Washington Editor

WASHINGTON - Sen. Orrin Hatch recently told a group of lawyers here that he usually votes on the side of science - that is, sound science.

Following his decision this week to support legislation titled “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002” that bans human cloning while allowing therapeutic cloning, it appears the Republican from Utah considers this controversial research necessary to the progress of medicine.

That opinion means a great deal to the biotechnology industry. In fact, Michael Werner, vice president of bioethics for the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization, referred to the Hatch decision as an “incredibly significant and positive development in the legislative battle.”

Werner told BioWorld Today that Hatch’s support of therapeutic cloning should turn the tide in the debate on Capitol Hill.

Hatch signed on in support of the legislation crafted by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Despite reports Tuesday that the legislation has been introduced, technically it is being held up due to “tweaking,” Werner said.

Nevertheless, industry representatives expect it to become the subject of heated debates fairly soon. But some industry insiders watching the bill feel the Hatch coup Tuesday places tremendous weight on the side of science.

“Hatch is a leader on health care issues in the Senate, he’s a former chair of the Health and Labor Committee, and he’s one of the most thoughtful members of the Senate, so clearly he took time to think about this and weigh the evidence,” Werner said. “Then, of course, he has a pro-life record, yet he supports this legislation.”

The new legislation is similar to what was introduced late last year by Kennedy and Feinstein. The differences, though, lie in oversight requirements of the new bill, meaning a researcher would have to get clearance from an ethics committee before commencing a study.

Before Tuesday, Hatch was one of a few senators considered on the fence in terms of a public view on therapeutic cloning.

Last summer, in a 265-162 vote, the House passed legislation introduced by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) calling for a ban on all cloning, even research cloning. (See BioWorld Today, Aug. 6, 2001, and Nov. 27, 2001.)

Not only does President Bush reportedly support the Weldon bill, he also backs legislation (S.1899) introduced by Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that would make all cloning criminal. (See BioWorld Today, April 11, 2002.)

Upon announcing his support of the Brownback-Landrieu legislation, Bush told a crowd representing Christian and right-to-life organizations that advances in biomedical technology must never come at the expense of human conscience. “As we seek what is possible, we must always ask what is right, and we must not forget that even the most noble ends do not justify any means,” he said.

Those kinds of comments make an industry that supports therapeutic cloning but is against human cloning a little nervous.

Indeed, Hatch was quoted as saying an important aspect of being pro-life is to support the technologies that help the living.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) told BioWorld Today that the congressman feels the House backed the Weldon legislation without having all the facts.

Carl Feldbaum, BIO’s president, released a prepared statement on the heels of the Hatch announcement saying: “Our opposition to S.1899, the Brownback bill, remains adamant. That bill would ban therapeutic as well as reproductive applications of nuclear transfer. Because the Brownback bill goes too far threatening scientists and patients with up to 10 years in prison for pursuing medical research and treatment we once again urge the Senate to reject it.”

The statement went on to say that Sens. Specter, Feinstein, Hatch and Kennedy have weighed the therapeutic potential of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology and have concluded as have 40 Nobel laureates, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and other leading scientific and patient organizations that the reproductive application of this technology must be banned, but therapeutic research must move ahead.

Many scientists argue that therapeutic cloning applications could lead to revolutionary therapies for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, heart disease and other debilitating conditions.

Others, like Tom Dooley, CEO of IntegriDerm Inc., a biotechnology firm based in Huntsville, Ala., disagree. At a recent meeting on Capitol Hill with Brownback and other supporters of S.1899, Dooley said there are no valid justifications to produce human clones, either for reproductive reasons or for the generation of human embryonic stem cells. “Alternative research approaches and therapies for various diseases are available and are being pursued by researchers, thus abrogating the so-called need for human embryonic stem cell research,” he said.

Werner, of BIO, said he expects a Senate debate and vote this year.