 |
 |
Bush Backs Broad Ban On Human Cloning Prohibition Would Cover Embryos for Research By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 21, 2001; Page A01 The Bush administration announced yesterday that it favors the most far-reaching of several competing bills to make human cloning a federal crime -- one that would outlaw not only the creation of cloned children, but also the creation of cloned human embryos for research. The administration's position, presented by Deputy Secretary for Health and Human Services Claude A. Allen to a congressional subcommittee, echoes that of many religious organizations and some ethicists who oppose the creation of human embryos for research. In an unusual political crossover, it also has the support of some reproductive rights advocates who are not opposed to human embryo research but who fear that studies on human embryo clones might hasten the arrival of the first cloned child and other worrisome human genetic manipulations. But such a total ban on all human cloning research is opposed by other ethicists and many biomedical researchers, who believe that studies on "stem cells" from 5-day-old cloned human embryos offer the best chance for developing promising new therapies for a variety of debilitating diseases. That constituency favors a different bill before Congress that resembles the law in England -- one that allows scientists to create cloned human embryos for research as long as they don't transfer the embryos to a woman's womb where they can grow into babies. The deep differences of opinion expressed by Allen and other witnesses during a 4 1/2-hour hearing of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health revealed how difficult it might be for Congress to accomplish what had at first seemed a simple task: outlawing human cloning. Everyone at yesterday's hearing expressed support for that general principle. But a decision on how to implement such a ban is forcing legislators to consider not only the relative promise of various branches of experimental medicine, but also such difficult ethical issues as the relative moral standing of early embryos and dying children. "Human cloning rises to the most essential question of who we are and what we might become," said subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.). Allen's remarks, vetted at length by the White House on Tuesday, were the first clarification of what President Bush meant by his previous, general assertions opposing human cloning. But they addressed just one aspect of an escalating national debate on human cloning and embryo cell research. A divided Bush administration has been struggling for months over the related quandary of whether taxpayer money should support research efforts to turn cells from spare human embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics into organ-regenerating cures. Like the cloning debate, that controversy has given rise to unusual political bedfellows. Several antiabortion members of Congress -- including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who once led the charge against human fetal tissue research -- recently wrote Bush to express their support for federal funding of human embryo cell research. Allen said the administration's decision on that issue, which does not require congressional approval, will be announced by the president at a later time. Yesterday's hearing dealt with the separate question of whether any scientists, even those using only their own private funds, should be allowed to create cloned human embryos from scratch for research. Some scientists believe that cloned embryos offer greater promise as sources of potentially curative stem cells than standard embryos do because the cells would be perfectly compatible with the patient from which the embryo was cloned. Legislators focused yesterday on a bill, introduced by Reps. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), that would make it a crime for anyone to create a human cloned embryo for any purpose, and on another, sponsored by Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-Pa.) and others, that would outlaw the creation of such embryos only if there is an "intent" to develop them into babies. Allen said the administration has concluded that any law allowing the creation of cloned human embryos would be problematic because some scientists might be tempted to go ahead and let them mature into babies. "It's too easy, too simple to cross that line," Allen said. Moreover, others asked, what if such a pregnancy were discovered? "No government agency is going to compel a woman to abort the clone," said University of Chicago medical ethicist Leon Kass. "And there would be an understandable swarm of protest should she be fined or jailed before or after she gives birth." Because of such difficulties, Allen said, the administration favors the broader Weldon bill -- although full support still depends on the resolution of some "technical issues." Some opponents of the less restrictive Greenwood bill noted the difficulty of legislating scientists' intent -- a problem that Greenwood said could be resolved, perhaps, by changing the bill's language to outlaw the transfer of a cloned embryo into a woman's womb. Supporters of the Greenwood bill said they are appalled that some people would rather protect a 5-day-old ball of cells than an ailing child or adult. Early embryos may deserve more respect than other cells, several said, but no court has ever suggested that they have human rights and it would be unethical to protect them at a sick person's expense. "I do not believe that the Congress should prohibit potentially life-saving research on genetic cell replication because it accords a cell -- a special cell, but only a cell -- the same rights and protections as a person," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). Harvard medical ethicist Louis Guenin concurred, saying research on human embryo clones with the goal of creating cures for the sick is "not only permissible but virtuous." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23750-2001Jun20.html *********** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn