Cloning

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

CLONING

	Americans Find Abortion and Human Cloning Morally Wrong (5/22/02)
	Cal Thomas: Why Not Cloning? (1/3/03)
	Embryonic Stem Cell Research Fraud Shows Limits of Human Cloning (12/30/05)
	Fed Ban: After Stem Cell Research Claims, Calls for Human Cloning Ban Resume (2/14/04)
	Human Embryo Cloned for First Time from Immature Eggs (Denmark) (6/20/05)
	Poll Shows 75% Oppose Human Cloning Like South Korea's Research (5/19/05)
	Stem Cell Research, Cloning and Human Embryos 2004
	Talking Points on Nebraska's LB 437 Cloning Ban (2/05)
	U.S. Lags Behind Most Nations in Banning Human Cloning (6/13/05)
	Why Human Cloning Needs to Be Banned (1/9/03)

CLONING

Americans Find Abortion and Human Cloning "Morally Wrong"
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; May 22, 2002

Princeton, NJ -- The results of a nationwide poll released Tuesday by the Gallup Organization reveals a majority of Americans find abortion and human cloning -- by a much wider margin -- "morally wrong." However, a slight majority of Americans believe "Doctor assisted suicide" and "Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos" is "morally acceptable."

Survey respondents were asked the following: "Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong."

Fifty-three percent of Americans find abortion "morally wrong," up from 45 percent one year ago. Only 38 percent of Americans believe abortion is "morally acceptable," down from May 2001.

"More and more people agree that, even in the earliest stages of development, the rights of every human life need to be protected," Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizen Concerned for Life said in response to the data. "This poll confirms again that the vast majority of Americans view the current policy of absolute abortion on demand as morally unacceptable."

As the U.S. Senate considers various legislation to ban the practice of human cloning, Gallup suggests Americans are strongly united to ban the grizzly practice and their views haven't changed much since the 2001 survey. Ninety percent of Americans opposed human cloning, up two points from last year. Only 7 percent support it.

In a sign that the pro-life community must continue to educate the public about the dangerous of embryonic stem cell research, the Gallup poll indicates a majority of Americans favor the research that would involve the destruction of human embryos.

Although not told the process destroys the life of a unique human being, 52 percent say embryonic stem cell research is morally correct while 39 percent agreed it is morally wrong. Gallup did not ask about embryonic
stem cell research in the previous year's questionnaire.

Wording may play a large factor in determining how Americans feel the unethical research. A June 2001 International Communications Research poll found 86 percent say scientists should not be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research. An April 2002 Polling Company poll showed 68 percent of Americans agreed with President Bush's position in opposition to human cloning that includes embryonic stem cell research.

On the issue of assisted suicide, the Gallup poll finds more Americans have solidified their opinion. The Gallup poll reveals 50 percent of Americans find assisted suicide acceptable compared with 44 percent who don't. In May 2001, 49 percent said they approved of assisted suicide while 40 percent did not.

However, a March ABC news poll found 48 percent of Americans oppose legalizing assisted suicide, while 40 percent support it. The results suggest the use of the phrase "Doctor assisted suicide" in the Gallup poll may skew the data and prompt more respondents to support it.

According to Gallup's May 6-9 survey on values and beliefs, just 18% of Americans characterize moral values in the United States as "excellent" or "good," while 41% consider them "only fair" and 40% call them "poor."

"Despite Americans' overall satisfaction with the state of the nation these days," Gallup explains, "the poll finds that the public is fairly critical of the state of moral values. Fewer than one in five adults give the country high ratings on this score, and most see values deteriorating rather than improving."

The Gallup poll finds Americans who generally believe the state of the nation's moral values are only "fair" or "poor" are much less likely to find abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research "morally acceptable."

Among a list of fourteen social issues, human cloning ranked first on the list of what Americans find most objectionable, slightly ahead of having an affair or committing suicide. Abortion ranked sixth most objectionable and assisted suicide eighth. Embryonic stem cell research was the sixth most acceptable issue.

"People are learning more facts about abortion and human development, and this is just one of many polls that show most people believe abortion is morally wrong," said Fischbach.

Negative ratings of moral values are particularly high among older Americans, but women, highly religious people, and self-described "conservatives" are also critical.

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,012 adults, 18 years and older, conducted May 6-9, 2002.

|Back to Top|

Cal Thomas: Why Not Cloning?
Source: Tribune Media Services; January 1, 2003

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated pro-life columnist. He is the author of several successful books and has hosted his own television show.]

