Final Report (all chapters)

kind of cloning or they limit the ban to reproductive human cloning but fail to provide adequate
safeguards for conducting research cloning. Among the states that have banned both
reproductive and research cloning are Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Michigan. Many states have attempted to ban both kinds of cloning but have so far failed to pass
any legislation. Virginia has banned reproductive cloning, but excluded research cloning from its
ban. Rhode Island has adopted a similar measure, to expire in 2010. Some states, like Missouri,
have merely banned state funding of research cloning. New Jersey is the only state that has
passed legislation that explicitly bans reproductive cloning but legalizes research cloning.
Unfortunately, the New Jersey law, just like Senate Bill 303, while acknowledging the
controversial nature of this research, only requires research protocols to receive IRB approval,
and does not include any other safeguards against possible abuses. 41
California deserves a separate discussion. In 2003, the state of California banned
reproductive cloning but legalized research cloning and embryonic stem cell research. California
did go a step further, however. The state legislature required the California Department of Health
and Human Services to establish an anonymous registry of embryos available for research, and
specified in considerable detail the rules for disposing of these human embryos. The state
legislature, however, made the registry’s implementation dependent on the availability of private
funding. It also directed the state’s Health and Human Services Department to establish an
advisory board responsible for crafting guidelines for embryonic stem cell research. In the fall of
2003, then-Governor Gray Davis signed both bills into law. By any measure, this legislation was
by far the most sophisticated attempt at banning reproductive cloning while providing reasonable
safeguards to conducting research cloning.
With the 2004 passage of Proposition 71 (the “California Stem Cell Research and Cures
Act”), the situation has changed dramatically. Proposition 71 represents a radical departure from
pre-existing legislation in this area. It requires the state of California to raise $3 billion, to be
administered by a newly created California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). An
“Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee” should ensure that the research funds are spent in
conformance with the statute. Its label notwithstanding, the CIRM’s oversight committee
involves neither citizens nor independent individuals. Its 29 members are drawn from the
research institutions and biotech companies benefiting from the funding, and from various
disease advocacy groups that are strong promoters of this kind of research. The initiative goes so
far as to specify that no minority opinion can be issued unless 35 percent of the board votes in
favor; the likelihood that 11 of 29 members would have true independence from the scientific
community and the biotech industry is negligible, thus essentially muting any form of dissent.
Like its legislative predecessors, Proposition 71 explicitly embraces research cloning, but
makes no provisions for regulatory controls that would prevent, for example, a cloned embryo
from being implanted in a woman’s uterus. Disturbingly, the initiative specifically exempts
California researchers from existing rules prohibiting experiments on embryos beyond eight to
41
See Appendix G for an overview of state legislative initiatives.
132