HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES BILL

Column: 422

HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Concerns about cloning and stem cell research

Sir, stem cells are unspecialised cells. They are able to renew, proliferate or reproduce themselves. They are also able to specialise and differentiate into other type of cells with specialised functions. Because of this potential to become specialised cells, stem cell research may provide a cure for diseases like diabetes, dementia, Parkinson's disease, stroke, spinal cord injury and heart failure. When the stem cells are obtained from an embryo, they are known as embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cells may be obtained from human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation (IVF), by cloning techniques or from existing embryonic stem cell lines. Cloning techniques used to produce stem cells are referred to as therapeutic cloning techniques.

In 1997, the first successfully cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was born. This was not an easy feat: Prof Ian Wilmut and his team had to make more than 270 attempts before they finally succeeded in cloning Dolly. Since then, scientists have cloned a number of other animal species but no one has yet managed to successfully clone a human being. But the potential to create a human clone exists. This form of cloning is called reproductive human cloning. Almost everyone believes human reproductive cloning should not be attempted for two reasons.

Firstly, the attempt to clone a human is very likely to give rise to many malformed babies before a seemingly

Column: 423

normal baby is cloned. Dolly the sheep had premature ageing and died early. So even if a normal looking baby was successfully created by cloning, such a baby may have many defects.

Secondly, the cloning of identical copies of humans raises ethical and moral concerns that trouble most people.

In December 2000, the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) was appointed by Cabinet to examine the ethical, legal and social issues arising from biomedical research and development in Singapore, and to recommend policies to the Ministerial Committee for Life Sciences on these issues. In February 2001, the Human Stem Cell Research Sub-committee was formed under BAC to specifically deal with the ethical, legal and social issues arising from human stem cell research. The BAC made its recommendations on how stem cell research should be conducted in its report which was accepted by Cabinet in May 2002. The BAC recommended that there should be a complete ban on the implantation of a human embryo created by the application of cloning technology into a womb, or any treatment of a human embryo intended to result in its development into a viable infant. In other words, it recommended banning human reproductive cloning. This Bill will ban human reproductive cloning without stopping stem cell research that may provide cures for millions of people with diseases like diabetes and stroke.

Stem cell research

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a spectrum of views on stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. There will be no unanimous view on this subject and my Ministry recognises and respects the diversity of views. But in the area of human reproductive cloning, there is

Column: 424

almost unanimous agreement from the international community, local scientific and religious groups as well as our general public that reproductive cloning of human beings is abhorrent and should not be allowed under any circumstances. This was supported by the feedback obtained by my Ministry during its public consultations on the draft version of this Bill.

Scope of Bill

This Bill prohibits human reproductive cloning. I think no one will disagree with this and so I hope that all Members, including those whomay be opposed to other aspects of human embryonic stem cell research, IVF or any kind of researchdealing with embryos, would agree to support this Bill which bans human reproductive cloning.

As issues that relate to stem cell research touch on the fundamental moral and religious beliefs of Members, I would like to ask for the Whip to be raised so that Members can vote for this Bill according to their conscience.

Provisions

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the overall intent of this Bill is very straightforward, that is, to ban

the cloning of a human being. However, the provisions in the Bill are technically complex as it is necessary to ensure that this Bill adequately addresses all the scenarios in which human reproductive cloning activities might take place. At the same time, we also need to make sure that the provisions do not inadvertently interfere with couples who are making use of Assisted Reproduction services and In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) programmes to have children.

I will now proceed to describe the main provisions in the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill:

Column: 425

(a) Prohibition of implantation of any human clone. The key provision of this Bill is that it bans the placing of a human embryo clone into the body of a woman. This effectively prevents anyone from developing an embryo clone inside a human womb and delivering it after nine months as a live baby.

(b) Prohibition against developing embryos outside the body for more than 14 days. In order to prevent individuals from circumventing the first provision by developing human clones outside the human body, this Bill includes a provision that prohibits embryos created by any means from being developed outside of a woman's body for more than 14 days. This cut-off point of 14 days was recommended by the Bioethics Advisory Committee because it is at this time that the cells in the embryo begin to differentiate and start forming tissues. This 14-day rule is found in similar cloning legislation from countries such as Australia, Belgium, Japan and the UK.

(c)Prohibitions on certain uses of embryos. This provision is to ensure that no one would be allowed to undertake such abhorrent experiments as placing of human embryos into animals or placing animal embryos into the body of a human being.

(d) Prohibited embryos. This provision complements the earlier provision by ensuring that embryos that have been developed for more than 14 days outside the body of a woman should not be implanted into a womb. This does not include any period of time during which the embryo's development has been suspended, for example, when an embryo is frozen. The prohibition against implantation also extends to embryos that have been deliberately removed from a woman's body with the intention of collecting a viable embryo.

Column: 426

(e) Prohibition against import and export of prohibited embryos. This Bill also prohibits the import and export of prohibited embryos so that researchers cannot collaborate with overseas parties in unethical cloning research activities. We do recognise that there may be situations where researchers may not be in a position to check or control the nature and age of the embryo being imported and so only those who knowingly import prohibited embryos will be liable to prosecution under this Bill.

(f) Prohibition of commercial trading in egg, sperm and embryo. The Bill also prohibits commercial trading in human eggs, sperms and embryos. This is prevented by outlawing the giving or receiving of valuable consideration for the supply of such items. Valuable consideration includes any inducement, such as money or gifts, as well as any discount or priority in the provision of a service to the donor. It does not include the payment of reasonable reimbursement, such as expenses incurred or the provision of services during the collection, storage or transport of the tissue.

(g)Penalties. The maximum penalty for offences under this Bill is a fine of $100,000, a 10-year jail term, or both. This is in line with the penalties in the UK legislation.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill prohibits what is considered unethical by everyone, that is, activities leading to the development of a human clone. I hope all Members will show their support for this Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill as this will clearly demonstrate Singapore's commitment towards ethical and responsible biomedical research.

Sir, I beg to move.

Column: 427

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is getting late. I would urge Members to keep their speeches short. Dr Lily Neo.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall keep my speech short. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

The antecedent to this Bill, Sir, is the historic paper of November 1998 by American and Israeli scientists, led by biologist James Thomson, that they had isolated and cultivated human embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are unprogrammed "master" cells, which can differentiate into other types of body cells, as needed, thus offering a revolutionary way to replace or repair diseased and damaged body tissues either from injury or disease. These cells are holding out hope for people suffering from Parkinson's disease or diabetes, as mentioned earlier, for example, or those crippled by spinal cord injuries. Stem cells can be taken from adults and discarded umbilical cords, but those from embryos are considered powerful and malleable because they have the potential to become any sort of cell or tissue. The contentious issue here is that the extraction of stem cells from human embryos violates the human rights of the embryos. The extraction of embryonic stem cellsis taken from blastocysts, which are the union of sperm and egg less than two weeks old, which, if transferred to a woman's uterus, might be able to grow into human beings.

This Bill aims specifically at prohibiting human reproductive cloning or cloning to create human being. Sir, to clone a human being is to move from procreation to manufacture of human life. I support banning human cloning because I believe that human beings are special and truly sacred, and it is prudent to preserve the

Column: 428

sanctity of human life. Scientifically, not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail (only about one or two viable offspring for every 100 experiments), about 30% of clones born alive were affected with "large offspring syndrome" and other debilitating conditions. Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors, such as intellect and mood, may not be as important for a sheep or a cow, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. The attempt to clone humans is therefore potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible.

Reproductive cloning is to create a baby that is identical to the parent whereas therapeutic cloning is to create tissue or cells that are genetically identical to those of a patient; so when they are implanted into a patient, they will not be rejected.

This Bill allows human embryos to be cloned for research under special circumstances, placing Singapore in the camp of a minority that supports limited cloning, including Britain, Japan and China. Sir, therapeutic cloning is a thin wedge to reproductive cloning and I therefore urge the Minister to take the approach of strict scrutiny on the approval on embryonic stem cell research. A balanced approachis required but I favour more to err on the side of caution here to deter any misapplication of Singapore's open-minded stance on research. Singapore is considered one of the world's most research-friendly countries for biomedical work, particularly with regard to stem cells. Rather than depending on embryonic stem cells, many scientists believe stem cells taken from adults could be used. More research should be channelled into this alternative

Column: 429

source instead of encouraging the easier route in order not to inadvertently retard scientists' innovation on searching for non-controversial sources to get stem cells from diverse sources.

I feel that there should be a need for a balanced approach on therapeutic cloning. Singapore is putting in place the funding, facilities and international links that offer one of the best environments in the world to do research, such as the $500 million Biopolis that features top-notch scientific equipment, resources and specialised research facilities and services. Many eminent scientists are drawn by Singapore's reputation as one of the most open-minded, research-friendly countries for biomedical work, and Singapore's determination to become a science hub. Singapore's biomedical science research has matured and is now ready to try to translate some of their locally acquired basic knowledge on cells into real cures and diagnostic tools. Therefore, there is a need for focused leadership to spearhead the potential of Singapore's biomedical science research to offer humankind the new frontier of cure for previously untreatable diseases. Sir, while we should pursue the promise of genetic cures for diseases, we should also act now to direct it towards morally acceptable ends.

Sir, I welcome this Bill's aim of licensing of institutes doing embryonic stem cell research. May I ask the Minister whether there are already ethical and legal framework in place for embryonic stem cell research? May I also ask the Minister whether there is also a safeguard body in place that monitors subsequently and regularly on the progress of such research to ensure and prevent scientists deviating into unauthorised research? I also welcome the harsh penalties of this Bill to ensure that research-friendly Singapore is not being taken advantage of by rogue scientists.

