Missouri to vote on ban on human genetic engineering

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Mar. 04, 2006

The Elliot Institute, directed by anti-abortion activist David Reardon, and the "Coalition to Regulate Human Engineering and Human-Animal Crossbreeding" (which is the Elliot Institute and the Life Issues Institute) have put an initiative on the November 2006 ballot to amend the Missouri constitution to ban transgenics, cloning and human genetic engineering. The initiative is called “Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumanism, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People.” As resources on the the “mad scientists” that they want to stop they link to the IEET, the IEET’s Journal on Evolution and Technology, the World Transhumanist Association, Reason magazine, Peter Singer, and Nick Bostrom’s Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

Text of the initiative (for Nov 2006) to amend the Missouri Constitution, titled:

Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People

Section 1. Findings Regarding the Threat of Unregulated Human Engineering

1. Scientific discoveries and advances in genetic engineering have now made it possible to clone human beings, to genetically alter human beings for the purpose of eliminating disease or adding new biological features, and to create genetic hybrids using both human and animal genes.

2. Proponents of transhumanism, neoeugenics, and human engineering have proposed ideas that would drastically alter society in known and unknown ways. Among other proposals, proponents of human engineering have suggested the following:

1. the cloning or creation of modified clones that would be mutilated or destroyed to secure organ transplants for the benefit of the original cell donor;
2. the genetic creation of a half-human slave race to serve humankind;
3. the genetic creation of specialized humans who would be designed to undertake dangerous environmental or combat situations;
4. the design of a genetically “superior” super-race with the concurrent elimination of genetically distinct groups of average or sub-average human beings whom proponents of human engineering would classify as genetically inferior.

3. The use of genetic manipulations for the purpose of human engineering would have a profound effect on the structure and nature of families and society.

1. The meaning of human being, person, parent, child, sibling, and family, both in the law and in social relationships, may be profoundly and permanently disturbed by advances in technology that may replace sexual reproduction with laboratory engineering of human beings with gestation in controlled environments.
2. Gene enhancements may lead to profound discrimination, or even interspecies warfare, between normally conceived and born humans and genetically engineered humans.

4. The biological risks and moral implications of human engineering have not been fully ascertained nor is there a consensus among the public regarding the forms of human engineering, if any, that would best benefit society.

5. Mistakes in human engineering can cause irreparable injury to individuals which may be propagated throughout the human species risking injury to untold future generations unless the genetically damaged children are forcibly sterilization or killed.

6. With an increase in the spread of infections from animals to humans and vice-versa, threatening the public health, both domestically and abroad, the creation of human-animal crossbreeds, or chimeras, present a particularly optimal and dangerous means of genetic transfers that could increase the efficiency of transmission and the virulence of diseases threatening both humans and animals.

7. Because scientific advances relevant to human engineering are occurring at a remarkable rate, public discussion of these complex issues cannot lead to a consensus in a time frame sufficient to establish voluntary rules of compliance that adequately protect the society. Without statutory regulations governing human engineering, individuals and corporations with access to this technology can freely engage in human engineering which may result in profound harms to individuals and society.

8. By use of animal and plant species, valuable scientific advances in the field of genetic engineering will continue to proceed at a rapid pace. Human lives and human genetic material are not necessary to the development of the general techniques of genetic engineering.

9. Because of the complex moral, social, legal, familial, and economic issues involved, the decision to use genetic engineering techniques on human beings should not be left to the individual discretion of those who develop or have access to these technologies. These issues, and the conditions under which these technologies can be used, must most properly be resolved in the electorate and in the legislative bodies of their elected representatives.

10. Based on the above findings, it is the purpose of this Article to erect a general prohibition against any genetic alteration of human beings, destructive experiments on human beings, and the artificial creation of life forms containing human genes with exceptions for specific technologies that are hereby specifically approved by the people of Missouri or may in the future be approved by means of amendments to this Article.

Section 2. Definitions.

“Fertilization” is that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.

“Human being” is an individual living member of the species homo sapiens. The life of the individual human being begins at fertilization, but may also begin at the moment of monozygotic twinning or when artificial techniques are employed that result in totipotent cells that are substantially indistinguishable by experts in human embryology from sexually produced human life. A human being is a natural person under the law.

“Nascent human life” means an individual human being prior to birth.

“Human Engineering” means any intentional act that involves (a) the genetic alteration of human gamete material; or (b) a procedure that involves alteration of nascent human life, including but not limited to the alteration of cell structure, structures of cells, or genetic makeup, for any purpose other then the treatment of a known disease or injury of that individual nascent human life for the benefit of that individual human being.

Section 3. Prohibitions, penalties, and civil liability

(a) Except as specifically provided for in Section 4, human engineering is a crime against humanity and subject to appropriate criminal penalties that may be defined by the legislature and international law but shall in any case be not less than the penalties provided for aggravated homicide.

(b) Any human being whose gamete material or cells are used for human engineering in violation of this act shall be entitled to the greater of actual damages or $5,000,000 in statutory damages, plus attorney’s fees, and court costs.

(c) Any human being whose gamete material or cells are used as allowed in the exceptions provided for in Section 4, who did not give fully informed and free consent for the use of these cells or gamete materials for said purposes shall be allowed the greater of treble actual damages or $5,000,000 in statutory, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and court costs.

(d) Any human being, or his survivors, who was altered by an act of human engineering in violation of this Act shall be allowed the greater of treble actual damages or $10,000,000 in statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and court costs.

