidelines. Currently, every state
except Louisiana allows for the sale of human eggs. And no
states have enacted legislation aimed at capping fees or
regulating egg donation.
Educators worry that students may be ill-prepared to weigh
the costs and benefits of selling their eggs.
``I think college students would be vulnerable to this kind
of solicitation because of the extreme financial incentive,''
said Judith Gibbons, a professor of psychology at St. Louis
University who specializes in issues of early adulthood.
``When I ask college students about their major concerns,
financial worries are always on top of the list. But I would
never want to take their autonomy away from them because they
are adults and can make their own decisions.''
Dresser, the Washington University professor, fears that
young people may regret their decisions later in life. ``When
they are that young they may not fully appreciate that there
may be some risks to their future fertility,'' she said. ``Of
course, it is only speculation at this point because we don't
know if there is a danger to future fertility. Egg donation
has only been going on for a few years, so we haven't been
able to follow these women over time.''
Smith said that while trying to decide whether to become a
donor, she wrestled with the idea of possibly having a child
in the world and not knowing him or her. Although the thought
bothered her, she decided to go ahead anyway.
Dr. Sherman Silber of the Infertility Center of St. Louis
refuses to solicit donors with ads. ``I felt that was abusive
to women. I don't like the idea of targeting a young 19- or
20-year-old girl who needs money.''
But if all goes well, the process can be fulfilling for
everyone involved.
Tonya Weisheyer, 23, of Winfield, has donated her eggs
twice and is now acting as a surrogate mother. For her first
donation, Weisheyer donated to a couple in Boston and flew
there for her egg retrieval, although she did not meet the
prospective parents. Two weeks after her donation, Weisheyer
got a call from the couple's lawyer informing her that the
wife was pregnant.
After the donation, the couple sent Weisheyer a large
bouquet of flowers and gift certificates to Toys `R' Us for
Weisheyer's three children, ``I was in tears,'' Weisheyer
said. ``Just hearing they were pregnant was enough for me.
Just to know that I had helped them to accomplish their
dream. I was on cloud nine all day.''
Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15
minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________