pecla
08-02-2001, 01:06 PM
August 2, 2001
House Vote to Ban Human Cloning
Gives Researchers, Investors Pause
By Antonio Regalado and Laurie McGinley
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
In the wake of Tuesday's vote in the House of Representatives to ban all forms of human cloning, an air of uncertainty, even anxiety, is permeating laboratories and biotechnology companies engaged in cloning-related research, as well as well as investors in those concerns.
The bill, offered by Republican Rep. Dave Weldon of Florida and Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, passed the House Tuesday by a vote of 265-162. It seeks to bar the use of the cloning technology to create identical copies of people. But the most ominous aspect of the bill for scientists is that it would criminalize the use of cloning techniques in research that many scientists see as important for developing new therapies against numerous debilitating diseases.
While many congressional watchers believe the Senate is unlikely to pass a similar set of restrictions, the House's overwhelming vote in support of a human-cloning ban is raising red flags -- and some ire. Michael West, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology, a private company that is developing human cloning for research, not reproductive, purposes, says the issues raised by cloning and related technologies "are really worth more than two hours of debate." He adds: "If people understood the facts, there would be a consensus, as there is in the scientific community, that these technologies have great merit."
In a congressional hearing in Washington Wednesday, Dr. West provided an example of how research was outpacing legislators. His company, he says, has filed a patent on a technique called "oopslasmic transfer" which is, in effect, the reverse of therapeutic cloning. By dribbling the soupy liquid inside an egg on top of an adult cell, "like water balloons," he said it might be possible to revert that adult cell to its embryonic state.
Dr. West says it is unclear if the technique would be affected by the anticloning bills. "The point I'm trying to make is this is a complex area and we owe it to people who are sick to take time to study and talk about this," he says. The National Academy of Sciences is holding a major meeting on cloning technology this month, and Dr. West says lawmakers should hold off taking any action until then.
As Congress steps into scientific territory where biologists themselves have only recently dared to tread, researchers and biotechnology companies are already feeling financial consequences. After the House vote, some stocks took a battering and academic scientists wondered if one of the hottest new areas of scientific research would be squelched.
Geron Corp., a publicly traded biotechnology company that has championed cloning for research, saw its stock drop nearly 8%. Other companies, including StemCells Inc., dropped more than 16%.
In fact, the scientific community remains divided over the scientific value of cloning technology to produce embryos as the source of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which scientists have isolated in embryos that are about a week old, are immature cells that can form any type of human tissue and may serve as the basis for transplanting replacement cells such as neurons for treating Parkinson's disease and other ailments.
The push for anticloning legislation was touched off last winter after two obscure scientific teams declared their intent to clone a human being. While most in Congress agree that such "reproductive cloning" ought to be banned, the Weldon bill in the House also prohibits therapeutic cloning, which many scientists say is a very promising way to produce much-needed embryonic stem cells.
Cloning, also known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is the technique used four years ago to produce Dolly the sheep. In therapeutic cloning, scientists hope to use the same method to create a human embryo by inserting an adult skin cell into an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. Stem cells taken from that embryo would have the same genetic makeup as the patient, eliminating the need for potent immune-suppressing drugs.
Opponents of such cloning research offer a "slippery slope" argument that holds that the development of the technology in the lab would inevitably lead to the advent of human cloning for reproductive purposes. The Weldon bill was also supported by those who believe creating embryos specifically for research is immoral. Creating embryos for research purposes is currently legal, though not widely practiced. The use of federal research dollars for such studies is banned.
The Weldon bill could raise constitutional issues, said John Roberston, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, Austin. "If therapeutic cloning works, then I think there would be a serious question whether a ban infringes on a person's constitutional right to life. It could prevent someone from getting needed treatment without a compelling interest on the part of the state." Since U.S. law doesn't recognize embryos as legal persons, Mr. Robertson believes the government lacks clear justification for barring their use in research.
