University Faculty for Life Letter of Concern Re the Weldon/Brownback Human Cloning Bills

Dianne N. Irving
May 27, 2001
Reproduced with Permission


University Faculty For Life

A multidisciplinary association of scholars speaking out for human life

120 New North Building, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057

UFL Board of Directors:


Senator Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Congressman Dave Weldon
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0195

May 27, 2001

Dear Senator Brownback and Congressman Weldon:

I am contacting you, as a member of the Board of Directors of the University Faculty For Life, concerning your co-sponsoring of the Human Cloning Ban 2001 that is currently before the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate for consideration.

The University Faculty for Life was founded in 1989 to promote research, dialogue and publication among faculty members who respect the value of human life from its inception at fertilization or cloning to natural death. Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, as well as human embryo and human fetal research, human embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning, are highly controversial topics, but we believe they should not be resolved by the shouting, newsbytes and slogans that have dominated popular presentations. Because we believe the evidence is on our side, we would like to assure a hearing for our views in the academic community, as well as in the social and political communities -- hence our concerns expressed to you here regarding certain concerns we have with the Brownback/Weldon Human Cloning Bill as it is currently written.

The basic issues and concerns of the University Faculty For Life have many dimensions -- political, social, legal, medical, biological, psychological, ethical and religious. We do not have a detailed statement of orthodoxy; rather we have provided an interdisciplinary forum in which scholars can discuss these issues. Since 1990 the UFL has published a newsletter, Pro Vita; since 1991 it has held an annual conference at various university campuses; and since 1992 the Conference Proceedings have been published in book form and distributed to members and hundreds of university libraries. We have sent letters to public figures who misstate biological facts and submitted three amicus curiae briefs on the life issues to the Supreme Court (two of which I authored on "fetal personhood").

The University Faculty For Life includes as its goals the following:

The University Faculty For Life is also communicating our similar concerns about legislation on these related issues to groups and organizations both here and abroad.

We would like to applaud you for your courageous efforts to ban all forms of human cloning in the United States, in the public as well as in the private sectors. The issue of human cloning, as you well know, is closely related to the issues of human embryo research, human fetal tissue transplant research, human embryonic stem cell research, etc. -- all issues fraught with debate and concern. The University Faculty For Life strongly supports ethical research, but also agrees that immediate federal legislative action must be taken to prevent unethical human research in these areas.

However, on closer inspection of your human cloning bill, it would seem that some of the language is too narrow to accomplish a total ban, and would instead inadvertently allow the cloning of living human beings by means of several other cloning techniques not addressed in your bill. The cloning of living human beings could also be permitted in your bill by virtue of certain omissions of critical terms, and by the use of certain scientifically inaccurate terms.

Given your goal to ban all cloning of human beings, and given the perception of those who would want to support your efforts to ban all cloning of human beings, we hope that the comments and suggestions to follow will be of help to you and your staff as you continue your efforts in this critical piece of legislation. If it is not your intention to ban all human cloning, then we suggest that your intention to only ban some cloning of human beings be stated unambiguously in the beginning of the bill so that people will correctly understand what they are supporting.

We also wish to note that we recently communicated to you our concerns about your human cloning bills, but as yet have not received any responses. These scientific concerns are not just relevant to a bill on human cloning. As you well realize, they are likewise relevant to other proposed legislation dealing with the integrally related issues of abortion, human embryo research, human embryonic stem cell research, human chimera research, etc. It goes without saying that your legislation, if passed by our U.S. Congress, will have an immediate impact on similar laws, guidelines and regulations passed in our individual states, as well as in other countries around the world. Of course, any legislation passed by our U.S. Congress on these several critically important issues will in effect act as a "role model" for similar legislation here and abroad. Such legislation impacts greatly on the health and well-being of the individual members of all of our societies. It is difficult to imagine many issues that would affect our society's health and well-being more than the actual manipulation and permanent designing of the future members of the human species.

In summary form, I have copied below for you again the following sections contained in our expressed comments and concerns to you for your kind consideration:

Finally, for your further information, I will also forward to your offices upon request a copy of a recently published article of mine, "When do human beings begin?ŐScientific' myths and scientific facts" -- all fully scientifically referenced, and objectively demonstrating that the immediate product of fertilization and of cloning is a new living human being. My formal written testimony on human cloning presented before the House hearings on human cloning as an invited member of the Science Panel are already available to you, complete with 50+ xerox pages on record from the several human embryology and human genetics textbooks from which I quote in that paper. I am also willing to send to you a copy of my 400-page doctoral dissertation on human embryo research (Georgetown University, 1991), along with a number of peer-reviewed published articles of mine on cloning and these interrelated research issues, if that would be helpful to you.