Column: 430

Sir, in our present time when terrorists loom, we cannot be too complacent on any security issues. This Bill does not address bioterrorism. Sir, our scientists have cloned genes to target and destroy cancerous cells.In the same token, such research can also be manipulated to make bioweapons to kill healthy human cells. Such designer bioagents could be worse than any known disease. May I ask the Minister whether any precaution is taken in sensitive research areas? In Britain and the United States, some foreign nationals are either not permitted or vetted before they are allowed to do research in sensitive areas. What are the steps taken in Singapore to address bioterrorism and national security?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill's primary objective is to ban human cloning. As the Senior Minister of State for Health has noted, it is motivated by the views of the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC).

Sir, adopting this Bill will not make Singapore a trail blazer in prohibiting human cloning. Rather, it will harmonise Singapore's position on human cloning with that of more advancedcountries, likeUK, Australia, Canada, France, Japan and Israel, which have already passed legislation banning human reproductive cloning.

Sir, I would like to comment onfour issues arising from this Bill. Firstly, the blanket ban on human reproductive cloning. Sir, as has been noted by the Senior Minister of State as well as Dr Lily Neo, scientists and religious groups are almost unanimous in denouncing

reproductive cloning to create babies. It is an affront to human dignity as cloning could objectify children by treating them as objects of manipulation.

Further, cloned humans could be treated as unequal human beings - a

Column: 431

modern day Frankenstein - leading to the sinister and repugnant possibility that clones might be sacrificed for the benefit of their creators, perhaps as "spare parts" humans to provide organs for transplant.

Such eerie scenarios, which were previously thought to belong only to the genre of horror science fiction, are now looking increasingly possible. Only yesterday, it was reported in Streats that a maverick US scientist has implanted DNA taken from two corpses into cow eggs and created living embryos - an act which would certainly be considered by many to be unethical and repulsive. I, therefore, fully support the ban on human cloning on moral, ethical and religious grounds.

Indeed, I feel that the Bill has come none too soon given that the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) was set up more than three years ago in 2000 to examine the social, legal and ethical implications for the biomedical research industry in Singapore. Moreover, the Government has been promoting the development of a biomedical sciences hub in Singapore for some years now and stem cell research, which opens up the potential for creating human clones, remains a hot area of research and, as a key, to winning the battle for bioscience's billions. It is thus imperative that the Government sends a strong signal so as to strongly deter any rogue scientist or researcher from cloning a human. I am particularly pleased that this Bill makes no exception for the Government, so that even it may not clone humans for any reason.

Prohibitive penalty for violation

Currently, the risks associated with human cloning are believed to be so great that virtually everyone agrees that these risks, in themselves, would justify a ban

Column: 432

on such experimentation. Considering the high risks of deaths and severe birth defects, not to mention the ethical and moral issues, the maximum penalty for violation of the Act of $100,000 and/or a jail term of up to 10 years does not appear prohibitive at all. In fact, this may be inadequate and should be increased further. For instance, in Australia, the maximum jail term for a similar offence is 15 years.

Therapeutic cloning allowed

Whilst the Bill bans reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning is excluded from the ban since the Bill allows human embryos to be developed outside the womb for up to 14 days.

Human embryonic stem cells have the potential to turn into every kind of replacement tissue a body could need. Stem cell research has thus raised hopes for new treatments and cures for debilitating diseases.

Just last Saturday, it was reported in the Straits Times that some researchers from the University of Kiel in Germany used a growth chemical and a patient's bone marrow containing stem cells to "grow" a replacement jaw bone in a muscle in his right shoulder. This was subsequently grafted into a gap left by cancer surgery to form the patient's new jaw so that he can chew and eat steak again.

Notwithstanding the enormous potential benefits from stem cell research, it remains a hotly debated field of study. The use of stem cells in research is hugely controversial for those who believe that human life begins at conception. On the other hand, proponents of stem cell research, such as Nancy Reagan argues that, "The theology of the few should not be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many".

Column: 433

Arguably, stem cell research is by and large still in its infancy. Virtually all experts agree that it would be a very costly and long hard slog to find cures using stem cells, with success by no means guaranteed.

Many companies pursuing cloning and cell replacement therapies have also gone out of business. In fact, I understand that the company that produced Dolly is also in the process of being dismantled. Some scientists also say it would be more practical to use stem cells from adults.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister at which stage are we in the area of stem cell research and how this compares with countries like the UK, Korea and Japan. What are our main sources of stem cells for scientific use? What is our success with harvesting stem cells from umbilical cords and adults?