Some scientists believe that the Weldon bill, as written, has many loopholes that would allow cloning to proceed. Peter Mombaerts, a scientist at Rockefeller University in New York who has cloned mice, says the bill only bans cloning using cells with 23 chromosomes, the normal number. But cloning can also be done with cells that are in the midst of dividing, when they have twice the normal number of chromosomes, or with sperm and eggs cells that have half the usual complement of DNA.
"It's hard to regulate high technology, because once legislators have understood what is happening, the science has already moved beyond them," says Dr. Mombaerts. He estimated that fewer than three dozen researchers in the U.S. truly understand the possibilities inherent in cloning research.
But the field, though small, is rapidly expanding and is considered one of the hottest areas in biotechnology. Since Dolly, the first animal cloned from an adult cell, was born in 1997, scientists have used the method to create copies of mice, pigs, sheep, cattle and other animals. Nuclear transfer has also been adopted as a cutting-edge method for producing stem cells, and for novel infertility treatments.
Indeed, the Weldon ban is likely to have some unintended victims -- in particular new fertility techniques, such as "egg reconstruction." This method, explains Jamie Grifo, a top fertility expert at the New York University School of Medicine, uses nuclear transfer to help create an egg for an infertile woman that contains her own DNA. The egg could then be fertilized with sperm to produce a normal child with two parents. After two efforts to produce a pregnancy failed, Dr. Grifo says he was forced to stop working on the technique due to the public hysteria over cloning.
In remarks to reporters Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) said that he opposed human cloning but didn't necessarily oppose cloning for research purposes. But he stressed that he needs to study the issue before reaching a final decision. "I'm very uncomfortable with even cloning for research purposes, but I am strongly supportive of the effort to try to advance science and research through the use of the embryo," he said. But he added, "This is going to be one of the most far-reaching scientific decisions in public policy that we will make for a long time to come and it deserves more than a 30-second sound-bite answer."
He also said that he expects that whenever Congress takes up federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, which he supports, that the cloning issue inevitably will be brought up at the same time. "So I think that they will be intermingled, and I think there will be a debate about both. I don't think that that can be avoided, especially in the Senate," he said.
The big vote in favor of the House-passed bill gives it some momentum, but the legislation faces steep odds in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, is championing a bill identical to the House bill, and says he is confident that he can get a total cloning ban through the Senate. "Ninety percent of the public is opposed to human cloning," he says. "We're going to use whatever tactic we need to get it on through." He says that if the Democratic leadership doesn't schedule a floor vote on his bill, he might try to attach the legislation to the patients' bill of rights or other bills.
In the House, the lobbying against the ban was led by Biotechology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C., whose members include companies such as Advanced Cell Technology and Geron. The trade group, which will lead the effort in the Senate as well, hasn't yet decided on strategy. Some patients' groups also will be involved in lobbying against a total ban. In the House, they pushed for a more cloning-limited bill by Rep. Jim Greenwood, a Pennsylvania Republican. But some in the biotech industry say the patients' groups deliberately held back because they didn't want to jeopardize GOP support for embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate considered a total ban on cloning in February 1998, after Chicago physicist Richard Seed announced he was going to try to clone a human being. But it was killed by a filibuster led by Democrats. If the Senate deadlocks again over the research question, it would mean there would still be no federal law to govern reproductive cloning. That would leave efforts to stop cloning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which says the technology is too unsafe to try. Experts, however, have questioned whether the agency has regulatory authority.
As for Wall Street, many analysts suggest that even a full-fledged cloning ban would have only limited impact on Geron's business, which so far, at least, isn't focused on making use of therapeutic clones.
"I think it's a natural knee-jerk reaction -- this vote is bad news for stem cells or cloning, so let's knock down these stocks a bit," says Michael Ehrenreich, president of Techvest LLC, a New York based technology research and investment firm.
