Analysis: California's Current Cloning Law Allows Both "Therapeutic" and "Reproductive" Cloning; Sets Up Arbitrary Regulatory Committee

Dianne N. Irving
copyright October 26, 2004
Reproduced with Permission

INTRODUCTION

While many are frantically trying to figure out how to block the passage of Proposition 71 in California, most are unaware that human cloning is already legal in the state. All Proposition 71 would do is allow the citizens of the state to pay for it.

Although the California Cloning Law appears to allow only "therapeutic" cloning, a closer examination reveals that it also allows "reproductive" cloning as well because of the massive "scientific" and "legal" loopholes used. Every time a "definition" is used throughout this Law, the interpretation of that part of the Law will be affected.

In the analysis below I have attempted to point to just some of the major loopholes that allow both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning in this California Law. For quite extensive scientific references in support of my analysis, please see the article attached to this e-mail: "What Human Embryo? Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and Research". See also those in my detailed analysis of the Stearns Human Cloning "ban" currently pending in Congress, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_77stearncloningtale1.html. Both articles also quote extensively from researchers prominent in the passage of this current human cloning "ban" in California, and those currently supporting Proposition 71. All scientific references I use are in concert with the secular international nomenclature in human embryology, and thus are not my own personal "opinion", "prolife", or "religious". Let those who would use different "scientific" definitions prove them in writing to the people of California by publicly providing them with xerox copies of the pages from the human embryology textbooks from which they supposedly quote. The full text of the California Cloning Law is copied at the end of this analysis.

ANALYSIS

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1230_bill_20020923_chaptered.html

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 2260.5 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

2260.5. A violation of Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to human cloning, constitutes unprofessional conduct.

As with all legislation, the definitions used determine precisely what the Law will or will not apply to. If a Law does not specifically address something, then that Law does not apply to it. Obviously, the definition of "human cloning" in this Law is critical.

SEC. 4. Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

24185. (a) No person shall clone a human being or engage in human reproductive cloning.

1. Also critical is the definition of "a human being" and when it begins to exist, of which there is none in this Law. According to the California Stem Cell Report, as well as other documents used as background materials, there is no "human being" there immediately after cloning - nor even after implantation. There is just a "pre-embryo" or a "ball of cells". That is, there is "a human being" (human organism) there only if it has been "born". These are scientifically ridiculous definitions. And if following the NIH definitions posted on their "stem cell" information page (which is often quoted and referenced in the background materials), there is no "human being" there until "adulthood" (see NIH Director Varmus' Senate testimony on stem cell research). Thus neither "therapeutic" nor "reproductive" human cloning is really banned by this Law because of the use of scientifically erroneous definitions.

2. As defined in this Law below, "reproductive cloning" only includes one human cloning technique - nuclear transfer - and even the definition of that cloning technique is scientifically erroneous. Since no other cloning techniques are specifically articulated, and since the one cloning technique addressed is scientifically mis-defined, this Law does not prohibit the use of any human cloning techniques -- for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

3. Since this Law legally applies only to those entities and activities specifically defined, real "reproductive cloning" of real human beings, and their real implantation and development through nine months in utero, is not prohibited. That is: (1) because there is no specific definition of "a human being" and when it begins to exist, and because the this Law implies that "a human being" exists only after birth; and (2) because the definition of "reproductive cloning" in this Law specifically applies only after the entity's birth, then this Law does not apply to the real nuclear transfer human cloning technique properly defined, nor to any of the other numerous human cloning techniques, nor to any "entity" until it is "born" (or reaches "adulthood"?). This means that "reproductive cloning" can be performed in California through the nine months in utero during which the "entity" is developing - but it wouldn't legally be called "reproductive cloning", since according to the definitions no human being or "child" has been "born" yet. Hence, real reproductive cloning is not legally prohibited by this Law.

(b) No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human being.