It is the 30th anniversary month of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which, along with subsequent rulings, allows abortion on demand at any time and for any reason. Having already decided, with the support of academics, clergy and journalists, that certain categories and stages of life are not entitled to the protection of law, why are so many appalled, outraged and surprised when cloning arrives at the door?

Cloning is the unnatural fruit- there will be many more- produced when the root of the tree of life has been pulled out of its nurturing soil and replanted into a soil of situational ethics that serve the temporal interests and feelings of humanity. What was it a few people said in 1973 about a slippery slope? We have slid a long way since then, and cloning is but a way station where the rest of humanity indulges itself in a slight gasp before resuming the downward spiral.

Whether or not "doctor" and cultist Brigitte Boisselier and her Clonaid operation have, in fact, cloned a girl named "Eve," the horror expressed in some quarters is a little late.

Ross Clark, a father of two, wrote a column in the London Times this week, asking why it's fine to "kill babies" in an abortion, but not to create them through cloning, "Our fear of clinicians in white coats is much greater when they are creating human life than when they are destroying it," he noted. Clark thinks the population growth fanatics don't mind when science kills, but they oppose anything that would add to our numbers. "We are more inclined to support science when it stops births than when it enables them," he said.

This is why pro-lifers favor returning to a uniform life ethic, covering the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly, racial and religious minorities, in short, all human life. Once one category of humanity is declared unfit to live- regardless of the reason- all others become at risk to the whims of society at a given moment. We still recoil at what Hitler did to the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the sick, but he was simply ahead of his time. Today, he might be invited to speak at Princeton about his unique form of eugenics. Why Princeton? It is the home of Dr. Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher who believes human life is not sacred and can and should be manipulated for whatever end the "healthy" and "fit" determine would serve their current interests. In fact, Hitler might be a candidate for cloning among those who believe his "work" should continue.

Cloning might produce large armies, such as those bred for war by the evil Saruman in "The Lord of the Rings." Clone wars might remove any sense of morality or immorality about war since those who are killing, or being killed, would be the fruits of soulless technology and of no greater value (but less expense) than an airplane or tank.

Some members of Congress, including many who have lost any moral standing on this issue because of their support of abortion through all nine months and even during delivery (known as "partial birth abortion"), now express shock and outrage over the latest cloning news. They are too late to be taken seriously. Having allowed the process to begin and failed to do anything to stop it, they may pass a law in hopes of slowing down the inevitable, but they will not succeed.

Western culture has told God that we don't need or want Him. It has told history that we will neither learn from it nor care. It worships at the shrine of The Self, and in so doing it has produced a type of "Rosemary's baby" that will be impossible to control absent a revival of the things that once mattered most about life. After 40 million (and counting) aborted babies in the United States, who, or what, is going to stop cloning? And on what grounds?

Back to Top

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Fraud Shows Limits of Human Cloning

by Wesley J. Smith (12/30/05)
So where are we in the cloning debate? At this point, we don't know whether human cloning has been successfully accomplished or not. We don't know whether embryonic stem cells have been derived from cloned embryos. We don't know to what depths the dishonesty of the seemingly most successful researcher in the field actually descended. We do know that cloning proponents in this country are avid in their desire for billions in federal and state money to pay for morally problematic and highly speculative research that the private sector generally shuns. And we do know that some advocates of this public policy agenda are more than willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to get their way. In short, the human cloning agenda is falling into public disrepute-and for that, proponents of the agenda have no one to blame but themselves. Read the complete story.

Back to Top

Fed Ban: After Stem Cell Research Claims, Calls for Human Cloning Ban Resume

by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 14, 2004

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Following claims made by a team of South Korean researchers who say they have successfully extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, pro-life groups are stepping up the pressure on Congress to pass a complete ban on both forms of human cloning.

The House of Representatives has passed a pro-life bill that would ban both human cloning for reproductive as well as research purposes.

However, the Senate has been caught up in a debate between pro-life lawmakers who favor the total ban and pro-cloning lawmakers who are backing "clone and kill" legislation that would ban reproductive cloning but allow human embryos to be cloned and kill for experiments.

Rep. Chris Smith (R) of New Jersey said a complete ban on all forms of human cloning is needed now. He also urged the United Nations to adopt a cloning ban as well, where a resolution to craft one has been postponed for one year.

"Senator Hatch and others in the U.S. Senate need to stop blocking a total ban on human cloning so we can proceed to protect the dignity of human life," Congressman Smith said. "We also need an international ban on human cloning."

Senator Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas, the sponsor of the total cloning ban in the Senate, said it's time for lawmakers to act and approve his legislation.

The claim by the South Korean scientists "underscores the need for complete national and international bans on all human cloning," because "human cloning is wrong," Brownback said at a Friday news conference.

