by Paulette Roseboro, Executive Director, African American Life Alliance

I come before this committee as a concerned citizen requesting that we debate and answer all the logical physical and moral questions involved in this process before there is any sanctioned continuation of research into human cloning. I fully support the idea which says, "just because we have the technological capability to do it, that does not give us the authority to interfere with the natural course of things".

Although many in the human genetic research field are saying that there is a vast difference between animal and human cloning, we are at a crossroad where we must stop and determine whether it is in the best interest of mankind to pursue a technology that has the potential of manufacturing sentient beings.

First, there must be a responsible answer to the question, "Why do we need to duplicate ourselves through cloning when there is a perfectly natural and effective method of population replenishment already in use by a vast majority of the world's inhabitants?" Conception has been extremely successful (since all of us here today are here as a result of that process). And for couples (or individuals) who cannot conceive, adoption has been proven also to be very effective.

Considering this, why do we desire to duplicate ourselves? We should take a lesson from our Creator. In His wisdom, He doesn't seek to duplicate His creation. He causes each person to be conceived with a unique body, soul, and spirit. He knows that it is from our individuality and uniqueness that we are able to work together and prosper and survive. Human duplication is solely for the sake of human vanity and no vanity is ever productive. However, vanity is expensive. Is it prudent or wise fiscal management to spend many millions or perhaps billions of tax dollars on cloning research and the subsequent manufacture of individuals (if a process is developed) when there is already a successful process in use--CONCEPTION?

In pondering this subject from another lay-person vantage point, I see a distinct difference between the material composition of the sperm, ovum, embryo, and mature cell. I see a distinct difference between conception of a new life and the manufacturing of sentient beings. Conception has been understood to involve a sperm and an ovum or a male of the species and a female of the species. The human experience starts with the union of seed material from a man and a woman since sperm can only be produce from the male and ovum from the female. The biological chemical reaction that causes the generation of a new and unique DNA pattern from the act of conception must, by sheer material foundation, be different from the results produced from the joining of two cells in the cloning process. Are cloned individuals covered by the laws of this country? Do the individuals manufactured from cloning and genetic engineering have an equality of rights as those conceived? If the answer to these questions are not unanimous among the conceived population, will the cloned individuals be covered by the various anti-discrimination laws?

Taking this further, as the African-American community becomes better informed about cloning technology, a growing concern has surfaced regarding the desirability of cloning material maintaining African-American DNA trait codes. Since our country has not healed itself of bigotry and racism, is it not unreasonable to conclude that social biases within the scientific community, dominated by whites, will influence research to duplicate individuals representing itself. By selective genetic engineering during the cloning process, afro-influenced traits would be replaced with the more desirable anglo-saxon traits. Or, will there be a desire to manufacture cloned individuals for domestic, athletic, and entertainment tasks maintaining the afro-influenced traits, enabling easy identification of the service-class cloned or manufactured individuals?

Has our lust for the authority to control life and death for our unborn children, our sick, and our seniors expanded to seeking authority over our genetic makeup also. What is our responsibility to individuals given life in the cloning process? After generation for experimental purposes and service in their part of the research project, can we consider embryos, conceived or cloned, as guinea pigs whose lives can easily be considered trash and tossed in a research lab's defective can for waste disposal. Does the shortness of their lives take away their humanity?

It is my desire that my appearance before this committee will encourage active debate on the matter of human cloning and its potential to unnecessarily bring suffering to individuals whose humanity will be in question.

I will conclude by saying that other than for the vanity of the conceived human species, cloning has no use in a society which cherishes the natural reproductive process of conception.