Write to Antonio Regalado at antonio.regalado@wsj.com and Laurie McGinley at laurie.mcginley@wsj.com
House Vote to Ban Human Cloning
Gives Researchers, Investors Pause
By Antonio Regalado and Laurie McGinley
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
In the wake of Tuesday's vote in the House of Representatives to ban all forms of human cloning, an air of uncertainty, even anxiety, is permeating laboratories and biotechnology companies engaged in cloning-related research, as well as well as investors in those concerns.
The bill, offered by Republican Rep. Dave Weldon of Florida and Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, passed the House Tuesday by a vote of 265-162. It seeks to bar the use of the cloning technology to create identical copies of people. But the most ominous aspect of the bill for scientists is that it would criminalize the use of cloning techniques in research that many scientists see as important for developing new therapies against numerous debilitating diseases.
While many congressional watchers believe the Senate is unlikely to pass a similar set of restrictions, the House's overwhelming vote in support of a human-cloning ban is raising red flags -- and some ire. Michael West, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology, a private company that is developing human cloning for research, not reproductive, purposes, says the issues raised by cloning and related technologies "are really worth more than two hours of debate." He adds: "If people understood the facts, there would be a consensus, as there is in the scientific community, that these technologies have great merit."
In a congressional hearing in Washington Wednesday, Dr. West provided an example of how research was outpacing legislators. His company, he says, has filed a patent on a technique called "oopslasmic transfer" which is, in effect, the reverse of therapeutic cloning. By dribbling the soupy liquid inside an egg on top of an adult cell, "like water balloons," he said it might be possible to revert that adult cell to its embryonic state.
Dr. West says it is unclear if the technique would be affected by the anticloning bills. "The point I'm trying to make is this is a complex area and we owe it to people who are sick to take time to study and talk about this," he says. The National Academy of Sciences is holding a major meeting on cloning technology this month, and Dr. West says lawmakers should hold off taking any action until then.
As Congress steps into scientific territory where biologists themselves have only recently dared to tread, researchers and biotechnology companies are already feeling financial consequences. After the House vote, some stocks took a battering and academic scientists wondered if one of the hottest new areas of scientific research would be squelched.
Geron Corp., a publicly traded biotechnology company that has championed cloning for research, saw its stock drop nearly 8%. Other companies, including StemCells Inc., dropped more than 16%.
In fact, the scientific community remains divided over the scientific value of cloning technology to produce embryos as the source of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which scientists have isolated in embryos that are about a week old, are immature cells that can form any type of human tissue and may serve as the basis for transplanting replacement cells such as neurons for treating Parkinson's disease and other ailments.
The push for anticloning legislation was touched off last winter after two obscure scientific teams declared their intent to clone a human being. While most in Congress agree that such "reproductive cloning" ought to be banned, the Weldon bill in the House also prohibits therapeutic cloning, which many scientists say is a very promising way to produce much-needed embryonic stem cells.
Cloning, also known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is the technique used four years ago to produce Dolly the sheep. In therapeutic cloning, scientists hope to use the same method to create a human embryo by inserting an adult skin cell into an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. Stem cells taken from that embryo would have the same genetic makeup as the patient, eliminating the need for potent immune-suppressing drugs.
Opponents of such cloning research offer a "slippery slope" argument that holds that the development of the technology in the lab would inevitably lead to the advent of human cloning for reproductive purposes. The Weldon bill was also supported by those who believe creating embryos specifically for research is immoral. Creating embryos for research purposes is currently legal, though not widely practiced. The use of federal research dollars for such studies is banned.
The Weldon bill could raise constitutional issues, said John Roberston, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, Austin. "If therapeutic cloning works, then I think there would be a serious question whether a ban infringes on a person's constitutional right to life. It could prevent someone from getting needed treatment without a compelling interest on the part of the state." Since U.S. law doesn't recognize embryos as legal persons, Mr. Robertson believes the government lacks clear justification for barring their use in research.
