Cloning hearing highlights science worries

Physician researchers fear that some groups' vows to clone humans will spur legislation that could endanger legitimate cell- and tissue-cloning science.

By Vida Foubister, amednews staff. April 16, 2001.

A congressional hearing on human cloning that featured an international consortium of scientists and a religious sect who say they are close to developing this technology ended up being somewhat of a "circus," said one physician who testified.

"The two groups that were there advocating reproductive cloning were just not credible," said Thomas B. Okarma, MD, PhD, president and CEO, Geron Corp., Menlo Park, Calif.

Links

Much of the debate focused on the premature state of the science in animals and the consequences of applying this to humans. Ethicists, for the most part, shared the view that human cloning is a technology whose time has not yet come.

"To date, a collection of kooks, cranks, cultists and con men have been the sole members of the club announcing that cloning will soon be used to make a human," Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, said in his testimony.

But the mere fact that these groups have announced their intent to clone humans, and that it is theoretically plausible for them to proceed, is expected to trigger legislation. President Bush has said he would sign a law banning such research.

Cloning science questioned

Panos Michael Zavos, PhD, professor emeritus of reproductive physiology-andrology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, represented the international scientists consortium at the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee hearing March 28.

He said his group, which is not conducting research in the United States, expects to successfully clone a human within 20 months. But he emphasized that "the consortium will not step on dead bodies or deformed babies to get this accomplished."

Cloning in animals, however, suggests that his contention is not scientifically valid. The great majority of animal clones die -- either during embryonic development, at birth or soon after birth. "Even if we were perfectly efficient in animals, we'd have to start at square one in humans, and there would be errors," Dr. Okarma said.

In contrast, scientists believe that therapeutic cloning holds tremendous potential to benefit mankind and should not be stopped. This includes research to develop replacement cells and tissues that could be used to treat diseases from diabetes to Parkinson's.

"There are millions of people who can benefit from this," said Robert P. Lanza, MD, vice president of medical and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass. "I'm a little concerned that all the hype [about human cloning] can damage this."

Continued federal funding of this research is also necessary to ensure appropriate public oversight and accountability, said Edward McCabe, MD, PhD, physician-in-chief at Mattel Children's Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. "This is the kind of research that should be done in the sunlight and not the shadows," he added.

The Raelian Movement's cloning project is said to be taking place at an undisclosed U.S. location. Raelians belong to a religious organization that argues life on earth was created by extraterrestrial scientists.

Brigitte Boisselier, PhD, who is leading this effort, admitted she had received a letter from the Food and Drug Administration two days before the hearing. It stated that an investigational new drug application must be filed before any research on human cloning could be undertaken. However, she had not yet decided how to respond to the FDA's request.

Clonaid, the Raelians' company, plans to clone the dead child of parents who have given the group $500,000. Dr. Boisselier also said they had heard from hundreds of people eager to participate.

Michael Soules, MD, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, found much lacking in using this interest as sufficient rationale to proceed. "Anyone who justifies cloning based on requests from infertile patients is pandering to a vulnerable audience," he said.

Still, several at the hearing shared the view that any restrictions on human cloning would amount to an unconstitutional limitation on an individual's right to reproduce.

Two professional societies that represent physicians, the ASRM and the AMA, have ethics policies against human cloning. But they don't view these policies as a limitation of reproductive freedom.

"We've haven't told anyone that they may not reproduce," said Herbert Rakatansky, MD, chair of the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. "We've just said this is not a medically proven or ethically acceptable way to do it."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Weblink

Testimony on human cloning research before the House Energy and Commerce Committee human cloning research subcommittee (http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/03282001-141/03282001.htm)