We are looking forward to your kind responses to our concerns expressed in this communication, and thank you very much in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

Best regards,

Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

Member of the Board of Directors
University Faculty For Life
5108 Randall Lane
Bethesda, MD 20816-1917
301-229-4176 FAX 301-229-8748
DNIrving@aol.com


(© Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., May 27, 2001)

Part 2: Comments on Current Posting of Brownback/Weldon Human Cloning Bills

A. General Comments:

In general, as we are certain you are aware, it is a long-established objective scientific fact that the immediate product of human fertilization is a newly existing, genetically unique, individual living human being -- the single-cell human zygotic embryo.1 This is also the beginning of the embryonic period2 as well as the beginning of normal pregnancy in the fallopian tube of the woman.3 These scientific facts are not new; indeed it has been established scientifically since 1880-1885, with publication of the three-volume tomb, Anatomie menschlicher Embryonen, (Vogel, Leipzig) by Wilhelm His, the founder of human embryology.4 The immediate product of human cloning is likewise a newly existing, genetically unique, individual human being. Hence it is critically important that the United States Congress recognizes that all human beings should be equally protected from harm in any research, including any human embryo research -- which by definition includes human embryonic stem cell research, IVF research and "therapy", and human cloning.

Thus the current version of the Brownback/Weldon Human Cloning Bill is to be heartily commended for courageously recognizing that the popular so-called distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" human cloning is a distinction without a difference -- a false distinction, and that both forms of human cloning should be banned. Once brought into existence, a living human being continues to exist as such, regardless of the purposes for which he/she is going to be used. It is also commendable that your bill recognizes that any ban against the cloning of human beings should apply to both the private and the public sectors, and the use of both private and public funds (as, e.g., in Great Britain).

However, there are specific provisions in this bill which would still allow for both "therapeutic" cloning and "reproductive" cloning of human beings, in both the private and public sectors, using both private and public funds. We would respectfully suggest again that if your real intention with this bill is to narrowly ban only one method used for the cloning of human beings, but wish to allow other forms of human cloning, you might consider stating that clearly and succinctly at the beginning of your bill so that people understand what it is they are "supporting". If, instead, your intention with this bill is to ban all cloning, both privately and publicly, using both private and public funds, we would suggest the following problems with the language of the bill as it now stands:

1. The fact that this bill only bans one method of human cloning (as "cloning" is formally defined in your definitions), i.e., only the "somatic cell nuclear transplant" method of human cloning, it thereby allows all other methods of human cloning -- both "therapeutic" and "reproductive", in the private and the public sectors, using both private and public funds. That is, it would allow the cloning of human beings by such methods of cloning as "parthenogenesis", and "embryo splitting" -- i.e. "blastomere separation", "blastocyst splitting", or "fission", also referred to as "embryo multiplication".5 These are forms of cloning as well as forms of human embryo research . Since IVF-produced human embryos are usually implanted or frozen at the 2-to 16-cell stage of human embryonic development6, they would be prime candidates for the cloning of human beings by means of "embryo multiplication", i.e., human cloning.

It is an objective scientific fact that as long as the cells of the early human embryo are still intact as parts of the whole embryo, these totipotent cells are correctly termed "stem cells". However, once these cells (or, "blastomeres") are separated from the whole embryo, each of these totipotent, or even pluripotent, cells are no longer "stem cells". Single cells, and even groups of cells, are each capable of "healing" themselves (called "regulation"), and reverting back to being a whole human being. This is indeed what takes place naturally in human monozygotic twinning.7 "Embryo splitting", therefore, is also a form of human cloning by which "identical copies" of human beings are produced.

2. By the use of the term "asexual" in the formal definition of "cloning", it would not cover "sexual" human cloning, i.e., the duplication or copying of human DNA by means of DNA-recombinant human germ-line gene transfer to human gametes or human embryos in vitro, which genetic changes are then "copied" by normal sexual reproduction through the subsequent generations.8

3. By restricting the ban to the cloning of chromosomal nuclear DNA only, the bill would not ban cloning of extra-chromosomal and extra-nuclear DNA, e.g., as found in several organelles inside and outside the cell nucleus.9

4. The use of a scientifically incorrect definition of "somatic cell", and the obvious lack of any reference to "germ-line cells", which are also diploid and therefore capable of being cloned10 (i.e., the kind of cells used, e.g., in "fetal stem cell" research) would also allow both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning of human beings -- by SCNT or by any cloning methods other than SCNT -- using human germ-line cells instead of human somatic cells.

