ANALYSIS: Stearns' Congressional Human Cloning Fairy Tale "Ban"; New Age and Transhumanist Legislation for "Converging Technologies"?


V. ANALYSIS:

The Stearns cloning "ban" was quietly introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives on February 25, 2003, and can be found at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h916ih.txt.pdf. The Bill is also copied in full at the end of this analysis:

108TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 916

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to conduct or support research on the cloning of humans, and to express the sense of the Congress that other countries should establish substantially equivalent restrictions.

-- "prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds": Like literally all other federal human cloning "bans", this Bill would apply only to the use of federal funds. Thus state and private funds would still be able to be used to clone human beings, using any human cloning or genetic engineering technique, for "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes.

-- "on the cloning of humans": Since this Bill specifically states that "Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this Act", then whether or not human cloning is prohibited by this Bill depends on the Bill's formal definitions, especially of "cloning". Since the Bill defines "cloning" only in terms of the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique (and ignores all other cloning techniques), and since even the SCNT cloning technique itself is misdefined, the Bill bans no human cloning. Furthermore, some of the most common human cloning genetic engineering techniques currently used are specifically "protected" (e.g., twinning; germ line cell nuclear transfer; pronuclei transfer; parthenogenesis; the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, pronuclei, nuclei, sperm, oocytes and embryos, etc.). Therefore, no human cloning is banned by this Bill, and much human cloning and human genetic engineering is specifically protected by this Bill - for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes.

-- "other countries should establish substantially equivalent restrictions": If this Bill is fundamentally flawed and would ban no human cloning or human genetic engineering, why should it be used as a template for legislation in other countries? This is the first time this writer has seen this element in any human cloning "ban". Given that it is desirable to have human cloning banned "universally", one presumes that such "bans" would be genuine "bans", and not "fairly tale" bans.

This Act may be cited as the "Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act".

-- "Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act": By just using the false distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning that has framed these debates from the beginning, if only "therapeutic" cloning is defined as "research" cloning (e.g., as by the President's Bioethics Council on Bioethics), then according to the title of this Bill it would not ban "reproductive" cloning. If "research cloning" itself is defined as not cloning but just "stem cell research" (as is done, e.g., by Weissman and West), then according to the title of this Bill it would not even ban "therapeutic" cloning. Thus, again, according to the title of this Bill, no human cloning would be prohibited - either "therapeutic" or "reproductive".

(a) PROHIBITION. None of the funds made available in any Federal law may be obligated or expended to conduct or support any project of research that includes the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an oocyte that is undergoing cell division toward development of a fetus.

-- "None of the funds made available in any Federal law": Again, this Bill would "prohibit" only the use of federal funds for human cloning. Thus it would not "prohibit" the use of state or private funds. But given the problematic title and definitions used in this Bill, Federal funds could still be used for human cloning if redefined as not cloning.

-- "the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology": Since this Bill specifically states that, "Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this Act", then whether or not human cloning is prohibited by this Bill depends on the formal definitions used in this Bill - especially its definition of "cloning". Since the Bill defines "cloning" only in terms of the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique (and ignores all other cloning techniques), and since even the SCNT cloning technique is misdefined, the Bill bans no human cloning. Furthermore, some of the most common human cloning genetic engineering techniques currently used are specifically "protected" (e.g., twinning; germ line cell nuclear transfer; pronuclei transfer; parthenogenesis; the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, pronuclei, nuclei, sperm, oocytes and embryos, etc.). Therefore, no human cloning is banned by this Bill, and much human cloning and human genetic engineering is specifically protected by this Bill - for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes.

-- "an oocyte that is undergoing cell division toward development of a fetus": This is one of the most outlandish phrases this writer has come across in these Bills. The objective scientific fact is that the immediate product of SCNT is a single-cell human organism, not just a "cell", and certainly not just an "oocyte". Once the "reconstructed oocyte" has been stimulated (by electricity, chemicals, etc.), then the DNA in that nucleus is de-differentiated all the way back to that of a single-cell embryo, a human being. As in sexual human reproduction, the "oocyte" no longer exists; rather, a new single-cell human being exists:

