News

Public interest groups cite concerns about potential human reproductive cloning and involvement of disgraced cloning researcher Woo Suk Hwang

Three public interest and environmental groups are strongly criticizing a just-announced commercial dog cloning service. The Center for Genetics and Society, the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Friends of the Earth express concerns that the endeavor could make human reproductive cloning more likely; that a key figure in the venture is a disgraced cloning scientist; and that pet cloning causes unnecessary animal suffering.

The new dog cloning company was reported today in the New York Times and on Good Morning America, on which CGS's Associate Director Marcy Darnovsky appeared.

"Cloning our pets could bring us closer to cloning human beings," said Jaydee Hanson, Director for Human Genetics Policy at the International Center for Technology Assessment. "Human cloning is nearly universally condemned and is prohibited in more than forty countries. Yet it remains legal in most of the U.S."

"Many people consider pets to be part of our families," added Darnovsky. "If we get used to cute cloned puppies, will some people expect cute cloned babies next?"

One of the principal scientists involved in the new dog-cloning venture is Woo Suk Hwang, a stem cell and cloning researcher who is currently under indictment for fraud, embezzlement, violations of South Korea's bioethics law, and other charges.

Hwang was a celebrated researcher before it emerged that he fabricated data, embezzled millions of dollars in government funds, and improperly obtained eggs from women.

"The cloning field has had more than its share of scandals," said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth. "The Hwang affair has been called the biggest scientific fraud in living memory."

In every mammalian species cloned so far, each successful animal cloning requires hundreds of failures. Of the cloned animals that are born alive, many die shortly or during their first year of life. Those that appear healthy often wind up having serious problems.

"Pet cloning companies will show off adorable puppies and kittens. But they're not going to show us the ones who didn't turn out right," noted Hanson. "Top experts in animal cloning have said that there's never been a normal cloned animal."

The International Center for Technology Assessment (www.icta.org) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Washington DC. The Center assesses how technologies affect society and the environment and encourages progressive and responsible use of all technologies.

The Center for Genetics and Society (www.geneticsandsociety.org) is a public affairs and policy advocacy organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human biotechnologies.

Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org) is an environmental advocacy non-profit organization based in Washington, DC. Friends of the Earth promotes policies that ensure a healthy and just world, which includes careful governance of emerging technologies.

Contact:
Marcy Darnovsky
mdarnovsky[AT]geneticsandsociety[DOT]org 
510-624-0819 ext 305

Jaydee Hanson
jhanson[AT]icta[DOT]org  
202-547-5956 x 24

Gillian Madill
gmadill[AT]foe[DOT]org 
202-222-0733

Public interest group welcomes Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act as good first step

(This statement can be attributed to Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Associate Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society.)

President Bush's signing of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) is a welcome step. Americans can now take genetic tests with less worry that employers or health insurers might use the results against them.

But while the enactment of GINA is laudable, the new law falls short of fully protecting Americans' health and well-being in the DNA age.

On the plus side, medically necessary genetic tests are now far less likely to result in discrimination. Most genetic tests administered in a medical context are clinically valid - that is, their results are meaningful - and they often suggest useful medical interventions or behavioral changes.

Unfortunately, GINA may encourage people to take "direct-to-consumer" genetic tests that are now being offered and aggressively marketed by several dozen companies. These tests are quite a different matter.

Some companies offering at-home genetic tests make claims for which there is little scientific evidence: that the tests detect genetic variations for non-medical traits such as "hair loss" and "athletic performance," or reveal the optimum diet for your genetic profile, or tell the company how to customize a "scientifically proven anti-aging crème…just for you."

Several of the companies, including 23andMe, Navigenics and DeCodeMe, offer to scan your entire genome for variants they say predispose you to a range of conditions, from Alzheimer's to arthritis to obsessive-compulsive disorder. These whole-genome tests are marketed online at costs up to several thousand dollars.

This burgeoning commercial sector is developing without federal oversight or regulation. Although three U.S. agencies issued a 2006 fact sheet warning consumers to approach at-home gene tests with "a healthy dose of skepticism," no federal agency has stepped up to ensure their accuracy, their clinical validity, the truth of marketing claims, or whether genetic privacy will be maintained.

Though GINA prohibits discrimination whether a genetic variation is detected in a medical setting or at home, it does not address any of these problems.

In addition to potential harms to individuals as patients and consumers, the direct-to-consumer tests pose social concerns, such as the use of the vast amounts of genetic information being collected by commercial enterprises. People are paying to hand over their DNA samples to companies that will likely sell it or use it to develop new products.

Another social concern is that consumer DNA tests may feed the "gene myth," the exaggerated idea about the role of genes in individual identities and in society. For example, the tests could bolster false explanations of social and health disparities as the result of biology rather than of access to housing, education and health care.

The Center for Genetics and Society is a public affairs and policy advocacy organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human biotechnologies.
 

Contact:
Marcy Darnovsky
510-625-0819 x305

Jesse Reynolds
510-625-0819 ext 308