5. Human germ-line cells would also, therefore, not be precluded from being obtained from living or dead human subjects for the purposes of cloning human beings or their use in stem cell research.

6. The very problematic issue of the cloning of human chimeras is not even addressed or banned in this bill.

7. In fact, if determined by one definition of "cloning" used in this bill, virtually no human cloning would be banned by this bill.

8. Nor would consultation with NBAC, or any similarly appointed and non-elected group, at a later date be advisable.

We hope that these general, and the following specific, comments may be helpful to you as you strive to construct a bill that will truly ban all forms of human cloning, both in the private and the public sectors, using private and public funds. We hope that further clarification of the language used in this bill will be forthcoming in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House hearings. Perhaps there is still time to have these scientific issues discussed openly, adequately, honestly, and timely -- and any scientific claims to the contrary be required to be backed up with explicit, written, sound and valid scientific proof. I have copied just the relevant sections of the Brownback/Weldon bills below that concern us, and have commented further in more detail on those sections.


B. Specific Comments on Language in the Bill:

(The specific quotes from the Brownback/Weldon Cloning Bill are in LARGE TYPE to distinguish them from my comments which are in smaller type):

I. "SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS. IN THIS CHAPTER: (1) "HUMAN CLONING -- THE TERM "HUMAN CLONING" MEANS HUMAN ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, ACCOMPLISHED BY INTRODUCING THE NUCLEAR MATERIAL OF A HUMAN SOMATIC CELL INTO A FERTILIZED OR UNFERTILIZED OOCYTE WHOSE NUCLEUS HAS BEEN REMOVED OR INACTIVATED TO PRODUCE A LIVING ORGANISM (AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT) WITH A HUMAN OR PREDOMINANTLY HUMAN GENETIC CONSTITUTION."

1. This definition of cloning only refers to one -- of several -- methods of cloning, i.e., "somatic cell nuclear transfer." However, there are several other methods of cloning, or making "copies" of human beings, e.g., embryo splitting (e.g., "blastomere separation", "blastocyst splitting", "fission", etc.), parthenogenesis, etc. Therefore, this bill would not apply to nor ban those other methods of cloning human beings. Therefore this bill does not ban all cloning of human beings, in the private or public sectors, using private or public funds, for "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

2. By restricting the ban to the cloning of chromosomal nuclear DNA only, the bill would not ban cloning of extra-chromosomal and extra-nuclear DNA, e.g., as found in several organelles inside and outside the cell nucleus.

3. This definition of cloning only refers to "asexual" cloning. Therefore it would not technically apply to other kinds of indirect cloning, or "copying" of "enhanced" human genetic information by means of, e.g., the use of DNA-recombinant gene germ line "therapy", which is really accomplished through the generations by means of sexual reproduction, rather than immediately by means of asexual reproduction. Therefore this bill does not ban all cloning of human beings, in private or in public sectors, using private or public funds, for "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

DNA-recombinant gene germ-line "therapy" is a form of "positive eugenics", as so defined by researchers themselves,11 and essentially accomplishes the same thing eventually as normal eugenic cloning. It also involves the human germ-line cells, now referred to simply, and erroneously, in the debates as "fetal stem cells."

II. "(2) SOMATIC CELL - THE TERM 'SOMATIC CELL' MEANS A DIPLOID CELL (HAVING A COMPLETE SET OF CHROMOSOMES) OBTAINED OR DERIVED FROM A LIVING OR DECEASED HUMAN BODY AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT."

1. This definition of "somatic cell" is incomplete and therefore scientifically erroneous. There are two general kinds of cells in the human body -- somatic cells and germ-line cells. They are both diploid -- i.e., they both contain the complete set of human chromosomes (i.e., "46" chromosomes), and therefore both kinds of human cells can both be cloned. Somatic cells, by definition are "any cells of the human body *** except *** the germ -line cells." Therefore this bill uses a scientifically incorrect definition of "somatic cell", thereby allowing the cloning of human beings by means of using human germ-line cells.

Therefore, because the definition of the term "somatic cells" is scientifically incorrect, and because this legislative language is altogether "silent" on germ-line cells, there is nothing in this bill that would ban the cloning human beings by using human germ-line cells -- by any cloning methods, in the private and public sectors, using private and public funds, for "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

It is also important to point out that most people are not aware of the fact that the "fetal stem cells" at issue in the stem cell debates are in fact examples of human germ-line cells. Those "fetal stem cells" are not somatic cells. And, in fact, they are also not "fetal" cells, since they are usually obtained from later human embryos (the embryonic period begins at fertilization or cloning and extends to the end of 8 weeks of development). Obviously, the two issues of "stem cell research" and of "cloning" are intimately related. Stem cells provide a continuous source of human cells that can be cloned to produce more human beings.