(c) For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

1. Since there is no formal or scientifically accurate definition of "a human being" and when it begins to exist in this Law, and since "cloning" is scientifically erroneously mis-defined in this Law and addresses no other cloning techniques, then this Law does not really prohibit the purchase or sale of an ovum, zygote, embryo or fetus for the purpose of performing real human cloning -- for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

2. Furthermore, most cloning and genetic engineering to reproduce a new living human being is performed using just PARTS of cells (e.g., nuclei, pronuclei, chromosomes, genes, mitochondria, etc.). Since only whole cells are specifically articulated in this Law, the purchase or sale of cell parts used for human cloning and genetic engineering new human beings is not prohibited by this Law -- for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

(1) "Clone" means the practice of creating or attempting to create a human being by transferring the nucleus from a human cell from whatever source into a human or nonhuman egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.

1. This scientifically erroneous definition of "cloning" automatically leaves out of consideration "therapeutic" cloning, since "therapeutic" cloning by definition does not intend the implantation of the clone and its subsequent birth. Thus this Law does not prohibit "therapeutic cloning".

2. This definition of "cloning" applies only to the creation, implantation and subsequent birth of the entity - at which time it presumably becomes a human being. Therefore this Law does not prohibit real "reproductive cloning" as long as the "entity" is not "born".

3. This definition of "cloning" is in terms of "nuclear transfer" only. Therefore all other cloning techniques - e.g., pronuclei transfer, twinning, parthenogenesis, mitochondrial transfer, the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, nuclei, sperm and oocytes, nano-cloning, etc., are not prohibited by this Law - for either "therapeutic" or "reproductive" purposes.

4. This definition prohibits the transfer of the nucleus of a human cell, but does not prohibit the transfer of the nucleus of a non-human animal cell into a human "egg" cell or any other human cell (e.g., a totipotent human cell), thus producing a human/non-human chimera or a transgenic animal. Thus this Law would not prohibit the use of nuclear transfer to produce human chimeras and transgenic animals.

(3) "Human reproductive cloning" means the creation of a human fetus that is substantially genetically identical to a previously born human being.

1. This Law defines "human reproductive cloning" to mean the "creation of a human fetus". It does not even mention "a human embryo". Since the fetal period is from the beginning of nine weeks post cloning through birth, and since the embryonic period is from the beginning of cloning through eight weeks of development - in vitro or in utero - this Law would not prohibit real human reproductive cloning, the implantation of the human clone, and its growth and development through the end of eight weeks in utero. It would also not prohibit "therapeutic cloning" involving the development of the cloned human being in vitro, or in artificial wombs, for eight weeks.

2. The product of both sexual and asexual human reproduction is always genetically unique. Therefore the human embryo is never "genetically identical" to any other "born" human, previously existing or not. Thus this Law would not really apply to the reproduction of any human beings - sexually or asexually.

3. This Law would also not apply to the reproductive cloning of the cell of an embryo or fetus before birth, and the subsequent implantation of that second-generation cloned embryo throughout 9 months of development in utero - nor even after birth.

4. Even with "nuclear transfer", the mitocondrial DNA from the donor cell is left behind, and the foreign mitochondrial DNA is retained in the cloned embryo. Thus the resulting cloned human being would not have the same genome as the donor (since the genome is defined as the total sum of all the DNA in a cell, including the mitochondrial DNA). This is precisely why "stem cells" derived from cloned human being will cause a rejection reaction in the recipient. Thus this Law would not prohibit patients from being injected with genetically foreign stem cells derived from cloned human beings which would cause rejection reactions (and who knows what else) in the patients.

The department may adopt, interpret, and update regulations, as necessary, for purposes of more precisely defining the procedures that constitute human reproductive cloning.

This Law allows the "department" to create new "scientific" definitions as they see fit! Given the scientifically erroneous definitions already legalized in the State of California by this Law (for whatever purposes), and the horrendous consequences to its citizens if applied directly or as stare decisis, such a legal mandate is preposterously dangerous. If they can make up these scientific definitions to suit themselves, why couldn't they make up scientific definitions that apply to all the other fields of science?