Cardinal William Keeler of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops agreed saying that the South Korean scientists engaged in the "ultimate violation of research ethics."

"If scientists will not voluntarily turn away from this abuse of science, a national and worldwide effort to ban human cloning is more urgently needed than ever," he said.

Congressman Smith said destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells is unnecessary in light of the successes in clinical trials and research using adult stem cells from more ethical sources.

"There is no reason to create human life to destroy it when adult and cord blood stem cells are accessible and are being successfully used to treat human patients," Smith explained.

However, those who favor the use of embryonic stem cells in research say they will continue to pressure Congressional lawmakers to oppose a complete ban and to pass legislation authorizing their research.

"These scientific advances are going to force policy makers to do some re-evaluating," said Sean Tipton, spokesman for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. "This puts pressure on every policy maker who wants to continue to say we don't care about the diseases you and your loved ones have."

While cloning advocates attempt to paint the pro-life community as uncaring about those who suffer from a host of diseases, other bioethicists were concerned about the exploitation of women from cloning research.

"Cloning research is impossible to do without exploiting women. It should be banned immediately," said Daniel McConchie, Director of Public Relations and Public Policy for The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

"Obtaining eggs from women is a difficult and sometimes dangerous process, and cloning success is limited," McConchie explained.

"Many scientists promote cloning as a kind of 'fountain of youth' where diseases from Alzheimer's to diabetes may be cured," he added. "If we are successful in treating just one major disease using cloning methods, countless women will need to donate their eggs to make the cure available to all."

President Bush strongly backs a ban on all forms of human cloning and has asked Congress on several occasions to pass the pro-life bill immediately.

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 20, 2005

Copenhagen, Denmark (LifeNews.com) -- Belgian scientists say they are the first to clone human embryos using eggs matured in a laboratory rather than mature donated eggs from women. They say the discovery could overcome some of the problems associated with embryonic stem cell research.
In previous human cloning processes, all of the eggs used to create new human life came from women who donated them for research.

Now, scientists at Ghent University Hospital in Belgium say they have taken immature eggs not for use in fertility treatments and used them to clone human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them for their stem cells.

"We've created an alternative source for human eggs for cloning," Joisiane Van der Elst told researchers attending the meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

In May, researchers in South Korea said they had cloned human beings to be killed for their stem cells, but those scientists used mature eggs harvested from women.

That harvesting presents problems for women and complicates the ability of embryonic stem cell research to ever be able to collect enough stem cells to cure diseases.

Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney, discussed that problem at a Heritage Foundation conference.

"To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs," Hollowell said. "Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women."

Van der Elst said 10-15 percent of the eggs obtained for fertility treatments are too immature to use. Those are the eggs they used in the new cloning technique.

Still, she admitted that the process hasn't gotten researchers to the point where they could obtain stem cells from the newly created human life. That's because the embryos died before they were old enough to produce stem cells for scientific use.

Back to Top
Poll Shows 75% Oppose Human Cloning Like South Korea's Research
by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 19, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows 75 percent of Americans strongly oppose the use of human cloning for any reason. Whether human cloning is used for reproductive purposes or to produce human embryos to be destroyed for their embryonic stem cells, like South Korean scientists have done, most Americans oppose it.
International Communications Research conducted a national survey of 1,000 Americans by telephone on May 6-11.

When asked whether scientists should "be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research" an overwhelming 77 percent disagreed. Just 15 percent of Americans supported human cloning to advance embryonic stem cell research.

Asked if scientists should "be allowed to use human cloning to try to create children for infertile couples," just 10 percent said yes while 84 percent of Americans said no.

The pro-life office of the of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned the poll and deputy director Richard Doerflinger said the results showed most Americans oppose H.R. 810, a bill pending in Congress to fund embryonic stem cell research.

"Supporters of stem cell research using so-called 'spare' embryos from fertility clinics have long said that moving into human treatments will require specially creating human embryos solely for research," Doerflinger explained.

"Many say it will require human cloning, using each patient's genetic material to create genetically matched embryos whose cells will not be rejected as foreign tissue," Doerflinger continued. "But if the essential next step is one that the vast majority of Americans rightly condemn, what sense would it make to take the first step?"

Other polls also show strong opposition to human cloning for either reproductive or research purposes.

A similar poll conducted by ICR in August found 80 percent of Americans opposed human cloning to facilitate embryonic stem cell research.

A Wilson Research Strategies poll, also conducted last August, found that 69% believed that all human cloning should be banned, while only 24% believed that cloning should be allowed only to create human embryos for stem cell research.

