Before the Senate: Appropriations Committee, Concerning the Cloning of Humans and Genetic Modifications
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
January 24, 2002
Dr. Brent Blackwelder
President of Affiliation: Friends of the Earth
Introduction
Friends of the Earth is a 'national conservation organization-
dedicated to a cleaner, healthier planet for all life on earth. We are part of
Friends of the Earth International which has member groups in 69 countries. - I
have been President of Friends of the Earth since 1994. My doctorate is in
philosophy from the University of Maryland, with ethics being my field of
specialization.
The Senate is now considering long-overdue legislation to
ban human cloning. The debate is being framed as one between modern medical
science seeking new technologies for the prevention and treatment of disease
and those who are trying to block medical progress. The purpose of the Friends
of the -Earth testimony is to present the environmental case against both human
cloning and the closely related issue of human germline manipulation or
inheritable genetic modifications ("designer babies").
At the outset I wish to note that Friends of the Earth
acknowledges that many applications of human genetic science, including those
using stem cells, hold great medical promise. However; the rapid pace of
development-of new technologies, the enormous stakes involved, the lack of
societal controls to date, the failure to analyze environmental implications,
and the fact that unformed public debate has barely begun, all indicate the
need for immediate legislative action to ban the creation of full- term human
clones (reproductive cloning)- and at least to place a moratorium on the
creation of clonal human embryos for research purposes [therapeutic cloning).
Friends of the Earth is strongly opposed to 5.1758,
introduced by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, and we offer a critique showing
that not only does this bill fail to control human cloning, but also that it
gives the green light to full-scale commodification of human life.
Environmental organizations are concerned with the
accelerated pollution and destruction of wetlands, forests, mountains,
agricultural lands, and wildlife which occurred during this past century. Today
humanity stands on the brink of a totally new and alarming change in our earth,
as well--a change which could carry us into an entirely new realm of artificial
existence and a new type of pollution--biological pollution, more ominous
possibly than chemical or nuclear pollution. Science now has the capability of
creating cloned beings and designer babies and of crossing the species barriers
which have for millennia separated plants from animals and some groups of
animals from other animals. The real specter of a totally manufactured world is
upon us.
The basic environmental case against cloning and engineering
of the human germline manipulations (designer babies) is that these actions
violate two cornerstone principles of the modern conservation movement: 1)
respect for nature and 2) the precautionary principle.
I. Cloning and the Principle of Respect for Nature
Environmental organizations embrace an ethic of respect for
nature. Environmental organizations carry on a variety of educational
activities to help people understand and appreciate the natural world. Some
take people on nature outings, others operate or support nature centers. We
strive to demonstrate the interdependence of humans and the natural world and
the value of each species' contribution to an entire ecosystem. If a species is
altered or wiped out, then changes to the whole ecosystem can be expected.
The very act of cloning animals or people crosses the
threshold of respect for the individuality and remarkable features of each
species as well as the individuals within species. The principle of respect for
nature leads us to oppose to the full-scale commodification of nature--whether
it be humans, animals, plants, or landscapes.
The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to
meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally
at odds with the principle of respect for nature. Even though many in the
biotechnology business assert that their goal is only curing disease and saving
lives, the fact remains that once these cloning and germline technologies are
perfected, there are plenty who have publicly avowed to utilize them. Friends
of the Earth has even been called upon to debate such people on national
television.
Some proponents of human cloning and germline manipulations,
for example, extol the virtues of "improving" on the humans, animals,
and plants now in the world by re-engineering them. Here is what they are
saying:
Lee Silver, molecular biologist at Princeton University, in
his book Remaking Eden: How Cloning and Beyond will Change the Human Family
envisions a future in which the appearance, cognitive ability, sensory
capacity, and life span of our children will become artifacts of genetic
manipulation: "The GenRich--who account for 10 percent of the American
population--all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media,
the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by
members of the Gen Rich class... Naturals work as low-paid service providers or
as laborers... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely
separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic
interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."
James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the
structure of DNA: "if we could make better human beings by knowing how to
add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it? Evolution can be just damn
cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity to
it? I'd just like to know where that idea comes from. It's utter
silliness."
Lester Thurow, noted MIT economist: "biotechnology is
inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals and human beings are
going to be partly man-made.... Suppose parents could add 30 points to their
children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it? And if you don't, your child will be
the stupidest child in the neighborhood."
The proposed and ongoing genetic engineering today is
radically different from the thousands of years of agriculture where crops and
animals have been transformed through cross breeding of very similar species.
Experiments in genetic engineering violate the natural species barrier. We have
witnessed scientists inserting fish genes in tomatoes and strawberries, making
goats which produce spider-like webs in their milk, and adding human genes to
pigs.
The cloners like Watson and Silver want to engineer nature
to suit their objectives and don't recognize any duties to animals and people
who could be redesigned to match the scientists' own vision. There is no
reverence or awe of nature but simply a desire to replace plants and animals
with the scientists' selection of traits--all for the purpose of making money.
The Fein stein-Kennedy bill (5.1758) facilitates the
objectives of those just quoted because it would allow a completely unregulated
commercial industry in human cloning to produce embryos that could be brought
to term illegally under a reproductive ban.
To turn next to the practical experience with animal
cloning, it is important to note that Ian Wilmot, the developer of the cloned
sheep Dolly admits that almost all clones suffer serious abnormalities. The
recent finding of premature arthritis in Dolly is one of the strongest
indicators to date that there should be, at a minimum, a moratorium on human
cloning and on commercial animal production through cloning. What parent wants
to risk a child that will be diseased, deformed or developmentally disabled
after a few years? Who wants to eat food that may be harmful?