(e) In the event that the identity of the human being described in (b), (c), or (d) of this section can not be determined, any natural person may file the suit on behalf of the unidentified human being provided that 10% of any award of damages shall be paid to the person filing the suit and 90% shall be paid to the state’s treasury.

Section 4. Exceptions. The following are not prohibited by this Article:

(a) Any therapeutic procedure performed on a nascent human life that is intended to benefit that individual human being by correcting a genetic abnormality prior to birth;

(b) In vitro fertilization with unaltered human gametes wherein the resulting nascent human life is forthwith implanted into the womb of an adult human female with the intention of giving birth to a live born human child;

(c) Any therapeutic or experimental treatment performed for benefit of an individual human being using human stem cells extracted in a manner for which there is less than a one percent risk of significant harm to the individual human being from whom the stem cells are extracted;

(d) Any therapeutic or experimental treatment performed for benefit of an individual human being using stem cells extracted from a human embryo, in the blastula stage or within the first 30 days after cell division, provided all of the following are true:

(1) Animal experiments, and subsequent human trials, utilizing the technique for extracting embryonic stem cells demonstrate that there is at least a 70 percent chance that human embryo will still be viable after the stem cells are extracted and the embryo is forthwith implanted into an adult human female, where the viability rate is determined by the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence level calculated according to the appropriate statistical tests;

(2) the treatment addresses a disease that affects at least one in 100,000 persons;

(3) experimental tests of the same treatment on at least three species of mammals have demonstrated that the treatment resulted in at least a 50 percent cure rate in each of the three test species and involved no more than a five percent fatality rate, where the cure rate is determined by the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence level calculated according to the appropriate statistical tests; and

(4) no other treatment is available with similar or greater expected cure rates; and

(e) Any other procedures that may subsequently be defined by the people of Missouri through a constitutional amendment of this section.

Section 5. The provisions of this article are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this article is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

-------------------------------
Press Release - March 2, 2006

Human Engineering Ban Initiative Filed for November Election

Coalition Seeks to Regulate Genetic Alteration of Humans

Jefferson City, MO (March 2, 2006) – An initiative to amend the Missouri constitution to erect a preemptive ban on human engineering, defined as any act that genetically alters human gametes or “nascent human life,” has been filed with the Secretary of State’s office. The initiative is being put forward by the Coalition to Regulate Human Engineering and Human-Animal Crossbreeding.

According to Dr. David Reardon, a biomedical ethicist and spokesperson for the coalition, the proposed amendment will get the “loose cannons” in bioengineering, including some Nobel Laureates, under control. He includes among the “loose canons” those who envision creating human-animal hybrids, “super-babies,” and deliberately brain-damaged babies for use as organ donors.

“These proposals sound like science fiction, but a large group of influential scientists and businessmen are diligently working to turn them into our reality,” said Reardon, a resident of St. Charles, MO and director of the Elliot Institute, which has offices in St. Charles and Springfield, IL.

“These visionaries have signaled their intent to pursue radical biotech endeavors and earn billions through the creation of genetically enhanced ‘super-babies,’” he said. “They have the money, the brainpower, and the motivation to pull it off. Plus, in their rush toward patents and profits, they’re cutting corners. Worst of all, there is not a single law standing in their way.”

“The human genome is so complex we know Murphy’s Law will apply. There will be countless mistakes and unintended effects,” said Reardon. “Experts are already warning that experiments mixing human and animal genes are likely to speed the cross over of animal viruses into humans, like has happened with the bird flu virus.

“Despite these warnings, experiments in swapping human and animal genes continue. Waiting to stop these risky experiments until after a pandemic breaks out will be far too late for the millions who will suffer. ”

The coalition’s goal is to reverse the legal presumption that any experiments that involve altering human genes and human embryos that are not specifically banned are legal. The proposed initiative would erect a preemptive ban on nearly all possible forms of human engineering. It allows exceptions for only a few narrowly defined cases where a genetic manipulation is intended to cure a disease and the treatment has already been proven in animal experiments. Any further exceptions would require the approval of voters.

“Our proposal will allow and encourage ethical experiments with animals,” Reardon added. “But before these technologies can be used on people, scientists will have to come to the voters to convince us that using these technologies on humans is wise and beneficial.”

“The whole point of erecting this preemptive ban is that voters should have a say about which future biotechnology will take us to. The ramifications of these technologies are too profound to be left to individual decisions of scientists or biotech entrepreneurs. Voters should get the final word on whether these human engineering projects are good for society.”

The group is launching its first initiative in Missouri to capitalize on the state and national attention already being paid to the stem cell cures initiative sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

“With Missouri voters beginning to focus on the issues of stem cells and cloning,” Reardon said, “this is a great time for voters to start grappling with the larger picture of where we want to go with all of the possibilities that advances in biotechnology offer us. We’re not against progress, only against the short-cuts and loose cannons which guarantee disasters.”

While the initiative in Missouri is the coalition’s first effort, it is preparing to pursue this same strategy through proposed referenda, legislation, and treaties worldwide.

Organizations and concerned citizens who support regulation of human engineering are encouraged to become members of the Coalition to Regulate Human Engineering and Human-Animal Crossbreeding and can learn more about it at http://www.elliotinstitute.org.

# # #

Interested reporters and editors should contact:
Amy Sobie
Springfield Office
(217) 525-8202

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/missouri20060302/