Legislation should be grounded on the objective scientific facts, and those facts should be determined by the nomenclature committees proper to each scientific discipline, by those who hold valid academic Ph.D. degrees in those specific fields. Surely they shouldn't be determined by bioethicists, philosophers, theologians, politicians, or the average citizen with no Ph.D.'s in the specific scientific field. And in the list below, there are no requirements that any Ph.D. qualified human embryologists be involved in any way - as it has been with these issues for 30 years now. Why don't they want Ph.D.-qualified human embryologists around? We are looking at total intellectual chaos - which will translate into personal and societal chaos on a grand scale. The financial costs alone of these consequences will be tremendous. And this is already the Law.

SEC. 5. Section 24186 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

24186. (a) (1) The department shall establish an advisory committee for purposes of advising the Legislature and the Governor on human cloning and other issues relating to human biotechnology. The committee shall be composed of at least nine members, appointed by the Director of Health Services, who shall serve without compensation.

1. This Law allows the Director of Health Services to appoint members of an "advisory committee". No provisions are given to prevent any conflict of interests that such a Director might personally have, or prevent the Director from appointing only those members who would already agree with him/her - as often happens (such as in the 1994 NIH Human Embryo Research Panel appointments). This is neither democracy nor expertise in action; it is more like totalitarianism in action. Any "consensus" achieved would be a false consensus.

2. Note the phrase, "and other issues relating to human biotechnology". That means human genetic engineering - what all of this is really about. And after genetic engineering comes social engineering - as already explicitly stated and documented in the U.S.-supported report on "converging technologies". And such monumental decisions will belong only to the Director of Health Services and the members he/she personally appoints? Poor California.

(2) The committee shall include at least one representative from the areas of medicine, religion, biotechnology, genetics, law, and from the general public. The committee shall also include not less than three independent bioethicists who possess the qualifications described in paragraph.

This is classic "bioethics" language taken from 30 years of similar bioethics committees and panels. Seems to be a real indigenous level of experience with "bioethics" involved in the language of this Law. Thus not only will these "members" define anew the scientific facts as they see fit; they will also determine what is "ethical" based upon totally passe, utilitarian, and academically indefensible principles of "autonomy", "justice", and "beneficence" (which are defined in such a way in the Belmont Report that the average person wouldn't even recognize those terms.) Further, there is no such thing as an "independent bioethicist". They all have their own very significant conflicts of interests in this and related issues. And how many of those "independent bioethicists" actually have Ph.D.'s in bioethics - i.e., 60 formal course work hours of graduate level bioethics??? None. Their "expertise" lies elsewhere.

(3) The independent bioethicists selected to serve on the committee shall reflect a representative range of religious and ethical perspectives in California regarding the issues of human cloning and human biotechnology.

Having "a range of religious and ethical perspectives" does not change the objective scientific facts - which facts should be the basis for any Law or "ethical" opinion. And each of these "members" explicitly holds to very definite and different ethical "norms". That is, there is no such thing as a "neutral ethics"; such "ethics" take a stand on what is right or wrong - hence they even define themselves as "normative". Since in a truly democratic, pluralistic, multi-cultural society no one person's or groups' "opinions" should be forced on the rest of society - or state --, then why is it suddenly acceptable for this very idiosyncratic group's erroneous scientific or normative ethical "opinions" be forced on the citizens of California - of all places?

An independent bioethicist serving on the advisory committee shall not be employed by, consult with or have consulted with, or have any direct or indirect financial interest, in any corporation engaging in research relating to human cloning or human biotechnology. A person with any affiliation to the grant-funded cloning research programs operated by the University of California or the California State University is also prohibited from serving as a bioethicist on the advisory committee.

