thanks for being here going to take a little bit more than five minutes for my opening statements because i first need to explain why are we here if these hearings were about al science has already created in enough national security issues for us foreign policy makers to deal with i science stopped now we could spend centuries working out the right international agreements but science is not stopping christine peterson a futurist points out if someone's describing their way to turn down the  t if someone's describing to you a picture of the future twenty five years from now and that picture looks like a science fiction movie then the description may be fal but if someone is describing to you a picture of the future twenty five years from now and it doesn't look like a science fiction movie you know it's faults we are going to be living in a science fiction movie we just don't know which one in particular science could very well create and by and i focus here in the scope of today's hearings focus on biotechnology super soldiers super intelligence super animals and of course just outside the scope of today's hearings supercomputers this is somewhat analogous to what science bequeath to policymakers in the middle of the last century nuclear weapons we will focus today on the possibility of using genetics and other advanced technologies for human modification or for other national security advantages in vance's in the field of genetics of provoking of course provide humanity with the possibility of great benefits and also complex issues when if ever should be permissible to utilize united technology not to alleviate suffering or to deal with a malady but to actually enhance normal human animals that are created what is the more ality of mixing human and animal d n a and what are the potential national security advantages either to ourselves ourselves and we may be constrained by all these concerns or the national security advantages to potential adversaries who might not feel similarly constrained the history of nuclear technology may be instructive though not exactly analogous on august second one nine hundred thirty nine albert finds that roosevelt a letter saying a nuclear weapon was possible six years later nuclear technology literally exploded onto the world scene only after the world saw the negative or risk affects of nuclear technology did we see the prospects for nuclear power in nuclear medicine and only two and a half decades after hiroshima did we get the n p t i don't know whether we will have two and a half decades from the day when these technologies have some explosive effect on the world scene two when we would need international controls it is quite possible i think probable before going to get any international call controls they need to proceed the development of the technology the and the development of these technologies is going to be different than nuclear technology the undeniable benefits of computer and d n a research are going to provide benefits long before the problematic possibilities become obvious their introduction of these technologies will be gradual not explosive the on the other side helping us deal with these issues is as i pointed out the fact that we have more than six years but having more than six years won't matter at all if we squander all the time between when i think we in this room are aware that these technologies may have dramatic effect and when the technologies are available to either the good guys or the bad guys in the world the easiest and cheapest thing that can be done with this subject is mockery if there are people who disagree with the concern as a voice i hope that they will not therefore these technologies will not be a problem that our scientists in the west would never make human and animal d n a would never engage in the derringer as experiments necessary to advance this technology that those with the technology are more will be constrained by morality need i point out that north korea has developed nuclear weapons not all technologies in the hands of a moral second what we're talking about today does not always in its first stages involve the kinds of moral questions that the whole western world would agree on will be limits on the use of human d n a what about animal d n a western scientists may not have the same compunctions the as these technologies go by the benefits of treating diseases will be so enhancing that these moral questions may be pushed to the side and the issue of implanting computer chips into humans something that technology is already beginning to do to treat diseases may pose far fewer moral questions than those that involve human genome we cannot assume that everyone in the world will reach the same philosophical and moral answers that we do when we don't know what answers we might reach rather we need to approach this issue assuming the opposite that in the absence of international consensus binding all nations some states will attempt to manipulate human genetics and use other technologies to gain some national security advantage if we do not develop some international consensus on controlling this technology if we end or if we fail to enforce any consensus that doesn't merge we can anticipate a world in iraq state or not such a rogue state or a non state actor would attempt to manipulate human genetics in ways that would horrify us but they may feel that they are gaining a national security advantage those who say that mankind would never mean if you late the genome for military purposes must read the writings of those who say that mankind would never unit pilate the atom for such purposes i have much more to say but it's time for these hearings to begin and i look forward to beginning to build a foundation for a what will be i think a at least a decade long process to build an international consensus on what limits there should be on this technology and what inspection or other enforcement regimes should enforce that consensus with that i yield to our ranking member mr royce thank you very much mr chairman and i i think we all concur that genetic engineering is going to have extremely profound social and economic and political impacts in the decades and the years ahead of us i think the problem is the human imagination is really stretched to comprehend the full implications of this and technology is developing so rapidly certainly far more rapidly than public policy discussions on this and certainly more rapidly than a consensus is developing about this so this hearing today i think will further that discussion and i think in reviewing the testimony i think the testimony is very good from our witnesses here is very farsighted and i think also that that new human longer healthier lives for the human race that's quite possible with this and on the downside negative traits could be promoted i think social norms and compac be destroyed i think the specter of cloning and human animal hybrids are certainly very alarming and in a sense this dichotomy is not unlike  another technology that we've struggled with in the sense of nucular energy because nuclear power provides a significant portion now of our energy in the future perhaps much more so at a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands some day i'll probably be a real calamity and i think one of our witnesses here is going to dry out that comparison and is going to suggest a treaty similar similar to the nucular  nonproliferation treaty in order to counter abuses of human biotechnology and i think that cheating and the international consensus on limiting genetic engineering it's going to be extremely difficult i think is going to be more difficult than the n p t consensus and that consensus unfortunately is fraying and i think the task requires overcoming some vexing moral and philosophical issues in a very diverse world in which the viewpoints certainly