South Korean and British scientists made a major announcement Thursday about the successful cloning of a human embryo and the creation of patient-specific embryonic stem cells. However, the cells are still nowhere close to being able to help treat diseases.

While embryonic stem cells have yet to cur any patients, the use of adult stem cell research has already produced dozens of treatments and cures for diseases

Back to Top

Human Cloning Prohibition Act (Nebraska Bill: LB 437, Introduced in 2005, carried over to 2006)

Talking Points

WHAT IS HUMAN CLONING?

Cloning, in general, refers to any process that results in the creation of an identical or nearly identical genetic copy of a DNA molecule, cell, or individual plant, animal, or human.

The cloning technique used to produce "Dolly" the sheep (in 1997) is called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT). SCNT is used by scientists to produce a nearly genetically identical copy of an existing animal. The product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is an embryo. This is the same technique that some are trying to apply to humans. (LB 602 would prohibit using SCNT to produce human embryos).

HOW DOES CLONING (SCNT) WORK? (see diagram 1)

Instead of combining eggs and sperm to produce an embryo (sexual reproduction), SCNT combines eggs and "somatic" cells from the body of the person being cloned to produce embryos (asexual reproduction). A somatic cell is any body cell other than sperm and egg. (Somatic cells contain the full complement of 46 chromosomes; sperm and egg cells contain only 23 chromosomes).

The SCNT process involves removing the nucleus (genetic material) from the egg and replacing it with the nucleus of the somatic cell. An electric charge or chemical stimulant is then used to prompt the cell division (embryonic development) that occurs naturally when egg and sperm unite.

The goal is to get cloned embryos to develop to the 5-7 day stage (the same stage as frozen embryos created by in vitro fertilization). At this stage, the embryo could be destroyed to harvest its stem cells ("therapeutic" cloning) or implanted in a uterus to achieve a live birth (reproductive cloning).

Diagram 1:

WHY CLONE HUMAN EMBRYOS?

Scientists want to clone embryos for research primarily to get around a problem that arises when stem cells are used from embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Embryonic stem cells, because they are foreign tissue, are often rejected by the body’s immune system. The theory is that if the person with a disease is cloned, producing an embryo that is almost identical genetically to that person, then the stem cells from the cloned embryo wouldn’t be rejected.

IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THERAPEUTIC CLONING AND REPRODUCTIVE CLONING?

NO. (see diagram 2)

In both cases, the cloning technique is exactly the same: somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT); and the product is the same: a human embryo. The only difference is the purpose for which the cloned embryo is produced. Therapeutic cloning would produce human embryos solely to harvest stem cells (which destroys the embryo). Reproductive cloning would produce human embryos in order to achieve live birth.

Diagram 2:

The National Academy of Sciences cloning panel press release January 2002 stated:

"The method used to initiate the reproductive cloning procedure is called either nuclear transplantation or somatic cell nuclear transfer. If the procedure is successful, the cell will divide several times to produce a pre-implantation embryo—"blastocyst"—that is composed of about 150 cells."

"If the blastocyst is placed in a uterus, it can implant and form a fetus, which then may develop further and result in a newborn." "Unlike reproductive cloning, the creation of embryonic stem cells by nuclear transplantation does not involve implantation of a blastocyst in a uterus. Instead, cells are isolated from a blastocyst about five days after the nuclear transplantation procedure and used to make stem cell lines."

[Blastocyst is a biological name for a 5-7 day old embryo.]

Thus, the only difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning is whether the cloned embryo is implanted or destroyed for stem cells. The cloned embryo, regardless of the purpose for which it was created, is fully capable of developing into a cloned newborn.

DOES HUMAN THERAPEUTIC CLONING PRODUCE A HUMAN EMBRYO?

YES.

"The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term." –President Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings

	"Cloned human embryo: (a) A human embryo resulting from the nuclear transfer process (as contrasted with a human embryo arising from the union of egg and sperm). (b) The immediate (and developing) product of the initial act of cloning, accomplished by successful SCNT [somatic cell nuclear transfer], whether used subsequently in attempts to produce children or in biomedical research." (emphasis added). –President Bush’s Council on Bioethics Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry Executive Summary 2002,
	"What shall we call the product of SCNT? The technical description of the cloning method (that is SCNT) omits all reference not only to cloning but also to the immediate product of the activity. This obscurity enables some to argue that the immediate product of SCNT is not an "embryo" but rather "an egg" or "an unfertilized egg" or "an activated cell," and that the subsequent stages of development should not be called embryos but "clumps of cells" or "activated cells."" The Council concludes: "The product of "SCNT" is not only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic clone of the donor." (italics original) –President’s Council on Bioethics Chapter Three, On Terminology, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, 2002
	Dr. Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, said this about the cloning process: "The majority of reconstructed embryos were cultured in ligated oviducts of sheep…Most embryos that developed to morula or blastocyst after 6 days of culture were transferred to recipients and allowed to develop to term." –I. Wilmut et.al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," 385 Nature 810-813 (Feb. 27, 1997)
	"Moreover, because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions." "CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, a.k.a. therapeutic cloning] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo." –Robert P. Lanza, Arthur L. Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B. Cibelli, Michael D. West, Ronald M. Green; "The ethical validity of using nuclear transfer in human transplantation"; The Journal of the American Medical Association 284, 3175-3179; 12/27/00
	Dr. Irving Weissman, in his description of somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) said: "This can result, in a two cell, then eight cell, then sixteen cell stage of development, and so on until its about a 164 to 320 cell early pre-implantation embryo, called a blastocyst". –Interview for the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation by Richard Cohen, 2002
	In describing the sources of human embryonic stem cells, the University of Nebraska Bioethics Advisory Committee said "human embryos produced using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer are also a potential source of ES [embryonic stem] cells." –Report, May 24, 2001.

IS IT JUST RELIGIOUS OPINION THAT A HUMAN EMBRYO IS A HUMAN BEING?

NO.

	"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male…sperm unites with a female [egg] to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." The textbook defines a zygote as "the beginning of a new human being." --Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6^th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1998, p.2 [NOTE: This is the human embryology textbook used at the University of Nebraska Medical Center]
	"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." --Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p.3
	"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." --Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 995, p. 3]
	"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." --Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
	"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
	"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." --Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

WHAT EFFECT WOULD LB 437 HAVE ON RESEARCH CURRENTLY UNDERWAY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER?

NONE.

	No human cloning—neither "therapeutic" nor "reproductive"—is being conducted at UNMC.
	In fact, current University of Nebraska policy prohibits "therapeutic" cloning. On September 7, 2001, the University’s Board of Regents formally endorsed the "Recommendations for Human Stem Cell Research" as proposed by the University of Nebraska Bioethics Advisory committee. One of the recommendations, which is now official University policy, states that:

"The University of Nebraska should not conduct research involving the derivation or use of human ES [embryonic stem] cells from embryos produced using somatic cell nuclear transfer." (Recommendation #3)

Another related recommendation which the University adopted reinforces the principle of prohibiting the production of embryos solely for research purposes:

"The University of Nebraska should not conduct research involving the derivation of human ES cells from embryos produced solely for research purposes using in vitro fertilization (IVF)." (Recommendation #2)

	The Committee’s Report says: "The Committee adhered to the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission regarding which sources of human ES [embryonic stem]…cells the University of Nebraska should utilize…Human ES cells from embryos made solely for research purposes are rejected, as well as human ES cells from embryos produced using somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning)." (page 11) LB 437 would do nothing more than codify in law the current policy of the University of Nebraska.
	The Committee Report also notes that "The NBAC [National Bioethics Advisory Commission] and NIH [National Institutes of Health] believe that, unlike the situation with excess IVF embryos, there is not ‘sufficient society agreement on the moral practice’ of creating embryos at this time to permit federal funding for it." "The controversy is based upon what NBAC characterizes as the ‘discarded-created’ distinction. At the heart of this distinction is a concern about what NBAC calls instrumentalization—treating the embryo as a mere object. There is fear that such a practice may lead society to think of embryos as nothing more than a means to an end." If this is true for IVF human embryos, it is true for cloned human embryos.
	Furthermore, the University testified in a neutral capacity at the public hearing on LB 602 last year. Certainly, if LB 602, virtually identical to this year's 437, would cause harm to research in Nebraska, the University would not have testified in a neutral capacity.

WILL LB 437 CAUSE RESEARCHERS TO LEAVE OR AVOID NEBRASKA?

EVIDENCE IN OTHER STATES AND ABROAD SHOWS OTHERWISE.

	In 1998 Michigan became the first state in the nation to ban all use of cloning to create human embryos. For many years before this, Michigan also had laws making it a felony to conduct harmful experiments on human embryos. Yet this has not stopped Michigan from becoming one of the fastest growing states in the nation in biotechnology progress.
	Similarly, Germany has long-banned harmful research on embryos and has Europe’s strongest law against cloning human embryos. Yet among the European nations, Germany is considered second only to Great Britain in biotechnology progress; some observers believe that within the next decade, Germany may even outstrip the UK to become Europe’s leader in the field.
	The University argued that prohibiting research using aborted fetal tissue research would drive research and researchers out of the state. If they thought prohibiting "therapeutic" cloning would have the same effect, it’s unlikely they would have adopted a policy prohibiting such research.