It is clear from many researched articles on the subject that many of those involved in creating and passing this Law, as well as those involved in trying to pass Proposition 71, are quite heavily involved financially with such research, and thus automatically creates quite serious conflicts of interests. And although this section prohibits any person with any affiliation, e.g., to the University of California or the California State University from serving as a "bioethicist" on the advisory committee, it does not prohibit such a person from serving on the advisory committee in a different capacity (e.g., as a "researcher") - such as Irving Weissman, who is known to have substantial financial ties with companies that would profit heavily from such research.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_253_bill_20020922_chaptered.html


BILL NUMBER: SB 253 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 789
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 22, 2002
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2002
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 30, 2002
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 26, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 15, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 12, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 17, 2001
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 5, 2001

INTRODUCED BY Senator Ortiz (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wayne)

FEBRUARY 15, 2001

An act to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 125115) to Chapter 1 of Part 5 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to medical research.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 253, Ortiz. Stem cells: human tissue: research.

Under existing law, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, sell, promote the transfer of, or otherwise transfer any human organ, for purposes of transplantation, for valuable consideration.

Under existing law, human tissue may be removed in certain circumstances from human remains for the use of the tissue by authorized donees, including, but not limited to, physicians, hospitals, and educational institutions, for transplant, therapeutic, or scientific purposes.

This bill would declare that the policy of the state shall be that research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be permitted, as specified. This bill would require a health care provider delivering fertility treatment to provide his or her patient with specified information. The bill would authorize a donation of a human embryo pursuant to specific requirements and would prohibit the purchase or sale of embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) An estimated 128 million Americans suffer from the crippling economic and psychological burden of chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.

(b) The costs of treatment and lost productivity of chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases in the United States constitutes hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Estimates of the economic costs of these diseases does not account for the extreme human loss and suffering associated with these conditions.

(c) Stem cell research offers immense promise for developing new medical therapies for these debilitating diseases and a critical means to explore fundamental questions of biology. Stem cell research could lead to unprecedented treatments and potential cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and other diseases.

(d) The United States and California have historically been a haven for open scientific inquiry and technological innovation and this environment, coupled with the commitment of public and private resources, has made the United States the preeminent world leader in biomedicine and biotechnology.

(e) California's biomedical industry is a critical component of the state's economy that provides employment in over 2,500 companies to over 225,000 Californians, pays $12.8 billion in wages and salaries, invests more than $2.1 billion in research, and reports nearly $7.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and would be significantly diminished by limitations imposed on stem cell research.

(f) Open scientific inquiry and publicly funded research will be essential to realizing the promise of stem cell research and to maintain California's worldwide leadership in biomedicine and biotechnology. Publicly funded stem cell research, conducted under established standards of open scientific exchange, peer review, and public oversight, offers the most efficient and responsible means of fulfilling the promise of stem cells to provide regenerative medical therapies.

(g) Stem cell research, including the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, raises significant ethical and policy concerns, and, while not unique, the ethical and policy concerns associated with stem cell research must be carefully considered.

(h) Public policy on stem cell research must balance ethical and medical considerations. The policy must be based on an understanding of the science associated with stem cell research and grounded on a thorough consideration of the ethical concerns regarding this research. Public policy on stem cell research must be carefully crafted to ensure that researchers have the tools necessary to fulfill the promise of stem cell research. SEC. 2. Article 5 (commencing with Section 125115) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 5 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 5. Stem Cell Research

125115. The policy of the State of California shall be as follows:

(a) That research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be permitted and that full consideration of the ethical and medical implications of this research be given.

(b) That research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be reviewed by an approved institutional review board.

125116.

(a) A physician, surgeon, or other health care provider delivering fertility treatment shall provide his or her patient with timely, relevant, and appropriate information to allow the individual to make an informed and voluntary choice regarding the disposition of any human embryos remaining following the fertility treatment.

(b) Any individual to whom information is provided pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be presented with the option of storing any unused embryos, donating them to another individual, discarding the embryos, or donating the remaining embryos for research.

(c) Any individual who elects to donate embryos remaining after fertility treatments for research shall provide written consent.

