ASK YOUR SENATORS TO BAN HUMAN EMBRYO FARMS.(Brief Article)

On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 265-162 the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 2505), co-sponsored by Congressmen Dave Welton (R-Fl.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) introduced an identical bill (S. 1899) in the Senate.

The Human Cloning Prohibition Act reflects the public's overwhelming opposition to cloning human beings. The objection is not only to cloning as such, but also--especially so--to cloning embryos and then destroying them in the course of medical research or commercial exploitation. A poll by International Communications Research, conducted last June, specifically asked the question, "Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?" In response, 86% of those questioned said "no" and only 10% said "yes."

President George W. Bush shares this sentiment and has promised to sign the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, once the U.S. Senate passes it too. After much stalling, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has promised to schedule debate on this issue this spring. The outcome of that debate is very uncertain.

WHO OPPOSES THE HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT?

Unfortunately, the momentum generated by the successful vote in the House was dissipated when the terrorists attacked on September 11. While the country's attention and energy were diverted to meet the terrorist threat, the opponents of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act reorganized and lobbied their friends in the Senate.

The principal opponents to the ban on human cloning are represented by the powerful Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). They stand to gain financially from the industrial exploitation of what one may accurately describe as "human embryo farms" or "human embryo hatcheries." Other opponents to a ban on human cloning are biomedical researchers who wish to have a free hand experimenting on cloned human embryos. It is the ever-present temptation of scientists to argue that if they can do it (for the high purpose of research, of course) they should be permitted to do it. And if needed, they want to have a "bioethics committee" giving them a permission slip.

Some patient advocacy groups also oppose the ban on human cloning because they hope that "therapeutic cloning" (in which a human embryo is cloned and killed for research purposes) will provide cures for certain chronic diseases through the production of stem cells matching a patient's genetic make-up. Seeking to arouse sympathy for those who suffer, they have used celebrities with currently incurable diseases to make emotional appeals to Congress not to block the cloning of human embryos as a source of stem cells. Spectacular failures of attempts to use fetal stem cells therapeutically and the growing promise of adult stem cells (especially if taken from the patient himself) have greatly undermined their position. Of course, morally and ethically, the argument that it is acceptable--for the sake of "curing"--to create, take tissue from, and then "sacrifice" a twin of the patient has always been repellent, to say the least. Now, in the wake of medical progress in the field of adult and umbilical cord ...