[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 164 (Friday, November 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12222-S12223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HUMAN CLONING
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to particularly address the
issue of human cloning and the part of the bill that puts forth a 6-
month moratorium on human cloning. I brought up before this body
several times this week a U.S. News & World Report cover story of this
week about the first human clone. Advanced Cell Technology out of
Massachusetts is now saying they have cloned the first human being.
We have to address this issue now or we are going to have to expect
more stories such as this about the further development of human
cloning before this body has spoken. The House has spoken and said they
don't want to have human clones. They put forth a complete ban, and
passed it by a large bipartisan majority, a 100-vote margin. The
President said: Let's ban human cloning. We don't want to create humans
for destructive purposes or for reproductive purposes in this fashion.
He has asked for banning that. This body has failed to act.
That is why we are putting forward at this time this request for a 6-
month moratorium: Time out; hold up, so we don't have moratoriums such
as this while this body takes time to deliberate, hold the committee
hearings, and do the things it needs to do to consider this issue. We
are asking for a timeout moratorium for 6 months.
I want to make several points and cite various groups that are
supporting the moratorium or even the entire banning of human cloning.
I want to read some important articles which they have put forward. I
will make several points over the following days, weeks, and months.
One point is that research cloning being sponsored by Advanced Cell
Technology requires eggs to be harvested from a woman. Harvesting eggs
is an invasive and dangerous procedure. Harvesting eggs from women
means the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the
[[Page S12223]]
use of which has been linked to higher risks of ovarian cancer. The
risk is one, a woman can take for a variety of reasons; one of them
being to help have children. However, women are being asked to incur
this risk to ``donate'' their eggs solely for money. Women who sell
their eggs to firms like Advanced Cell Technology will likely
disproportionately be of women who are already somewhat
disenfranchised, or of lower income. In fact, it is now known that
Advanced Cell Technology paid $4,000 to each woman who ``donated'' her
eggs.
I would say that is probably more than a donation if you pay $4,000
for the egg. I suggest if this doesn't qualify as exploitation of the
disenfranchised for profiteering motives, I am not sure what does.
This is not just a pro-life or pro-choice debate. It is not that at
all.
In fact, pro-choice feminist Judy Norsigian and biologist Stuart
Newman recently commented in a Boston Globe column,
Because embryo cloning will compromise women's health, turn
their eggs and wombs into commodities, compromise their
reproductive autonomy and, with virtual certainty, lead to
the production of ``experimental'' human beings, we are
convinced that the line must be drawn here.
That is strong language. Experimental human beings, eggs and wombs
turned into commodities, and compromising women's health.
Perhaps that is why this debate is not a debate, as someone
suggested, on the issue of abortion. And perhaps that is why we have an
interesting coalition forming of groups that are strongly opposed to
abortion, groups that strongly support abortion, environmentalists, and
others. The reason for the broad range of interest is that there is
truly something about this issue which should concern all of us.
I would like to read a few of the articles appearing in recent months
for the benefit of some of my colleagues. The first article is by
Sophia Kolehmainen of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a pro-
choice group chaired by Claire Nader. Claire is the sister of Ralph
Nader, the Presidential candidate. She was actively involved in the
Presidential campaign. This is what their group had to say about human
cloning. This is the article they put forward. It is entitled ``Human
Cloning: Brave New Mistake.''
It would be a mistake to develop and use cloning as a
technique to replicate human beings. It is questionable
whether and what benefits would be gained from the successful
creation of a cloned human being, and whether they would
justify the radical impact cloning would have on our society.
Cloning is not just another reproductive technology that
should be made available to those who choose to use it, but
is an unnecessary and dangerous departure from evolutionary
processes and social practices that have developed over
millions of years. As with many other developments in
biotechnology, some scientists and commentators are asking us
to accept cloning of humans just because it is technically
possible, but there are few good reasons to develop the
technology, and many reasons not to develop it.
1. safety concerns
The most frequently stated argument against cloning is
based on safety concerns. At this point in the process of
experimenting with cloning, such concerns are important. The
production of Dolly required at least 276 failed attempts. No
one knows why most of these attempts failed and only one
succeeded. From a technical viewpoint, cloning presents
different obstacles in every species, since embryo
implantation, development, and gestation differ among
different species. Human cloning therefore could not become a
reality without extensive human experimentation. Though 276
``failed'' lambs may be acceptable losses, the ethical
implications of any failed or only partially successful human
experiments are unacceptable.
Some of their article I don't necessarily agree with, but I am
reading through their arguments.
2. commodification
Cloning would encourage the commodification of humans.
Though industrialized societies commodify human labor and
human lives, the biological commodification involved in human
cloning would be of a vastly different order. Cloning would
turn procreation into a manufacturing process, where human
characteristics become added options and children become
objects of deliberate design. Such a process of
commodification needs to be actively opposed. It produces no
benefits and undermines the very basis of our established
notions of human individuality and dignity.
3. diversity
Cloning would also disrespect human diversity in ethnicity
and ability. Though it is, in fact, not possible to produce
exact copies of animals or people, inherent in cloning is the
desire to do so. The process of cloning would necessarily
contribute to genetic uniformity by decreasing genetic
variety. A society that supported cloning as an acceptable
procreative technique would imply that human diversity is not
important. Especially in a multicultural nation like the
United States, where diversity and difference are at the root
of our cultural existence, any procedure that would reduce
our acceptance of differences would be dangerous. It is clear
from the tensions that exist in our society that we should
encourage processes that increase our appreciation for
diversity among individuals, not working to remove
differences.
Dr. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, put forward
a strong statement in opposition to human cloning. This is a pro-choice
group which put forward a strong statement in opposition to cloning for
many of the same reasons that I have put forward.
There are other groups that are putting forward clear and convincing
reasons why we should not do cloning. For those reasons and many
others, I ask this body to take up the bill numbered 2505 on Monday,
and vote for cloture on the moratorium prohibiting human cloning for 6
months. There is ample reason for us to have a moratorium for 6 months.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, is
recognized.
____________________