2. Therefore, there is also a related problem with the reference in this bill to "A DIPLOID CELL (HAVING A COMPLETE SET OF CHROMOSOMES) OBTAINED OR DERIVED FROM A LIVING OR DECEASED HUMAN BODY AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT." Since these human germ-line fetal cells are not mentioned in this bill, and since they are not "somatic cells", human germ-line cells could still be obtained from living and deceased human bodies (cadavers) at any stage of development, and then used to clone human beings, by any method of cloning, for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes, in the private and public sectors, using private and public funds.

III. "SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING ... (D) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL RESTRICT AREAS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION,".

1. As this clause states, and is commonly understood, if the legislative language is "silent" on an issue, then the bill does not cover it. In this specific case, because the bill is "silent" on all other forms of cloning other than somatic cell nuclear transfer, and because "somatic cell" is scientifically misdefined, and because there is virtually no mention of human germ-line cells, this bill would not ban all other forms of human cloning, nor would it cover the cloning of germ-line cells to produce human beings, even using all forms of cloning, nor does this bill ban the recovery of human germ-line cells from living or dead human beings for purposes of cloning human beings, nor does it ban the cloning of human beings by means of embryo splitting (e.g., "blastomere separation", "blastocyst splitting", "fission", etc.). Therefore, "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning of human beings are not banned by this bill, using any method of cloning, in the private or the public sectors, using private or public funds.

2. This bill is also "silent" on research which involves the forming or using of human chimeras. Chimera research is also a form of human cloning, in that it involves the "copying" of human DNA in another individual. Chimera research would also be a form of human embryo research because: (a) theoretically, a human/animal chimera could be "back-bred"12 to produce a new whole human embryo (human being); and, (b) the source of the human DNA used in such chimera research could be living human embryos or fetuses. Therefore, this bill would not ban human cloning by means of the formation of human chimeras; additionally, this bill would also sanction a form of human embryo research.

IV. " ... INCLUDING RESEARCH IN THE USE OF NUCLEAR TRANSFER OR OTHER CLONING TECHNIQUES"

1. As long as the formal definition of "cloning" does not formally and specifically include all other methods of cloning, the reference here to "other cloning techniques" is irrelevant.

V. -- "(2) THE PRESIDENT SHOULD COMMISSION A STUDY, TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION OR A SUCCESSOR GROUP, OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE USE OF CLONING TO PRODUCE HUMAN EMBRYOS SOLELY FOR RESEARCH, WHICH STUDY SHOULD -- (A) INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE NEED (IF ANY) FOR HUMAN CLONING TO PRODUCE MEDICAL ADVANCES, THE ETHICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN CLONING, AND THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF ANY DECISION TO PERMIT HUMAN CLONING FOR RESEARCH UPON EFFORTS TO PREVENT HUMAN CLONING FOR REPRODUCTIVE PURPOSES;"

1. Quite frankly, regardless if it is the currently appointed and non-elected NBAC, or any other such appointed and non-elected group, the real issue to consider is how easily these "committees" can be "stacked", the use of erroneous science during their deliberations and debates, the use of "bioethics" ethics -- or any other "ethics" -- to determine what is in fact ethical, and to determine public policy on the basis of the consensus of a small appointed and non-elected group using that "consensus ethics". In bioethics we refer to the work of such commissions as "federal ethics", "commissioning ethics", or "government by commission".13 It would be quite easy to come to the same predetermined conclusions on this and all other issues as other such "committees" have come over the years. Once this "committee" meets, it could easily reverse any bans on human cloning -- including this one -- or "cover" it by using different definitions of "human being", "human embryo", "cloning", "what is scientifically being done or used in such experiments", "what is ethical", etc. As one of the founding scholars of The Hastings Center, Robert Morison, perceptively put it in a letter: " ... but I fear for the future. ... What one fears is that the Commission may become the mechanism whereby the speculations of the ethicists become the law of the land. It is already far too easy for abstract notions of right and wrong to emerge as deontological rules which begin their public life as 'guidelines' but culminate in the force of law.'" As bioethics Commissioner Al Jonsen noted, Morison's letter was "a sobering reminder of the anomalous role of an "ethics commission" in a pluralistic, secular society."14

Therefore, there should be no dependence on NBAC or any similar appointed and non-elected committee to determine these critical public policy issues. NBAC was a creation of "bioethics" and turned into reality by President Clinton. It is the "Ethics Advisory Board" that the many had consistently prevented from being formed for decades for obvious reason, before Clinton appointed it in 1995. It should be allowed to have its term expire, and these critical public policy issues decided by other more democratic means.