A form of animal cloning can also occur as a result of artificial manipulation to bring about a type of asexual reproduction. The genetic manipulation in this case uses nuclear transfer technology: a nucleus is removed from a donor cell then transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has previously been removed. ... The individual providing the donor nucleus and the individual that develops from the 'renucleated' oocyte are usually described as "clones", but it should be noted that they share only the same nuclear DNA; they do not share the same mitochondrial DNA, unlike genetically identical twins. ... Nuclear transfer technology was first employed in embryo cloning, in which the donor cell is derived from an early embryo, and has been long established in the case of amphibia. ... Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an adult sheep. For the first time, an adult nucleus had been reprogrammed to become totipotent once more, just like the genetic material in the fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had ultimately developed. ... Successful cloning of adult animals has forced us to accept that genome modifications once considered irreversible can be reversed and that the genomes of adult cells can be reprogrammed by factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent once again.19

Even proponents of human cloning research admit that the immediate product of cloning is a new living human embryo, a human organism, a human being.20

Nor does the single-cell human clone thus produced initially undergo "cell division toward development of a fetus". What happened to the embryo? The "embryonic period" consists of the single-cell human organism through eight weeks of development. The "fetal period" extends from the beginning of 9 weeks through birth (or 9 months). This Bill thus leaves out of legislative consideration the entire first 8 weeks of the cloned human being's existence. The result is that this Bill would legalize the cloning of living human beings, and their development in vivo or in vitro for the first 8 weeks of those living human beings' lives. Surely this is one of the purposes for the use of the "artificial womb" which is rapidly nearing completion.21

(b) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section (1) the term "human somatic cell nuclear transfer" means transferring the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed or rendered inert; and

-- "human somatic cell nuclear transfer": This definition of SCNT is erroneous because of the erroneous definition of the product as just an "oocyte" (see above). Both scientifically and ethically, there is a huge difference between a single-cell embryo and an oocyte! By using only the term "somatic" here, it also fails to include the use of nuclear transfer technology using germ line cells to clone human beings by nuclear transfer. It also fails to include the use of many other cloning and genetic engineering techniques to clone human beings (see above). Therefore this Bill bans no human cloning - not even human cloning using the SCNT technique.

-- "of a human": Because only the term "human" is used here, this Bill would not prohibit the use of non-human nuclei into enucleated human oocytes or other human cells - i.e., the formation of human/non-human chimeras. As Irving Weissman has claimed, human embryonic stem cells can then be retrieved from such chimeras.22 Of course, the production of such chimeras usually involves the destruction of a living human embryo for its DNA or its "stem cells" to begin with.

-- "somatic cell": Since nuclear transfer technology can be used to clone human beings by using diploid human germ line cells as the nuclei donors, this Bill would not prohibit the cloning of human beings by nuclear transfer using diploid human germ line cells.

-- "into an oocyte": Nuclear transfer to produce new living human embryos can be accomplished by transferring the donor nucleus to cells other than oocytes.23 For example, instead of oocytes, the donor nucleus can be transferred to early human embryonic cells, fetal cells, and even more mature differentiated somatic cells. Then that reconstructed "cell" can be stimulated, causing the de-differentiation of the nucleus' DNA, resulting in a new cloned single-cell human being. Therefore, this Bill would not prohibit the use of nuclear transfer technology to produce new cloned human beings using various other "recipient" cells. Therefore this Bill would not prohibit the use of cells other than oocytes to be used to clone human beings.

-- "or rendered inert": The phrase "rendered inert" is usually used to refer to a newly fertilized or cloned single-cell embryo. This single-cell embryo is a human being, an organism, not just a "cell". Thus by rendering its nucleus inert, one thereby kills that human being. Furthermore, since this Bill misdefines the immediate product of SCNT as just an "oocyte" - when it is really, in fact, a new living human being - then the use of the term "oocyte" here is likewise misleading and scientifically erroneous. Therefore, given the Bill's erroneous definition of the product of SCNT as just an "oocyte", and given that the method addressed here is usually used to refer to what is in fact a single-cell embryo rather than an "oocyte", this Bill would legally sanction the killing of these new living human beings by means of "rendering their nuclei inert".

(2) the term "somatic cell" means a cell of an embryo, fetus, child, or adult which is not and will not become a sperm or egg cell.

