By Lisa Seachrist

Washington Editor

WASHINGTON — The House Subcommittee on Technology wrestled with the task of crafting a bill that would adequately prohibit federal funding for creating a human clone while protecting a wide variety of research projects.

At a hearing on H.R. 922, a bill sponsored by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) that aims to keep federal funds from supporting research into human clones, representatives of the reproductive medicine, biotechnology, bioethics and biology communities illustrated just how difficult drafting legislation to ban certain types of research could be.

"There should be legislation prohibiting anyone receiving federal funding from attempting to create a child using the cloning technology that made possible the creation of Dolly," said Constance Morella (R-Md.), chairwoman of the subcommittee, which is part of the House Committee on Science.

But, she added, "Scientific and biomedical advances have the great potential for saving lives and substantially improving our quality of life. This research and development must not be inhibited by any legislative actions we undertake. The challenge we face is both simple and complex."

When introduced, Ehlers' bill provided no definition of the activity that would be banned; it simply referred to a prohibition of creating a human clone.

Arthur Haney, director of the department of endocrinology and infertility at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C., and president-elect for the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, noted that any legislation needs a precise definition of what is prohibited or it could be widely interpreted and impinge upon legitimate research.

"I would offer the following definition for the kind of human cloning we all agree should not be allowed," Haney said. "Human cloning means the duplication of an existing or previously existing human being by transferring the nucleus of a differentiated, somatic cell into an oocyte in which the nucleus has been removed, and implanting the resulting product for gestation and subsequent birth."

Alison Taunton-Rigby, president and CEO of Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, in Worcester, Mass., and representative for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, remarked, "Our proposed language is virtually the same as Dr. Haney's. It is striking that we come to the same definition from two very different perspectives."

While the definition sounds workable, Hessel Bouma, professor of biology at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Mich., noted, "There is still a lot of ambiguity in the term 'existing human being' because some would interpret that to mean an embryo or fetus."

Taunton-Rigby told Ehlers she believed H.R. 922 was very broad and went far beyond what the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended to President Clinton in June.

Ehlers has expanded his bill to prohibit federal funds from being used "to conduct or support any project of research that involves the use of a human somatic cell to produce an embryo."

Taunton-Rigby said, "Your bill is directed more toward human embryo research and that is an issue that has already been debated in this country. Prohibiting the production of an embryo using somatic cell nuclear transfer for implantation draws a bright line."

Ehlers, however, said, "Congress doesn't see it that way."

In addition to providing precise definitions, the panelists nearly unanimously recommended that any legislation to ban the cloning of a human being should be subject to a sunset clause, or at least placed under periodic review in order to respond to scientific developments.

"The ethical issues of science develop and change rapidly," said the Rev. Kevin Wildes, a Jesuit priest and associate director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, in Washington. "There will be need for ongoing review and discussion in all these areas and I hope that any legislation would have some built-in mechanisms for review and discussions."

Ehlers has amended H.R. 922 to provide for a report to Congress in five years from the National Research Council to detail the impact the act is having on research and recommend appropriate changes to the act.

However, Ehlers has no intention of adding a federal preemption of state laws to his bill, as several panelists had suggested.

"As a former state legislator, I am loathe to add a preemption clause to this bill," he said. "This bill should make it unnecessary for the states to enact additional legislation."

Ehlers also has introduced H.R. 923, which would extend the ban to the private sector. However, that legislation was not addressed during this hearing. *