 |
 |
Virtual New York Tuesday, 19 June 2001 19:11 (ET) Researchers wary about bill to ban cloning By KURT SAMSON, UP Medical Writer WASHINGTON, June 19 (UPI) -- Although there is near unanimous support for a federal prohibition on humans, one proposal has biomedical researchers worried that its reach could ban far more than a brave new world of designer kids. Two cloning bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1644, sponsored by Florida Rpublican Dave Weldon, would prohibit not just the cloning of humans but any research using cloning technology, including tissue and stem cell experiments. The other measure, H.R. 2172, offered by Pennsylvania Republican Jim Greenwood, would amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to ban human cloning but would allow any other use of somatic cell transfer technology for research. Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee's crime subcommittee Tuesday, Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp., in Menlo Park, Calif., said allowing human cloning would be irresponsible and could lead to a "backlash" against other forms of therapeutic cloning technology that could lead to cures for many diseases. Nonetheless, he said the broad biomedical ban in the Weldon proposal would accomplish the same backlash. Okarma spoke on behalf of BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Association based in Washington, D.C. He said Geron is engaged in research to re-program cells; taking cells from an individual and teasing them back to the embryonic stem cell state where they can then be differentiated into other types of cells for therapeutic purposes. "This is precisely the research that would be banned by the Weldon bill," Okarma said. "Because the Weldon bill does not differentiate between reproductive cloning and cloning for research purposes, it will cut off this work and prevent its therapeutic applications from reaching patients. "In contrast," he continued, "the bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Greenwood ... bans reproductive cloning but allows the continuation of research." The measure "strikes the appropriate balance" between prohibiting acts that are unsafe and unethical while promoting vital medical research, Okarma told the panel. Addressing the legal aspects of the bills, Gerard Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the Weldon bill "is a proper exercise of Congress's power over interstate commerce," and that it therefore it is both constitutional and enforceable. Because cloning technology will require interstate traffic for much of the raw materials and laboratory supplies, Congress would have constitutional enforcement authority, he explained. The Greenwood bill also would be a legitimate exercise of Congress's power, but it "raises serious constitutional issues" and the prohibition would be "unenforceable," he said. "My judgment is that the only effective way to prohibit human reproductive cloning is to prohibit all human cloning, as H.R. 1644 does," Bradley said. Alexander Capron, commissioner of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and professor of law at the University of Southern California Law Center in Los Angeles, told the subcommittee that a moratorium on human cloning would work better than an outright ban until more issues are resolved. "It seems to me that the idea of a moratorium -- that is, a time-limited ban -- can be usefully applied to the second activity addressed by H.R. 1644, namely, the creation of cloned embryos for research purposes," he said. "Producing normal human embryos through cloning is probably going to be a challenge, but once such embryos are on hand, I believe it will be impossible to prevent efforts to implant them and achieve a pregnancy behind the privacy veil of the physician-patient relationship," Capron told lawmakers. http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=195573 ****** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn