Wisconsin cloning "ban": Why it bans nothing
2003 ASSEMBLY BILL 104

Dianne Irving’s Comments
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America and,
former bench research biochemist (NIH/NCI)
copyright May 31, 2003
Reproduced with Permission

[[Note: A number of bills purporting to be "total bans" on human cloning have been appearing lately -- state, national, and international. But it is important to understand that none of them are "total bans", despite their appearances. Many people are unknowingly supporting faulty legislation. Since the scientific problems and concerns with these bills seem to have a lot in common, it would be instructive to indicate at least some of these, using the Wisconsin bill simply as an example. Below please find a copy of the current Wisconsin cloning "ban", along with my own comments. Also check my recent testimony before the New Jersey State Senate Committee concerning their proposed cloning "ban", as it contains all of the scientific references needed to support my comments respectfully submitted below. I hope these can be of some small help to those interested and involved in these confusing and complicated legislative initiatives. -- DNI]]


http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/AB-104.pdf
LRB-0807/3


MGD:jld:pg


2003-2004 LEGISLATURE


2003 ASSEMBLY BILL 104


February 26, 2003
- Introduced by Representatives KESTELL, KRAWCZYK, PETTIS, SUDER, GUNDRUM, HINES, HUNDERTMARK, WIECKERT, M. LEHMAN, HAHN, ZIEGELBAUER, GIELOW, BIES, JESKEWITZ, OWENS, TOWNS, MCCORMI, VAN ROY, SERATTI, GUNDERSON, TOWNSEND, LADWIG, OTT, STONE, NASS, ALBERS, LEMAHIEU, FREESE, GROTHMAN, PETROWSKI, GOTTLIEB, STASKUNAS, LOEFFELHOLZ, NISCHKE, WEBER, M. WILLIAMS, VUKMIR, VRAKAS, KREIBICH, RHOADES, KERKMAN and VAN AKKEREN, cosponsored by Senators LEIBHAM, S. FITZGERALD, SCHULTZ, WELCH, STEPP, A. LASEE, KANAVAS, REYNOLDS, KEDZIE, LAZICH, ZIEN and ROESSLER. Referred to Committee on Health.

[[NOTE: This bill bans NO human cloning, not even SCNT. -- DNI]]

AN ACT to create 146.347 of the statutes; relating to: human cloning and parthenogenesis and providing penalties.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. 146.347 of the statutes is created to read: 146.347 Human cloning and parthenogenesis.

(1) In this section:

(a) "Asexual reproduction" means reproduction not initiated by the union of an oocyte and a sperm.

(b) "Enucleated oocyte" means a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte, the nuclear material of which has been removed or inactivated.

[[A "fertilized oocyte" IS a new living human embryo. Since this bill does not ban any human cloning, all human cloning would be allowed -- including by means of the insertion of a "foreign" nucleus into an already existing human embryo. -- DNI]]

(c) "Human cloning" means asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into an enucleated oocyte so as to produce a living organism having genetic material that is virtually identical to the genetic material of an existing or previously existing human organism.

[[This definition of "human cloning" would not ban ANY human cloning, for the following reasons:

(1) The definition of human cloning in this bill applies only to one human cloning technique, i.e., SCNT. It does not refer to human cloning techniques using nuclear transfer with germ line cells; nor does it refer to human cloning by means of blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, pronuclei transfer or any other human cloning techniques. Therefore, this bill does not ban any of these other human cloning techniques.

(2) The bill's definition of cloning in terms of SCNT is scientifically erroneous and therefore does not even ban human cloning using the SCNT technique. That is, the immediate product of SCNT is NOT accurately defines as "a living organism having genetic material that is virtually identical to the genetic material of an existing or previously existing human organism." This is because:

(a) the mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) of the donor cell is not transferred to the embryo; and,

(b) the mDNA of the enucleated oocyte used remains in the new embryo.

Therefore, the genome of the new embryo is different on these two counts, and thus is NOT "virtually identical to the genetic material of an existing or previously existing human organism." Since the bill would only apply to this scientifically erroneous form of human cloning, it would not ban the real SCNT human cloning technique.

Therefore, NO human cloning is prohibited by this bill.

3. The bill defines the use of only somatic cell nuclei for transfer in human cloning; it does not include the use of the nuclear transfer cloning technique in which the diploid nucleus of a germ line cell could be used to clone a human being. Therefore, this bill would allow human cloning by means of germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT). --DNI]]

(d) "Human embryo" means a human organism derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. "Human embryo" includes a zygote but does not include a human organism at or beyond the stage of development at which the major body structures are present.

[[The term "cloning" is understood in this bill only as erroneously defined above - which would in fact thus allow all human cloning, including SCNT. During fertilization, the male and female pronuclei form before syngamy and the formation of the zygote. Since human cloning could be achieved by means of pronuclei transfer, the above definition would leave out the cloning of a human being derived by pronuclei transfer. Because "a diploid cell" is misdefined in this bill as referring only to somatic cells, this definition would leave out the cloning of a human being by means of using germ line cells. Therefore, this definition would allow human cloning by means of pronuclei transfer or by the use of diploid germ line cells with all cloning techniques. -- DNI]]

(e) "Human parthenogenesis" means the process of manipulating the genetic material of a human oocyte, without introducing into the oocyte the genetic material from any other cell, in a way that causes the oocyte to become a human embryo.

[[While it is true that in classic parthenogenesis the resulting "embryo" would lack the DNA information usually provided by a sperm and thus not be viable, today it is at least theoretically feasible to reprogram the diploid nucleus of an oocyte in such a way as to "mimic" that missing paternal DNA and thus produce a viable human embryo. Also, much research has been done on the development of "artificial wombs", which might also theoretically alleviate some of the classic problems in parthenogenesis. -- DNI]]

(f) "Living organism" includes a human embryo

[[Because "human embryo" is misdefined above, this would allow human cloning by means of pronuclei transfer, as well as by the use of germ line cells using all cloning techniques. - DNI]]

(g) "Somatic cell" means a cell that has a complete set of chromosomes and that is obtained or derived from a living or dead human organism at any stage of development.

[[This is a scientifically incorrect and misleading definition. There are two general categories of DIPLOID cells in the human body: somatic cells, and germ line cells (which eventually mature to form the sex gametes (sperm and secondary oocytes) used in fertilization]]. Both types of cells are diploid, having "a complete set of chromosomes", and remain diploid until after many years of maturation. Thus the bill's definition implies that all human cells are somatic cells, leaving out all of the germ line cells of the human body. That would allow human cloning -- by means of any cloning technique -- using diploid germ line cells. -- DNI]]

(2) No person may knowingly do any of the following:

(a) Perform or attempt to perform human cloning or human parthenogenesis.

[[The definitions of "human cloning" and "parthenogenesis" are to be understood in this bill only as misdefined above, thus allowing human cloning. - DNI]]

(b) Transfer or acquire for any purpose a human embryo [[as defined above]] produced by human cloning or human parthenogenesis or any embryo, cell, tissue, or product derived from a human embryo produced by human cloning or human parthenogenesis.

[[The definitions of "human embryo", "human cloning", and "parthenogenesis" are to be understood in this bill only as misdefined above, thus allowing human cloning. - DNI]]

(3) (a) Any person who violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class G felony, except that, notwithstanding the maximum fine specified in s. 939.50 (3) (g), the person may be fined under par. (b).

[[Because of the erroneous definitions in this bill, no person or individual would actually be able to be found "guilty" of a Class G felony or fined, since this bill allows all forms of human cloning. -DNI]]

(b) 1. The maximum fine for a person other than an individual who violates sub. (2) is $500,000 or, if the person derives a pecuniary gain from the violation, an amount equal to twice the gross amount of the person's pecuniary gain, whichever is greater.

2. The maximum fine for an individual who violates sub. (2) is $250,000 or, if the individual derives a pecuniary gain from the violation, an amount equal to twice the gross amount of the individual's pecuniary gain, whichever is greater. (4) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), any person who violates sub. (2) and who derives a pecuniary gain from the violation shall be required to forfeit $1,000,000.

(b) Any person who violates sub. (2) and who derives a pecuniary gain of more than $500,000 from the violation shall be required to forfeit not less than $1,000,000 nor more than an amount equal to twice the gross amount of the person's pecuniary gain.

SECTION 2.0 Effective date.

(1) This act takes effect on February 1, 2003, or on the day after publication, whichever is later.

(END)


FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Top