[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.

                          ____________________