Some scientists believe that the Weldon bill, as written, has many loopholes that would allow cloning to proceed. Peter Mombaerts, a scientist at Rockefeller University in New York who has cloned mice, says the bill only bans cloning using cells with 23 chromosomes, the normal number. But cloning can also be done with cells that are in the midst of dividing, when they have twice the normal number of chromosomes, or with sperm and eggs cells that have half the usual complement of DNA.
"It's hard to regulate high technology, because once legislators have understood what is happening, the science has already moved beyond them," says Dr. Mombaerts. He estimated that fewer than three dozen researchers in the U.S. truly understand the possibilities inherent in cloning research.
But the field, though small, is rapidly expanding and is considered one of the hottest areas in biotechnology. Since Dolly, the first animal cloned from an adult cell, was born in 1997, scientists have used the method to create copies of mice, pigs, sheep, cattle and other animals. Nuclear transfer has also been adopted as a cutting-edge method for producing stem cells, and for novel infertility treatments.
Indeed, the Weldon ban is likely to have some unintended victims -- in particular new fertility techniques, such as "egg reconstruction." This method, explains Jamie Grifo, a top fertility expert at the New York University School of Medicine, uses nuclear transfer to help create an egg for an infertile woman that contains her own DNA. The egg could then be fertilized with sperm to produce a normal child with two parents. After two efforts to produce a pregnancy failed, Dr. Grifo says he was forced to stop working on the technique due to the public hysteria over cloning.
In remarks to reporters Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) said that he opposed human cloning but didn't necessarily oppose cloning for research purposes. But he stressed that he needs to study the issue before reaching a final decision. "I'm very uncomfortable with even cloning for research purposes, but I am strongly supportive of the effort to try to advance science and research through the use of the embryo," he said. But he added, "This is going to be one of the most far-reaching scientific decisions in public policy that we will make for a long time to come and it deserves more than a 30-second sound-bite answer."
He also said that he expects that whenever Congress takes up federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, which he supports, that the cloning issue inevitably will be brought up at the same time. "So I think that they will be intermingled, and I think there will be a debate about both. I don't think that that can be avoided, especially in the Senate," he said.
The big vote in favor of the House-passed bill gives it some momentum, but the legislation faces steep odds in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, is championing a bill identical to the House bill, and says he is confident that he can get a total cloning ban through the Senate. "Ninety percent of the public is opposed to human cloning," he says. "We're going to use whatever tactic we need to get it on through." He says that if the Democratic leadership doesn't schedule a floor vote on his bill, he might try to attach the legislation to the patients' bill of rights or other bills.
In the House, the lobbying against the ban was led by Biotechology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C., whose members include companies such as Advanced Cell Technology and Geron. The trade group, which will lead the effort in the Senate as well, hasn't yet decided on strategy. Some patients' groups also will be involved in lobbying against a total ban. In the House, they pushed for a more cloning-limited bill by Rep. Jim Greenwood, a Pennsylvania Republican. But some in the biotech industry say the patients' groups deliberately held back because they didn't want to jeopardize GOP support for embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate considered a total ban on cloning in February 1998, after Chicago physicist Richard Seed announced he was going to try to clone a human being. But it was killed by a filibuster led by Democrats. If the Senate deadlocks again over the research question, it would mean there would still be no federal law to govern reproductive cloning. That would leave efforts to stop cloning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which says the technology is too unsafe to try. Experts, however, have questioned whether the agency has regulatory authority.
As for Wall Street, many analysts suggest that even a full-fledged cloning ban would have only limited impact on Geron's business, which so far, at least, isn't focused on making use of therapeutic clones.
"I think it's a natural knee-jerk reaction -- this vote is bad news for stem cells or cloning, so let's knock down these stocks a bit," says Michael Ehrenreich, president of Techvest LLC, a New York based technology research and investment firm.
Write to Antonio Regalado at antonio.regalado@wsj.com and Laurie McGinley at laurie.mcginley@wsj.com