WHY NOT JUST BAN "REPRODUCTIVE" CLONING?

Some have proposed to prohibit only so-called "reproductive" cloning, by prohibiting the transfer of a cloned human embryo into a woman in the hopes of achieving a live birth. This approach is wrong for several reasons:

The U.S. Department of Justice testified in a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives that because embryos created by fertilization and by cloning cannot be distinguished under the microscope, it would be virtually impossible to enforce a ban only on implantation of cloned embryos:

"The prohibited activity—"transfer of an embryo to a uterus"—is an activity that is otherwise permitted now in all states and is performed thousands of times a year in fertility clinics. Entrusted with enforcing such a limited ban, law enforcement would be in the unenviable position of having to impose new and unprecedented scrutiny over doctors in fertility clinics and/or research facilities to ensure that only fertilized embryos were being transferred to would-be mothers. Additionally, at the point when embryo transfer occurs…there does not seem to be any reliable means for determining the difference between a fertilized embryo and a cloned embryo. Therefore it is not clear how, upon hearing that someone may be engaging in the activity prohibited under the Act, law enforcement personnel could determine that it was taking place, even if they were present and observing the activity firsthand." –Statement by Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Testimony before the House Government Reform Committee on Human Cloning; 5/15/02.

A ban that prohibited only "reproductive" cloning, but left "therapeutic" or "experimental" cloning unaddressed, would essentially authorize the creation and destruction of human embryos explicitly and solely for research and experimentation. It would turn human beings into a natural resource to be mined and exploited, eroding the sense of worth and dignity of the individual. This prospect is repugnant to many people, including those who do not believe that the embryo is a "person."

Banning only "reproductive" cloning would establish an entire class of human beings whom the law requires be destroyed. A ban that permits embryonic clones to be produced but forbids them to be implanted in utero would legally require the destruction of early human life and criminalize efforts to preserve and protect it once produced. This is a morally abhorrent prospect.

Leading groups that support banning only "reproductive" cloning in fact do not favor banning "reproductive" cloning but want to keep the door open to it. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a founding member of the coalition supporting federal bills that purport to ban only "reproductive" cloning, says that attempting reproductive cloning now would be "unethical" due to "safety and efficacy" concerns—but it adds that "we are not making a judgment on the ultimate ethical validity of human cloning. It is possible that some form of cloning might, under some circumstances, be warranted."

"It is true that techniques developed in CRNT [therapeutic cloning] research can prepare the way scientifically and technically for efforts at reproductive cloning." –Robert P. Lanza, Arthur L. Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B. Cibelli, Michael D. West, Ronald M. Green; "The ethical validity of using nuclear transfer in human transplantation"; The Journal of the American Medical Association 284, 3175-3179; 12/27/00

CLONING ENDANGERS AND EXPLOITS WOMEN

Research cloning requires the harvesting of millions of eggs from women. The egg harvesting process involves a drug treatment and invasive procedure that endangers women by placing them at a higher risk for ovarian cancer, infertility, and other health hazards. Egg harvesting also exploits women by treating them as mere egg-making machines, and creating a massive market for eggs and egg donors that would take advantage of poor, disadvantaged women.

WHAT LB 437 DOES NOT DO

DOES NOT restrict all cloning research.

Sec. 3 of LB 437 explicitly states "The intent of the Human cloning Prohibition Act is to ban all human cloning. The intent is not to restrict areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by the act, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, deoxyribonucleic acid, tissues, organs, plants, cells other than human embryos, or animals other than humans."

DOES NOT restrict any research at UNMC

UNMC testified in a neutral capacity at the public hearing on a similar bill last year, LB 602. They would not have done so if that bill would harm research at UNMC.

THERAPEUTIC CLONING IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT ALONE OFFERS UNIQUE CURES

FALSE.

Therapeutic cloning has not produced a single cure in animal models for any disease, nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials.

In 1997 the National Bioethics Advisory Commission reviewed the idea of cloning human embryos to create "customized stem cell lines" but described this as "a rather expensive and far-fetched scenario"—and added that a moral assessment is necessary as well:

"Because of ethical and moral concerns raised by the use of embryos for research purposes it would be far more desirable to explore the direct use of human cells of adult origin to produce specialized cells or tissues for transplantation into patients."(1)

The "therapeutic" need for human cloning has always been highly speculative; it now seems more doubtful than ever in light of recent advances in adult stem cell research and other noncontroversial alternatives.

