[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14818]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   STATEMENT AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about a very serious 
issue that is currently under review by the Bush administration. 
Included in his decision process is a question, should the Federal 
Government fund human embryonic stem cell research.
  This is clearly a very emotional issue with strong views on both 
sides. Viewpoints from groups as disparate as patient advocates and 
religious groups have weighed in. This is virtually a tug of war with 
neither side willing to concede.
  As a strong supporter of biomedical research at the National 
Institutes of Health, I unquestionably recognized the call for the 
onward march towards understanding treatments and cures for many 
debilitating conditions that have been plaguing mankind for as long as 
we can remember. However, I also can see the morally troubling question 
behind embryonic stem cell research. Is it justifiable to purposefully 
end one life even if it results in the salvation of millions of others?
  While religious viewpoints can certainly play a role in this debate, 
let us put that aside for the moment and approach this subject from a 
purely historical scientific perspective. Throughout history, 
scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has 
also posed some disturbing ethical questions. Indeed, public attention 
was first drawn to questions about reported abuses of human subjects in 
horrifying biomedical experiments during World War II.
  During the Nuremberg War Crime Trials, the Nuremberg Code was drafted 
as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had 
conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners.
  This code became the prototype of many later codes with the intention 
of assuring that research involving human subjects would be carried out 
in an ethical manner. It became a foundation of much international and 
United States law surrounding clinical research. Since 1975, embryos in 
the woman at this stage, at this same stage of development, about a 
week old, have been seen by the Federal Government as ``human 
subjects'' to be protected from harmful research.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and the American people should 
realize since an embryo is a human subject, embryonic stem cell 
research without a doubt violates many of the tenets of the Nuremberg 
Code and U.S. law.
  First, it says, ``The voluntary consent of the human subject is 
absolutely essential.'' Of course, the embryo from whom a well-meaning 
scientist would extract cells would have no capacity to give its 
consent and exercise its free choice. Further, the code states that any 
experiments should yield results that are ``unprocurable by other 
methods or means of study.'' Because stem cells can be obtained from 
other tissues and fluids of adult subjects without harm, it is 
unnecessary to perform cell extraction from embryos that will result in 
their death.
  Even the Clinton National Bioethics Advisory Commission said that 
embryo destructive research should go forward only ``if no less morally 
problematic alternatives are available for the research.'' They did not 
say to go forward with embryonic and adult stem cell research so we can 
see what works better. They did not say the alternatives had to work 
better than embryo destructive research. The only criteria that they 
gave is if there was a less morally problematic alternative to embryo 
destroying research, then using embryos would not be justifiable.
  This is from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, September 
1999, this quote, ``In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from 
embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only 
if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing 
the research . . . The claim that there are alternatives to using stem 
cells derived from embryos is not, at the present time, supported 
scientifically.'' There is an ethical alternative, and Federal money 
should not be spent on destroying human embryos.
  Finally the code insists that ``no experiment should be conducted 
where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling 
injury will occur . . . even remote possibilities of injury, 
disability, or death.'' Without a doubt the embryo, of course, dies.
  These are but a few doctrines of the Nuremberg Code which I ask you 
to consider while the Nation and the President grapples with this very 
serious decision.
  Embryonic stem cell research treats an embryo as a clump of tissue 
with less protection than a laboratory rat. There are promising 
alternative sources of stem cells with which to perform promising 
medical research. We must not allow Federal dollars to fund this 
destructive and needless practice.

                          ____________________