The Bill has left the door ajar for therapeutic cloning by not banning it. Could scientist abuse the 14-day cut-off point specified in the Bill by feigning ignorance of the age of the embryos? This leads me to my final point which is on the strict monitoring and enforcement required.

Whilst US Presidential candidate, John Kerry, has noted that science should not be sacrificed for ideology, there should be strict monitoring of research projects which are open to abuse and unethical practices. We should prevent another Prof Shorvon-type case from occurring. In the Shorvon case, subsequent investigations by a Health Ministry panel found flaws in the system for monitoring the ethics of medical research. Similarly, I would like to ask the Minister if adequate safeguards have been put in place to monitor stem cell research and ensure that moral and ethical lines are not crossed.

Has a system of strict regulation and enforcement been set up? If so, what are

Column: 434

they? Who monitors such research to ensure there is no breach?The Minister should consider publishing some of these as practice rules and regulations to be issued under clause 22 of the Bill.

Undoubtedly, stem cell research is a powerful new science that can bring enormous hope. But, in the wrong hands, it is a recipe for horror. We should not close the door on therapeutic cloning which remains controversial but, potentially beneficial. However, at the same time, we must, besides banning human cloning, which is repulsive, take steps to ensure that allowing therapeutic cloning does not open the door for abuse by maverick scientists and researchers, and in the process devalue human life.

With these caveats, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, and will keep my delivery short.

Ever since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep, there has been a general sense of unease towards this scientific development. Instinctively, many of us squirm and ask ourselves, if and when, wouldhumans be next. Then, religious and civic groups, and governments all over the world quickly got to work, to ban, with varying degrees, further research on human embryos. There are so many ethical, religious, medical and legal issues surrounding cloning. I welcome today's opportunity to share some of my personal views.

The Bill will ban human or reproductive cloning while permitting research into therapeutic cloning. I think most people will not dispute the ban on human reproductive cloning. It is ethically and morally unacceptable to the general public. However, therapeutic cloning is much, much more controversial. It

Column: 435

involves altering genes in embryos to create a new genetic makeup. Here, the Bill stipulates that the human embryos used must not be more than 14 days old. The debate is whether it is ethical to create life in order to destroy it later in the course of research.

More than 50 countries, including the United States, have banned therapeutic cloning. However, some countries have changed their stance recently. In August, UK issued its first licence allowing scientists to use cloning techniques to create stem cells. In July, Japan has announced its intention to introduce similar legislation.The main reason for permitting therapeutic cloning is the promise it holds for medical cures. Therapeutic cloning offers hope to victims of heart diseases, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and many, many other debilitating diseases. There is growing support for therapeutic cloning and I understand that no fewer than 40 Nobel laureates have warned that legislation to ban therapeutic cloning "would foreclose the legitimate use of nuclear transplantation and impede the progress against some of the most debilitating diseases known everto man".

Nonetheless, the lives of human embryos are at stake here. They are used and destroyed in the interest of science for the benefit of third parties. It is so difficult to agree on when human life truly begins. Does it begin at conception, at 14 days or at birth?

Some scientists and religious leaders do not consider very early embryos to be fully human as the cells have not formed a single, individualised entity. Hence, in their opinion, medical research utilising embryos is morally acceptable.My scientific mind agrees with this as well. But when we look at our own children,

Column: 436

we know that, without a doubt, that their lives begin at conception.

To reconcile all these conflicting theories, I have settled on this: early human embryos are intermediate beings. They are not fully human yet, but neither are they simply groups of cells that can be treated like any other tissue samples. They must be treated withdue respect and consideration they deserve.

Let us look at comparative legislatures around the world regarding embryo status. In July, the European Court of Human Right ruled, and I quote from the July 9th issue of the Straits Times that, "... the issue of when the right to life begins was a question to be decided at the national level ... there was no consensus on the nature and ... status of the embryo and/orfoetus".

Thus, we must set our very own guidelines. We must ensure that they are humane and, at the same time, as unambiguous as possible. The 14-day limit is reasonable because after this period, the cells start to differentiate into tissue and organ cells. Therefore, I do not object to permitting research on embryos less than 14 days old.

Research on embryos is meant to benefit mankind and relieve suffering. Abhorrent acts such as cloning fetuses to extract organs or tissues, developing human embryos in non-human hosts and using non-human eggs to produce human embryos must be outlawed. Such attempts must be severely punished. I also support the ban on the export and import of any prohibited embryos and definitely the commercial trading of human eggs, sperm and embryos.

The Bill has addressed all these concerns and has stated the appropriate penalties. I agree with the proposed jail term of a maximum of 10 years for rogue scientists and their accomplices.

Column: 437

In my opinion, the Bill is balanced and forward-looking. It will benefit our patients, the medical and research communities and help keep Singapore at the cutting edge of scientific exploration.

With that, I conclude my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I propose to stop here. Mr Mah.