Calvin College professor Hessel Bouma III received an invitation from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, asking him to speak to the Subcommittee on Technology's hearing on "Prohibition of Federal Funding of Human Cloning Research."

Here are his remarks for that July 22, 1997 hearing.

Committee on Science (Subcommittee on Technology)

United States House of Representatives

Testimony of: Hessel Bouma III, Ph.D. (Professor of Biology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan)

Thank you, Representative Morella, Chairwoman of this Subcommittee, for the invitation to participate in this hearing on human cloning. I speak not as a representative of any particular organization or institution, but as an individual who is a scientist, bioethicist, parent, and citizen with significant moral concerns about the possibility of human cloning. I am a deeply committed Christian--a Protestant in the Reformed tradition--though the moral and ethical concerns I express here today are not uniquely religious in nature.

Human beings are unique. Whether this emanates from an understanding of our species as pinnacles of evolution or created image-bearers of God as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we recognize our personal and relational uniqueness and seek to provide special protection for humans. Human life elicits special awe and respect, even reverence. While we emphasize human freedom, we agree to limits on that freedom when the freedom of one comes at the expense of another. Human cloning significantly threatens this uniqueness, respect, and freedom.

An overwhelming majority of people believe human cloning ought not to be done at all or can be justified in only a few, rare situations. To protect the interests of the public and human well-being, human cloning should not be left as a new reproductive liberty, nor solely as professional guidelines with voluntary compliance. We need government restrictions on the possibility of human cloning.

Restrictions on human cloning need to be clear. First, what constitutes human cloning? It should not preclude animal, plant, or microbial cloning, which are done routinely today, are quite beneficial, and for which we have carefully crafted and effective regulating legislation. Nor should it preclude the cloning of human genes or human cells (which also are done routinely) or the future possibility of cloning human tissues and organs--which are highly desirable and may be achievable without the moral onus associated with the cloning of human persons. Second, what constitutes human cloning? Human cloning currently refers to the creation of multiple individuals from a single individual through embryo splitting, embryonic cloning, and adult cloning. To result in children who are clones, all three of these must progress though gestational development with a surrogate mother. Legislation must address: Is it permissible to experiment with the initial stages of this process without intending to provide an opportunity for implantation? If so, to what extent?

A ban on the use of federal funds for research on human cloning can be one effective means of restricting human cloning. It is warranted but insufficient. If we can agree that under all or nearly all circumstances, human cloning ought not to be done, then government restrictions are warranted on the privately- as well as the publicly-funded sectors. And we should work to achieve this consensus and restrictions not just nationally, but internationally as well.

Because of the significant moral and ethical concerns, any legislative effort to ban or regulate human cloning should be accompanied by sufficiently clear and severe penalties to make it unlikely that anyone will be tempted to violate the legislation. Such penalties should be a deterrent to those few who would ignore professional guidelines or a voluntary moratorium--scientists (whose judgment can be impaired by a technological imperative, "We can, we must!"), to supporting institutions, to the wealthy, and to seekers of fame and fortune. It even--as far as is possible--should be a deterrent to persons who would undertake this endeavor "off shore."

The current temporary moratorium on human cloning affords us the time to develop careful legislation; the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has given us a remarkably quick and excellent start on focusing the issues. Now our task is to design a more permanent legislative ban or regulation.

Given the dramatic developments which can occur in science, NBAC and many others suggest this legislation should be subject to automatic review in several years. If so, legislation should shift the burden of proof for human cloning from those who would restrict it to those who would condone it. Laws are not unchangeable. In the absence of compelling reasons to lift a ban or restrictions, or to establish exceptions, they should remain in force.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing.

Three Technological Processes for Producing Human Clones

embryo splitting: separating a 16-cell blastomere after in vitro fertilization into two 8-cell blastomeres, thereby producing identical twins,

embryonic cloning: somatic cell nuclear transfer from the cells of a blastomere, placing each nucleus into an enucleated egg, thereby producing genetically identical clones, and

adult cloning: somatic cell nuclear transfer from the cell of an adult, placing the nucleus into an enucleated egg, thereby producing a clone of the adult.