In the stem cell research debate, as one recent news report observes, "There is one thing everyone agrees on: Adult stem cells are proving to be far more versatile than originally thought."(2) Adult stem cells have shown they can be "pluripotent"—producing a wide array of different cells and tissues.(3) They can also be multiplied in culture to produce an ample supply of tissue for transplantation.(4) Best of all, using a patient’s own cells solves all problems of tissue rejection, the chief advantage cited until now for use of cloning.(5)

PPL Therapeutics, the Scottish firm involved in creating "Dolly" the sheep, says it has indeed found a way to reprogram ordinary adult cells to become stem cells capable of being directed to form almost any kind of cell or tissue—without producing or destroying any embryos.(6)

A recent overview of the field concludes that human "therapeutic cloning" is "falling from favour," that "many experts do not now expect therapeutic cloning to have a large clinical impact." Even James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, a leading practitioner and advocate of embryonic stem cell research generally, calls this approach "astronomically expensive"; in light of the enormous wastefulness of the cloning process and the damage it does to gene expression, "many researchers have come to doubt whether therapeutic cloning will ever be efficient enough to be commercially viable" even if one could set aside the grave moral issues involved.(7)

SEE USCCB DOCUMENT ENTITLED "RECENT ADVANCES IN ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO CLONING/EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH"

Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, MD: June 1997) at 30-31. The Commission outlined three alternative avenues of stem cell research, two of which seemed not to involve creating human embryos at all.
A. Zitner, "Diabetes Study Fuels Stem Cell Funding War," Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2001 (www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_stemwar010427.htm).
Citing eleven other studies, a study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation states: "Pluripotent stem cells have been detected in multiple tissues in the adult, participating in normal replacement and repair, while undergoing self-renewal." D. Woodbury et al., "Adult Rat and Human Bone Marrow Stromal Cells Differentiate Into Neurons," 61 Journal of Neuroscience Research 364-370 (August 15, 2000) at 364.
See: D. Colter et al., "Rapid expansion of recycling stem cells in cultures of plastic-adherent cells from human bone marrow," 97 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 3213-8 (March 28, 2000)(adult stem cells amplified a billion-fold in six weeks, retaining their multipotentiality for differentiation); E. Rosler et al., "Cocultivation of umbilical cord blood cells with endothelial cells leads to extensive amplification of competent CD34+CD38- cells," 28 Exp. Hematol. 841-52 (July 2000).
A recent report on use of adult stem cells to form new muscles, nerves, liver cells and blood vessels observes: "None of these approaches use embryonic stem cells, which some oppose on ethical grounds. Another advantage is that they use tissue taken from the patient's own body, so there is no risk of rejection or need for drugs to suppress immune system defenses." See "Approach may renew worn hearts," Associated Press, November 12, 2000.
"PPL follows Dolly with cell breakthrough," Financial Times, February 23, 2001.
P. Aldhous, "Can they rebuild us?", 410 Nature 622-5 (5 April 2001) at 622.

U.S. Lags Behind Most Nations in Banning Human Cloning

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 13, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- When Congress considered legislation to allow taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, some lawmakers and biotech lobbyists said the United States was in danger of falling behind the world community if it didn't back the research or human cloning to produce more embryos for science.

However, unlike most nations around the world, the United States does not have a ban on human cloning for either reproductive or research purposes.

That's in part because embryonic stem cell research advocates refuse to back a wholesale ban on the practice because they want to leave the door open to scientists to use cloning to clone and kill human embryos for their stem cells.

Yet, in Canada and some European nations, not only are both forms of human cloning prohibited, using taxpayer funds for cloning to produce embryonic stem cells is as well.

In Canada, scientists who violate those restrictions can be find $500,000 and spend 10 years in jail.

Under German law, scientists who instruct other researchers via email about how to conduct human cloning face stiff fines and jail sentences.

The United States, on the other hand, has restrictions on public funds for new embryonic stem cell research but states are free to fund it with tax dollars and private companies can spend as much as they wish on the unproven science.

Meanwhile, the European Union has followed President Bush's policies, much maligned in the U.S., and limited funding of embryonic stem cell research. It also does not fund either reproductive or research cloning.

As of April, the EU has only spent $625,000 on embryonic stem cell research projects while the Bush administration has spent $225 million on stem cell research in total, with $200 million going to adult stem cells.

Robert Paarlberg, a professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that some of the disparity between the United States and Europe has to do with a broader coalition of political groups opposing human cloning.

In the United States, opposition is mostly from pro-life, religious, and conservative organizations while many environmentalists and leftist groups join in opposition in Europe.

"In Europe, opposition also comes from Socialists and Green parties on the left, and from the state bureaucracies that tend to over-regulate every kind of scientific endeavor," he said.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, comments on this phenomenon.