-- "somatic cell": Since the use of germ line cells in nuclear transfer cloning are not specifically articulated in this Bill, then the Bill does not prohibit their use to clone new human beings. Furthermore, the above statement is scientifically misleading and erroneous. Since the immediate product of either sexual or asexual reproduction is a single-cell human being, and since that new living human being's DNA contains all the information needed to produce, among other things, sperms and "eggs" (oocytes), then there certainly will be cells in those cloned embryos that will differentiate into primitive germ line cells - which in turn will differentiate into sperms and oocytes.24 The same is true if somatic cells from older embryos, fetuses children or adults are used to clone new single-cell human beings. Therefore, this Bill would not prohibit the use of somatic cells which can differentiate eventually into sperms and "egg" (oocyte) cells. Of course, these cloned sperms and oocytes can then be used in sexual reproduction to produce new human beings, etc., as well as be altered genetically by DNA-recombinant germ line gene transfer. (See reference note 24)

-- "a cell of an embryo, fetus": As noted, any diploid somatic cell can be used to clone a new living single-cell human being -- which contains all the genetic information needed to later differentiate new human sperms and oocytes (the formation of primitive germ line cells usually occurs within the first three weeks of development), and can be retrieved while the embryo is still in vitro. (See reference note 24)

-- "is not and will not become a sperm or egg cell": As noted, new cloned human embryos are genetically capable of developing sperm and oocytes - which can then be used in sexual reproduction (fertilization) to produced more living human beings - a great source of continuous production of "biological materials" for research and other purposes.

SEC. 3. REVIEW.
The Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National Research Council for a review of the implementation of this Act. ... (1) the impact that the implementation of this Act has had on research; and (2) recommendations for any appropriate changes to this Act.

-- Incredible as it may be, this Bill would have the National Science Foundation [See, for example, the recent New Age, Transhumanist genetic engineering report produced by the NSF and the U.S. Department of Commerce25, including an intriguing presentation by Futurist Newt Gingrich], and the National Research Council [part of the National Academy of Sciences] review the impact of this Bill on research and recommend appropriate changes. No wonder such strange and scientific erroneous definitions are used in this Stearns Bill. This would be akin to the fox guarding the hen house.

The Weissman panel's work was sponsored by the National Academies -- which comprise the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. They are "private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter". Under the chairmanship of California cloning researcher Irving Weissman, their reports on cloning and on stem cell research contain quite similar scientifically erroneous statements,26 where cloning is defined only in terms of SCNT, and the immediate product of cloning is just a "cell" rather than a single-cell organism, a human being. The living human being at the 5-7 day blastocyst stage of development is likewise defined as an "embryo" or "blastocyst", also defined as "just a ball of cells" rather than as a whole human organism, a human being. Their report on human cloning specifically endorses the use of "nuclear transplantation" for the purpose of producing "stem cells", totally ignoring the real and actual existence of the cloned human being from which these "stem cells" would be derived, as well as the term "cloning":

"Because of the considerable potential for developing new medical therapies to treat life-threatening diseases and advancing biomedical knowledge, the panel supported the conclusion of a previous National Academies' report -- Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine -- that recommends that biomedical research using nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells be permitted."27

The NAS report referred to here, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine, frames their position in terms of the false and deceptive distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning:

"The goal of stem cell research using the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique must be sharply contrasted with the goal of reproductive cloning, which, using a similar technique, aims to develop an embryo that is genetically identical with the donor of its genes and then implant that embryo in a woman's uterus and allow it to mature to birth."28 (emphases added)

In fact, the false term "therapeutic cloning" has now been itself redefined as "just stem cell research. This is why Weissman's strong denial that the use of "nuclear transplantation" for "therapeutic" purposes is in fact human cloning (and thus his new euphemism of "stem cell research" instead) is so deceptive.

If for no other reason, this Stearns Bill should be rejected because of the obvious association with both the National Science Foundation and the National Research Council - which have become, in this writer's humble opinion, nothing more than part of an association of private "national IRB's" -- with the same disastrous conflict of interests, lack of true academically solid "expertise", and lack of any accountability already now famously exhibited for three decades by IRB's and HEC's in this country.29 It is a classic example of why the cosmic agenda envisioned by the NSF and Dept. of Commerce in their report on "converging technologies" simply, practically, won't work in the real world.

SEC. 4. PROTECTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this Act, including important and promising work that involves (1) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies to clone molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryo cells, or tissues; or (2) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques to create animals other than humans.

-- "or other cloning technologies": Now, in the "protected" section of this Bill, we see an acknowledgement that there are "other cloning technologies" besides SCNT. Thus the "definitions" section of this Bill contradicts the "protections" section of this Bill.