125117.

(a) A person may not knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.

(b) For purposes of this section, "valuable consideration" does not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implantation of a part.

(c) Embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue may be donated for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1230_bill_20020923_chaptered.html

BILL NUMBER: SB 1230 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 821
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 29, 2002
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 22, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 20, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 1, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 25, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 11, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 29, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 11, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 19, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 7, 2002

INTRODUCED BY Senator Alpert (Coauthor: Assembly Member Wayne)

JANUARY 7, 2002

An act to amend Sections 2260.5, 16004, and 16105 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 24185 of, to add Section 24186 to, and to repeal Section 24189 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to human cloning.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1230, Alpert. Human cloning.

Existing law, until January 1, 2003, prohibits a person from cloning a human being, and from purchasing or selling an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human being, and authorizes the State Department of Health Services to levy administrative penalties for violation of these provisions. Existing law, until January 1, 2003, further provides that violation of this prohibition constitutes unprofessional conduct for purposes of the Medical Practice Act, and requires city business licenses and county business licenses to be revoked for violation of the prohibition.

This bill would prohibit a person from engaging in "human reproductive cloning," as defined. It would also delete the January 1, 2003, repeal dates thereby extending the operation of the above provisions indefinitely.

The bill, in addition, would require the department to establish an advisory committee, composed of specified representatives, including not less than 3 bioethicists, for purposes of advising the Legislature and the Governor on human cloning and other issues relating to human biotechnology. The bill would require the department to fund the activities of the advisory committee from its existing resources, to the extent that funds are available.

It would also require the department, on or before December 31, 2003, and annually thereafter, to report to the Legislature and the Governor regarding the activities of the committee.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 2260.5 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

2260.5. A violation of Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to human cloning, constitutes unprofessional conduct.

SEC. 2. Section 16004 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

16004. Any license issued to a business pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked for a violation of Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to human cloning.

SEC. 3. Section 16105 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

16105. Any license issued to a business pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked for violation of Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to human cloning.

SEC. 4. Section 24185 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

24185. (a) No person shall clone a human being or engage in human reproductive cloning. (b) No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human being. (c) For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (1) "Clone" means the practice of creating or attempting to create a human being by transferring the nucleus from a human cell from whatever source into a human or nonhuman egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being. (2) "Department" means the State Department of Health Services. (3) "Human reproductive cloning" means the creation of a human fetus that is substantially genetically identical to a previously born human being. The department may adopt, interpret, and update regulations, as necessary, for purposes of more precisely defining the procedures that constitute human reproductive cloning.

SEC. 5. Section 24186 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

24186. (a) (1) The department shall establish an advisory committee for purposes of advising the Legislature and the Governor on human cloning and other issues relating to human biotechnology. The committee shall be composed of at least nine members, appointed by the Director of Health Services, who shall serve without compensation.

(2) The committee shall include at least one representative from the areas of medicine, religion, biotechnology, genetics, law, and from the general public. The committee shall also include not less than three independent bioethicists who possess the qualifications described in paragraph (3).

(3) The independent bioethicists selected to serve on the committee shall reflect a representative range of religious and ethical perspectives in California regarding the issues of human cloning and human biotechnology. An independent bioethicist serving on the advisory committee shall not be employed by, consult with or have consulted with, or have any direct or indirect financial interest, in any corporation engaging in research relating to human cloning or human biotechnology. A person with any affiliation to the grant-funded cloning research programs operated by the University of California or the California State University is also prohibited from serving as a bioethicist on the advisory committee.

(b) On or before December 31, 2003, and annually thereafter, the department shall report to the Legislature and the Governor regarding the activities of the committee.