Recent polling shows that 90% of Americans do not want human
cloning. One of the reasons is that no one should be the subject of an
experiment without their consent. Any cloned child would be such an experiment.
What Americans do want are therapeutic technologies that do not carry such
risks. The New Scientist has just reported that a stem cell which can turn into
every single tissue in the body has just been found in adults. The article goes
on to say: "If so, there would be no need to resort to therapeutic cloning
... Nor would you have to genetically engineer embryonic stem cells to create a
'one cell fits all' line that does not trigger immune rejection." (January
23, 2002 "Ultimate stem cell
discovered" New
Scientist)
II. Cloning Violates the Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle is another pillar of the modern
environmental movement. The basic idea of the precautionary principle is that
before imposing significant risks on others or society as a whole, we should
have a solid grasp of what is being proposed. The principle embodies the wisdom
of ancient adages such as "look before you leap" and "an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
Thus the precautionary principle mandates that when there is
a risk of significant health or environmental damage to others or to future
generations, and when there is scientific uncertainty as to the nature of that
damage or the likelihood of the risk, then decisions should be made so as to
prevent such activities from being conducted unless and until scientific
evidence shows that the damage will not occur.
A review of major environmental problems of the 20th century
reveals a range of unanticipated and awful economic and environmental
consequences as a result both of individual actions and various modern
technologies. Had the precautionary principle been operative, many of these
disastrous consequences might have been avoided. Here are a few examples in the
areas of chemicals, civil works projects like dams, introduced exotic species,
agriculture, disease and medicine where the precautionary principle was not applied.
The numerous cases of alien, foreign, exotic, or invasive
species, which have beset North American ecosystems like a plague in the past
hundred years, makes vividly clear the problem of unanticipated consequences.
The federal government estimated that the annual economic costs of invasive
species is over $100 billion. (US Office of Technology Assessment, 1993) Some
introductions of alien species have been deliberate. The starling was brought
to America by a man who believed that our country should have all the birds
mentioned by Shakespeare. Now starlings are one of the most dominant birds,
crowding out native song birds. One of America's most important trees, both
from a wildlife and a commercial standpoint, was the chestnut. Very swiftly a
disease, introduced through a USDA program, wiped out all the great chestnut
trees. No cure has to this date been found. Other invasives like gypsy moths,
the Asian long-horned beetle, and Dutch elm disease still plague our forests.
The zebra mussel, which was probably carried in the ballast
water of a Black Sea tanker, has proliferated throughout the Great Lakes region
and now causes tens of millions of dollars of damage as it clogs up water
pipes. A century ago the predatory eel called the lamprey got into the Great
Lakes via the Erie and Welland Canals and devastated fisheries and persist to
this very day.
The moral of this story is that the ecosystem disruption
caused by invasive species not only devastates native flora and fauna but can
be enormously costly. Another lesson is that biological pollution proliferates
and reproduces and is not easily stopped if it can be stopped at all.
The precautionary principle was not applied when our society
began using very dangerous chemicals in the aftermath of World War II. To this
very day we have major and costly battles about cleaning up nuclear and toxic
waste produced many years ago. A prime example recently in the news is the
battle between EPA and General Electric over the chemical PCB waste which still
remains in the Hudson River decades after the PCBs were dumped by the company.
Looking at civil works projects, our society did not think
through the devastating effect of dams on Atlantic and Pacific salmon and on
other fisheries until many decades after precipitous declines in fisheries had
occurred. Now dramatic efforts are being made to try to restore some of the
salmon runs.
In the area of genetically engineered food, Friends of the
Earth exposed the presence in our food supply of genetically engineered Starlink
corn, which had been approved for consumption only by animals, not humans.
Starlink corn began showing up on grocery shelves all over the country. Despite
being planted on only 0.5% of the corn field acreage, it contaminated 10% of
the entire crop in the year 2000.
A decade ago in the case of mad cow disease, the public
witnessed the vigorous denial by British officials of any connections between
feeding regimes (cows being forced to eat cows) and the disease, and asserted
that the disease could not jump from cows to humans. Now they have acknowledged
their errors, but the disease has spread to Europe. In other medical news about
recent knee surgeries where people have died, the January 20, 2002 New York
Times headline reads: "Lack of Oversight in Tissue Donation Raising
Concerns--Tight Rules on the Use of Organs Do Not Apply to Tissues". When
the subject goes from tissue and organ donations to the deliberate insertion of
inheritable traits, the precautionary principle reminds us that it is not just
the patient but future generations who are going to be impacted. One cannot
simply recall a bad judgment on inherited traits. That is the lesson of
biological pollution presented above.
The great naturalist Aldo Leopold observed that the human
role of conqueror is "eventually self-defeating because it is implicit in
such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the
community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is
worthless, in community life. It always turns out that he knows neither, and
this is why his conquests eventually defeat themselves." (A Sand County
Almanac)
Many scientists and companies in biotechnology are prone to
present only the best case scenario. The Friends of the Earth recitation of
fiascoes from the past 100 years of biological invasions as well as recent
screw-ups in modern medicine show that our society must focus on more than
simply best-case scenarios. The precautionary principle poses a direct
challenge to uninhibited experimentation on people and the planet--
experimentation done in the name of progress, but often driven by the desire to
make money. The Feinstein-Kennedy bill does not embrace the precautionary
principle but flaunts it.
Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document
Clearing House, Inc.)