[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 37 (Tuesday, April 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2384-S2385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HUMAN CLONING
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will
consider legislation to prohibit human cloning. In advance of that
important debate, which will center upon this intersection of values,
of ethics as it crosses with science, many have begun studying in a
very careful way this complex issue.
A number of colleagues have come forward and asked me, personally,
about this issue, in part because of my medical background, but also in
large part because they know I am a strong advocate for and a strong
supporter of stem cell research, as long as that stem cell research is
conducted within a framework of a comprehensive, ethical, and moral
oversight system.
The question I hear most is the following: Can one truly be an
advocate for stem cell research and, at the same time, oppose human
cloning experimentation? After an in-depth study of this issue from a
policy standpoint, from the standpoint of being a Senator and looking
at that legislation as a science, from a medical standpoint, I believe
the answer to this question is yes.
Until now, the overall human cloning debate has been presented almost
as an absolute choice between, on the one hand, medical science and the
hope for cures and, on the other, ethical restraint.
This is an oversimplification that does not do justice to the
clinical, scientific, philosophical, moral, ethical, and spiritual
complexities underlying this discussion. I am glad to see that a number
of my colleagues and people around the country have not locked into
this false choice, but rather have stayed back to examine these in our
deliberations.
After carefully considering all of the evidence brought forward in
hearings and on the floor in support of human embryo research cloning
experimentation, after considering the medical progress being made and
that will be made through stem cell research, and after considering the
overwhelming ethical concerns about human embryo cloning
experimentation, I conclude that a comprehensive ban on all human
cloning is the right policy at this time. I intend to support
legislation consistent with this policy, and I will encourage my
colleagues to do likewise.
As we move forward, one must understand the fundamental fact that I
hope plays out over the next several days and weeks in the discussion.
It is important; that is, embryonic stem cell research and human embryo
cloning research are not the same thing. Human embryo research
cloning--called therapeutic or research embryo cloning--is an
experimental technique often confused with but distinct from stem cell
research. The promise of stem cell research, for Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, autoimmune
disorders, cardiovascular disease--the promise of stem cell research
and the science can and will progress with a ban on human cloning
embryo experimentation.
Most serious observers--I don't want do say all--agree that human
reproductive cloning should be banned, must be banned. Indeed the
legislation that will come to this floor will ban reproductive
cloning. It is dangerous and it is unethical.
The question this body will be debating is whether or not this ban on
human reproductive cloning should extend to all human embryo cloning.
The issue is not cloning of DNA, that is going to continue no matter
what; not cloning of molecules, that is going to continue; not cloning
of cells other than cells that become or are an embryo, that is going
to continue. That is not yet fully understood and, in truth, we have
not debated the legislation on this floor. But that will become
apparent.
The House of Representatives has already overwhelmingly passed strong
bipartisan legislation comprehensively banning human embryo research
cloning experimentation and reproductive cloning. Now is the time for
the Senate to do so.
Those who favor human research cloning experiments often point to its
potential to develop tissues that will not be rejected. In fact, on the
next chart--which I will not deal with today, but will come back to--
are the arguments, the overall claims that human research cloning, or
human cloning research is necessary to prevent immune rejection and is
necessary for other reasons.
As a heart transplant surgeon, one who spent many years of my life
transplanting hearts, this immune phenomenon is something I will come
back to the floor and talk about because it is very important for us to
address. Advocates for human embryo research cloning and so-called
therapeutic embryonic cloning experiments say it will increase the
number of embryonic stem cells. We will talk about that. They say it
will further basic biological knowledge. Again, we will come back and
talk about that as the debate proceeds.
There are facts that will need to be presented. But moving away from
the scientific standpoint, if you look at the overall ethical and moral
concern, it is this: Regardless of our religious background, most of
us--maybe I should say many, but I believe most of us--are extremely
uncomfortable today with the idea of creating cloned human embryos,
doing an experiment on them, and destroying the human embryo. That is
the state of the science. That is the state of the art.
If one supports human research or therapeutic cloning, given where we
are today--our understanding of science--you are in support of
purposefully creating an embryo, of removing
[[Page S2385]]
the cells, and thereby destroying that embryo.
The other concerns which people will talk about--although I think
this is the concern that most people will start with--will be concerns
about women's health. Human cloning clearly will create a market for
women's eggs. That is going to create powerful incentives for women to
undergo an intense regimen of superovulation drugs and surgery, with
potentially devastating side effects.
As a physician and a policymaker who struggles, especially since I
have come to Washington, with this inherent tension between scientific
progress and ethical concerns, I think there are two fundamental
questions that this body needs to answer, and the American people need
to answer: No. 1, does the scientific potential of human embryo cloning
experimentation justify this purposeful creation of human embryos which
must, by definition, be destroyed in the experiments? The second
question is: Does the promise of human embryonic stem cell research--
and, again, this is separate from cloning--in any way depend on the
experimental research cloning, the human cloning research technique or
tool? To both of those questions I answer no.
At this point in the evolution of this new science, I believe there
is no justification for the purposeful creation and destruction of
human embryos in order to experiment with them, especially when the
promise and success of stem cell research does not--does not--depend on
the experimental research cloning technique. As my colleagues know, I
am a strong supporter of stem cell--including embryonic stem cells--
research, as long as that stem cell research is conducted within an
ethical and moral framework.
Last August, President Bush outlined a scientific and ethically
balanced policy that allows Federal funding, through the National
Institutes of Health, for embryonic stem cell research, using nearly 80
stem cell lines. This has, indeed, opened the door to a significant
expansion of embryonic stem cell research within this ethical and moral
framework.
A lot of people do not realize today that there are no restrictions--
whether there should be or should not be is not the subject of the
legislation that will come to the floor--but it is important to realize
there are no restrictions on private research using embryonic stem
cells from embryos left over after in vitro fertilization procedures.
Thus, when you come to that argument of just having a technique which
produces more embryos, I would argue that there is simply no compelling
need for any other source of embryonic stem cells today.
The state of the science and the state of the research we will be
addressing again on the floor as we go forward. But given the serious
ethical concerns on human embryonic cloning research, given the fact
that there is a lack of significant research in animal models--and
again most people do not realize that we are talking about human
cloning experimentation creating human embryos. This research has not
even been conducted in animal models at this juncture. Thus, I find no
compelling justification for allowing human cloning, reproductive or
research, today.
It is important also--and I will very quickly go through this--to be
clear that we are talking about a ban on reproductive cloning along
with a ban on what is called research or therapeutic cloning, but it is
all human embryo cloning. But the bill allows other types of cloning
research to continue--many people do not realize that--whether it is
cloning to produce animals, cloning to produce plants, cloning any cell
other than a human embryo, cloning of DNA and RNA, proteins or any
other molecule. In fact, I will not go through the entire list now.
The point is, the cloning science continues. The ban is on the
cloning of the human embryo: the purposeful creation of an embryo for
human reproduction or for experimentation and its ultimate destruction,
which is what we are banning today.
I would indeed argue that any potential benefit of cloning should be
carried out--should be demonstrated in animal models before going to
the human model.
I wanted to make the statement today based on my assessment of where
we are. There will be plenty of time to debate this later. With that I
will close.
I want to say, once again, I will support legislation to ban all
forms of human embryo cloning, reproductive, research and therapeutic,
when the issue comes before the Senate. I, indeed, will urge my
colleagues to do likewise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
____________________