(c) The activities of the committee shall, to the extent that funds are available, be funded by the department out of existing resources. SEC. 6. Section 24189 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_253_bill_20020922_chaptered.html

Bill Number: Sb 253 Chaptered Bill Text

Chapter 789
Filed With Secretary Of State September 22, 2002
Approved By Governor September 22, 2002
Passed The Senate August 30, 2002
Passed The Assembly August 26, 2002
Amended In Assembly August 23, 2002
Amended In Assembly August 15, 2002
Amended In Assembly August 12, 2002
Amended In Assembly July 17, 2001
Amended In Assembly July 5, 2001

Introduced By Senator Ortiz (Principal Coauthor: Assembly Member Wayne)

FEBRUARY 15, 2001

An act to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 125115) to Chapter 1 of Part 5 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to medical research.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 253, Ortiz. Stem cells: human tissue: research.

Under existing law, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, sell, promote the transfer of, or otherwise transfer any human organ, for purposes of transplantation, for valuable consideration.

Under existing law, human tissue may be removed in certain circumstances from human remains for the use of the tissue by authorized donees, including, but not limited to, physicians, hospitals, and educational institutions, for transplant, therapeutic, or scientific purposes.

This bill would declare that the policy of the state shall be that research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be permitted, as specified. This bill would require a health care provider delivering fertility treatment to provide his or her patient with specified information. The bill would authorize a donation of a human embryo pursuant to specific requirements and would prohibit the purchase or sale of embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) An estimated 128 million Americans suffer from the crippling economic and psychological burden of chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.

(b) The costs of treatment and lost productivity of chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases in the United States constitutes hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Estimates of the economic costs of these diseases does not account for the extreme human loss and suffering associated with these conditions.

(c) Stem cell research offers immense promise for developing new medical therapies for these debilitating diseases and a critical means to explore fundamental questions of biology. Stem cell research could lead to unprecedented treatments and potential cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and other diseases.

(d) The United States and California have historically been a haven for open scientific inquiry and technological innovation and this environment, coupled with the commitment of public and private resources, has made the United States the preeminent world leader in biomedicine and biotechnology.

(e) California's biomedical industry is a critical component of the state's economy that provides employment in over 2,500 companies to over 225,000 Californians, pays $12.8 billion in wages and salaries, invests more than $2.1 billion in research, and reports nearly $7.8 billion in worldwide revenue, and would be significantly diminished by limitations imposed on stem cell research.

(f) Open scientific inquiry and publicly funded research will be essential to realizing the promise of stem cell research and to maintain California's worldwide leadership in biomedicine and biotechnology. Publicly funded stem cell research, conducted under established standards of open scientific exchange, peer review, and public oversight, offers the most efficient and responsible means of fulfilling the promise of stem cells to provide regenerative medical therapies.

(g) Stem cell research, including the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, raises significant ethical and policy concerns, and, while not unique, the ethical and policy concerns associated with stem cell research must be carefully considered.

(h) Public policy on stem cell research must balance ethical and medical considerations. The policy must be based on an understanding of the science associated with stem cell research and grounded on a thorough consideration of the ethical concerns regarding this research. Public policy on stem cell research must be carefully crafted to ensure that researchers have the tools necessary to fulfill the promise of stem cell research.

SEC. 2. Article 5 (commencing with Section 125115) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 5 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 5. Stem Cell Research

125115. The policy of the State of California shall be as follows:

(a) That research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be permitted and that full consideration of the ethical and medical implications of this research be given.

(b) That research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, shall be reviewed by an approved institutional review board.

125116. (a) A physician, surgeon, or other health care provider delivering fertility treatment shall provide his or her patient with timely, relevant, and appropriate information to allow the individual to make an informed and voluntary choice regarding the disposition of any human embryos remaining following the fertility treatment.

(b) Any individual to whom information is provided pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be presented with the option of storing any unused embryos, donating them to another individual, discarding the embryos, or donating the remaining embryos for research.

(c) Any individual who elects to donate embryos remaining after fertility treatments for research shall provide written consent.

125117. (a) A person may not knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.

(b) For purposes of this section, "valuable consideration" does not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implantation of a part.

(c) Embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue may be donated for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Top