-- "molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryo cells, or tissues": It is this section of the Bill that actually protects a great deal of human cloning and human genetic engineering - especially the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, sperms, oocytes and embryos. It is critical to understand that many if not most of the "genetic" materials used in such cloning and genetic engineering are just "molecules" of DNA - including cell nuclei, pronuclei, and sections of genes or chromosomes.30

1. "molecules, DNA": Some cloning of human embryos is accomplished by means of pronuclei transfer - often referred to as "hemi-cloning". For example, the male pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of one human embryo, and the female pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of another human embryo can be removed by micromanipulation and placed together in an enucleated oocyte (or other cell), which is then stimulated, and a new cloned single-cell human embryo would be reproduced. In fact, such embryos would be human/human chimeras, since the genetic material would come from more than one other human source. Human pronuclei are not whole cells, nor whole nuclei, but only parts of nuclei - just molecules, and they are molecules of DNA. Therefore the "protection" section in this Bill would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of pronuclei transfer for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes. The same problem exists with the use of artificially constructed sperm, and oocytes, etc.

2. "cells other than human embryos": would not cover the cloning of a single cell -- such as the single-cell human zygote - using all cloning techniques for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes. Nor would it cover -- depending on when during the fertilization process a new human being begins to exist -- the use of pronuclei transfer for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes, since pronuclei are only parts of a single cell. Indeed, most human cloning and human genetic engineering uses the single-cell human being.

3. "tissues": many researchers use the phrase "human tissues" to refer to what are in reality totipotent diploid human primordial germ line cells. Thus the cloning of new human beings by means of twinning these totipotent cells, or cloning them by means of nuclear transfer, for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes, would not be covered if the researchers' deceptive definition of "tissues" is accepted.

-- "animals other than humans": Note that in this part of the "protection" only SCNT cloning technology is mentioned; the other cloning technologies already acknowledged at the beginning of the section are not included here. Note too that this "protection" would allow the creation of human/non-human chimeras - from which human cells can be retrieved - which cells can then be cloned to produce new living human beings. And because "SCNT" is misdefined in this Bill, even that cloning technique can be used to produce "human animals".

SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL PROHIBITION.
It is the sense of the Congress that each foreign country should establish a prohibition substantially equivalent to the prohibition established in section 2(a).

-- "each foreign country should establish a prohibition substantially equivalent": Obviously, this Bill should not be used as a legislative template for any entity, whether Congressional, state, national, international, or international bodies such as the U.N. or European Union - unless, the intention is to blindside their people with deceptive and scientifically preposterous New Age Transhumanist mechanisms for massive human and social engineering on a "cosmic" scale.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h916ih.txt.pdf


108TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 916

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to conduct or support research on the cloning of humans, and to express the sense of the Congress that other countries should establish substantially equivalent restrictions.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 25, 2003

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to conduct or support research on the cloning of humans, and to express the sense of the Congress that other countries should establish substantially equivalent restrictions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives1
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3
This Act may be cited as the "Human Cloning Re- 4
search Prohibition Act". 52


•HR 916 IH

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL 1
FUNDS FOR RESEARCH ON CLONING HU- 2
MANS. 3

(a) PROHIBITION. None of the funds made available 4
in any Federal law may be obligated or expended to con- 5
duct or support any project of research that includes the 6
use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to 7
produce an oocyte that is undergoing cell division toward 8
development of a fetus
. 9

(b) DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this section 10

(1) the term "human somatic cell nuclear trans- 11
fer" means transferring the nucleus of a human so- 12
matic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has 13
been removed or rendered inert; and 14

(2) the term "somatic cell" means a cell of an 15
embryo, fetus, child, or adult which is not and will 16
not become a sperm or egg cell. 17


SEC. 3. REVIEW. 18
The Director of the National Science Foundation 19
shall enter into an agreement with the National Research 20
Council for a review of the implementation of this Act. 21
Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment 22
of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Congress 23
a report containing the results of that review, including 24
the conclusions of the National Research Council on 25
3


•HR 916 IH
(1) the impact that the implementation of this 1
Act has had on research; and 2
(2) recommendations for any appropriate 3
changes to this Act. 4


SEC. 4. PROTECTED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. 5
Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of sci- 6
entific research not specifically prohibited by this Act, in- 7
cluding important and promising work that involves 8
(1) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer or 9
other cloning technologies to clone molecules, DNA, 10
cells other than human embryo cells, or tissues; or 11
(2) the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer 12
techniques to create animals other than humans. 13


SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL 14
PROHIBITION. 15
It is the sense of the Congress that each foreign coun- 16
try should establish a prohibition substantially equivalent 17
to the prohibition established in section 2(a). 18

Next Page: Endnotes
1, 2, 3, 4