VI. "SEC.4. SENSE OF CONGRESS. ... (B) ... IN PROHIBITING THE ASEXUAL PRODUCTION OF A NEW HUMAN ORGANISM THAT IS GENETICALLY VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO AN EXISTING OR PREVIOUSLY EXISTING HUMAN BEING;"

1. As explained above, the use of the term "asexual" would not cover "sexual" methods of cloning, of copying human beings via, e.g., DNA-recombinant germ-line gene transfer, with subsequent copying of those genes via sexual reproduction through the generations.

2. By defining "cloning" here in terms of "a new human organism that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human being", no real cloning of human beings whatsoever would be covered by this bill.

In somatic cell nuclear transfer, for example, the resulting human embryo would contain genetic DNA from both the donor cell (i.e., the "nuclear DNA") and the recipient cell (i.e., the mitochondrial DNA). Therefore there is really no such thing as a "genetically virtually identical" human clone.

Furthermore, the resulting human embryo would also be genetically different from either the donor or the recipient cells due to "crossing-over" of the chromosomes during meiosis, as well as to genetic mutations of the developing embryo caused by the culture media, random environmental circumstances, developmental abnormalities, etc. In fact, no clone is ever really so "virtually identical".

Therefore, by the selective use of the term "asexual reproduction", this bill would not ban sexual methods of human cloning. And by defining a clone here as "genetically virtually identical", this bill would in fact not ban any methods of cloning human beings.

PART 2: BROWNBACK/WELDON HUMAN CLONING BILL (April 26, 2001):

[Also introduced in the House by Rep. Weldon: HR 1644 IH, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, April 26, 2001; as posted on THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c1073WGJB2]

[The followed Senate version of the bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Brownback; as posted on THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c1073WGJB2]

Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)

S 790 IS

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 790

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 26, 2001 Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. BOND, and Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--

  1. some individuals have announced that they will attempt to clone human beings using the technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer already used with limited success in cloning sheep and other animals;
  2. nearly all scientists agree that such attempts pose a massive risk of producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, or severely disabled, and considered opinion is virtually unanimous that such attempts are therefore grossly irresponsible and unethical;
  3. efforts to create human beings by cloning mark a new and decisive step toward turning human reproduction into a manufacturing process in which children are made in laboratories to preordained specifications and, potentially, in multiple copies;
  4. creating cloned live-born human children (sometimes called 'reproductive cloning' ) begins by creating cloned human embryos, a process which some also propose as a way to create embryos for research or as sources of cells and tissues for possible treatment of other humans;
  5. the prospect of creating new human life solely to be exploited and destroyed in this way has been condemned on moral grounds by many, as displaying a profound disrespect for life, and recent scientific advances indicate that there are fruitful and morally unproblematic alternatives to this approach;
  6. (A) it will be nearly impossible to ban attempts at 'reproductive cloning' once cloned human embryos are available in the laboratory because--

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 15, the following:

'CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING

'Sec.

'301. Definitions.

'302. Prohibition on human cloning.

'Sec. 301. Definitions

'In this chapter:

'(1) HUMAN CLONING - The term 'human cloning' means human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nucleus has been removed or inactivated to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution.

'(2) SOMATIC CELL- The term 'somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage of development.

'Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning

'(a) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce--

'(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;

'(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; or

'(3) to ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose.

'(b) IMPORTATION- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, to import the product of human cloning for any purpose.

'(c) PENALTIES-

'(1) IN GENERAL- Any person or entity that is convicted of violating any provision of this section shall be fined under this section or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

'(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person or entity that is convicted of violating any provision of this section shall be subject to, in the case of a violation that involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than $1,000,000.

'(d) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Nothing in this section shall restrict areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 15 the following:

301'.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Federal Government should advocate for and join an international effort to prohibit human cloning , as defined in section 301 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act; and

(2) the President should commission a study, to be conducted by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission or a successor group, of the arguments for and against the use of cloning to produce human embryos solely for research, which study should--

(A) include a discussion of the need (if any) for human cloning to produce medical advances, the ethical and legal aspects of human cloning , and the possible impact of any decision to permit human cloning for research upon efforts to prevent human cloning for reproductive purposes;

(B) include a review of new developments in cloning technology which may require that technical changes be made to section 3 of this Act, to maintain the effectiveness of this Act in prohibiting the asexual production of a new human organism that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human being; and

(C) be submitted to Congress and the President for review not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this legislation.

Next Page: Endnotes
1, 2