"The biotech industry lobby and its allies sometimes claim that such a law would be out-of-step with the trend in other countries, and they make the same claim regarding President Bush's policy against government funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos," Johnson explains.

"In reality, however, ... much of Europe, Canada, and some other countries have already adopted cloning bans and other policies that are as much or more protective of the human embryo as the protective policies that are currently being debated in the U.S.," Johnson said.

The United Naitons has also recognized the danger any form of human cloning possesses and voted in March to urge nations worldwide to ban all forms of human cloning.

By a margin of 70 percent, the UN called on member nations to "all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life."

Why Human Cloning Needs to Be Banned
by Rep. Dave Weldon (FL)
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; January 9, 2003

[Note: Dave Weldon is a pro-life congressman and doctor from Florida. he is the leading sponsor of the bill to ban all human cloning.]

In 1997, Dolly the sheep became the first cloned mammal. Since then several species have been cloned, increasing the likelihood that someone would clone a human being. Rogue scientists announced plans to clone humans in March of 2001. On July 31, 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that Congressman Stupak and I introduced to ban human cloning by a bipartisan majority. Despite the President's strong support, the Senate did not act.

On December 26th, Clonaid announced the birth of the first cloned human baby, nicknamed Eve. Since then, they have announced two subsequent births. Though I am skeptical about the legitimacy of their claims, it is certain that some scientists are rushing to perform human cloning, both for research and reproductive purposes.

As a medical doctor, who still sees patients once a month, I am very interested in seeing that we pursue real cures for the diseases that afflict our neighbors, friends, and family members. Fortunately, we can find these cures with alternatives rather than traveling down the path of human cloning and a new eugenics.

The fact is that adult stem cells have already been used successfully in over 45 clinical trials to treat
humans. They aren't susceptible to tumor formation and avoid immune rejection. Indeed, adult stem cells have already been used to treat cancers, restore vision to patients who were legally blind, and treat multiple sclerosis. Researchers recently treated a 57 year old man with Parkinson's using his own brain stem cells.

Despite a few prominent and rogue scientists who advocate cloning human babies, most people oppose this practice. However, creating cloned live-born human children necessarily begins by creating cloned human embryos, a process which some also propose as a way to create embryos for experimental research or as sources of cells and tissues for theoretical treatment of various diseases. There are serious genetic abnormalities involved in cloning. Indeed, experimental research cloning has not been used to cure one disease in any animal model.

There are also practical obstacles to clinical success with cloning. It would require numerous eggs, it is inefficient, and the slow development of cloned stem cells make it unlikely to become a routine clinical procedure.

Cloning for research is not only unethical because it involves the creation of nascent human life for the sole purpose of experimental research, but also such experimental research is unethical because it endangers women. Advocates of cloning claim it will cure millions of people with diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, etc. But to do so millions of eggs will be required. If the claims of
pro-cloners were to turn out true, millions of women would undergo an invasive procedure and use
superovulatory drugs with risks, not to have a baby as with IVF, but solely for money. As many feminists have stated, research cloning will undoubtedly lead to a new exploitation of women, particularly those with little means.

The pro-cloning lobby hopes to generate funds from patents for basic research, which will probably not be used in clinical use. Why divert funds away from successful research that is currently being developed and used to treat people?

Advocates of cloning want only to ban implanting the cloned embryo into a woman's uterus. However, the United States Department of Justice issued an analysis of cloning bills and stated that the Specter/ Kennedy/Feinstein bill is unenforceable. Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant stated, "Anything short of an outright ban would present ... difficulties to law enforcement."

Furthermore, at a hearing on May 15, 2002 Dr. Bryan Cowan, representing the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine, testified before Congress that he opposed reproductive cloning "at this time" and admitted that as soon as some of the safety issues are resolved they want to engage in reproductive cloning. Research cloning will pave the way for reproductive cloning. Any attempt at human cloning, for whatever purpose, is utterly irresponsible. Human cloning is baby manufacture, and the American people oppose it.

Clearly the Weldon/Stupak human cloning bill would effectively prevent human cloning from being performed in the United States.

--
Order Today! Pro-Life Church Bulletin Inserts. These full color inserts are an excellent educational
resource. They are 8.5 x 5.5, double sided, and printed on glossy paper. The front includes a 4-D Ultrasound photo of an unborn child and under it the words, "I am an American." Abortion statistics are on
the back side. Cost is $5.00 per bundle of 50 inserts. No Credit Card orders please. We will include an invoice with your order. Email TBare@NRLC.org, or call 202.378.8842.