are not going to coincide all of them with our western view the autonomy of the individual and the rights of man and so forth but i think the international work that has been done mainly through the united nations so far on this issue is very preliminary and i think enforcement would be difficult it may be impossible meanwhile of course we watch this technology speed on and it's motivated by huge been taught but tensional impacts both for good and bad national regulation i think well far more promising has very limited effect in a world in which every more countries strive for advanced science and advances in technology and i think this technology in the hands of rogue states could be a very grave problem so i thank you again mr chairman and there are no easy answers but there rarely are concerning proliferation issues and we are dealing with the opening stages of a very grave proliferation issue and so thanks for holding this hearing i think  the ranking member i know none of us in of our districts have been asked at a town hall whether we're spending on the ft time dealing with this issue and that's why i want to think so many of my colleagues for being here for this hearing  is certainly undeniable but the growing emphasis on human gene therapy certainly represents one of the most momentous breakthroughs of the twenty first century however with this powerful technology comes a great sense of liability and accountability and while science has to come to the complex task of researching human genetic engineering onus of responsibility has been placed on the government it is our job to ensure that these tremendous medical advances are followed by an ethical application of such innovations in light of the war on terrorism and the age of nuclear proliferation it is very important that we understand that this new technology could very well be utilized numerous ways including those less honorable than the original intentions of science we're all familiar with the infamous island of dr moreau as well as mengele the nazi i don't even want to say physician nazi corrupt mind there is no more piercing example of what can go wrong no more piercing example of man's inhumanity to man and what took place in so many arenas especially during the nazi regime and no one what could go wrong more in terms of an evil standpoint than joe so mangled i would raise that specter as we move forward with this discussion so i hope that palace will speak today to the implications of this new technology and address what we need to do in terms of international agreements regarding the proper use of human  biotechnologies insights into any existing policies nationally or internationally would be particularly relevant it also would be very informative to hear from you o witnesses on how human gene therapy and human biotechnologies will contribute to the future of the arms race where there is a very direct connection there no specific questions i think that we certainly need to have before us what specific policies such as codes treaties protocols will be the most affective way and creating a set standards for nations and if and international governance body was created to monitor actions what individual nations have the responsibility of ensuring that ethical behavior is being followed or would the onus rests on the international body is very very important question here and finally nations have always prided themselves on a sense of diversity and uniqueness question becomes then how can we protect the individuality of intelligence while promoting the regularity of moral behavior let me quickly add that there are very real and yet undetermined consequences on our federal restrictions in our country and our satan ability to keep up with a world class embryonic cell research being performed in other countries qualify for federal funding and  cure will become available in their lifetime but then let's get back to the topic today we're here to discuss the international agreements concerning human biotechnology and i agree we should begin to think proactively about what might need to be done to address this future challenge but it seems to me it was to first have to develop globally acceptable norms and standards for human genetic research in its applications that can print future abuses how do we go about establishing international framework when each country develop a level of intelligence well beyond that of a human being and i thought i had given up the right to talk about that in committee when i left the science committee i was kind of waiting for somebody in article recently in democracy a journal of ideas which explore the idea of international controls on genetic technologies perhaps along the lines of the n p t i want to thank you for your article thank you for the testimony you're about to give and committee tremendous honor for me to be here i'm here testifying before you today because i believe as you do mr chairman that perhaps the greatest policy challenge of our time will ultimately be how we as americans and as an international community deal with our growing ability to manipulate our genetic makeup how we responsibly nurture and manage that power and how we negotiate some sort of international protocol to govern these new capabilities will play a significant role in defining our nations and our world security for generations to come and i might add i'm glad that there are so many young people in the audience here today because this is an issue that next generations will surely inherit although the prospect of human genetic modification is terrifying to many it is a reality and potentially a very positive reality of our future my essential point today is that as difficult as it will be to establish an international framework for maximizing the benefits and minimizing the dangers of this revolutionary advance we must supercharge our process for seeking such an outcome a completely unregulated international policy environment surrounding these promethean capabilities will ultimately d demise critically important research destabilize international affairs and potentially harm both our country and the human race at large given how far we've come to date it is inevitable that our ability to manipulate the human genetic code will steadily increase into the future this developments will have tremendous potential to help alleviate human suffering and improve our lives as a number of the members of the committee mention but it would be dangerously pollyannish of us to not recognize that the potential dangers inherent in these advances will also have the ability to maximally destabilize the international order unless we start thinking now about how we as a global community can work together to both unleash the promise the science and prevent the worst abuses it is sometimes difficult for those of us who support this work to be honest about the dangers because this honesty is often seized upon by those who oppose the research and its applications altogether nevertheless we must as we develop an ever greater ability to influence our genetic makeup scientists around the world will race to push the boundaries of what is possible standards across the globe the globe and within communities will continue to vary regarding what is acceptable as mr green has mentioned congressman green has mentioned and very importantly competitive pressures will push this process forward at work speed in today's increasingly globalising of world economy individuals corporations  states tirelessly seek even the smallest advantages over competitors that can then be leveraged into industry industry transforming gains it is extremely difficult if not impossible to believe that these types of competitive pressures will not also become drivers of the human genetic manipulation process advances in life sciences supercharged by competition will inevitably cause conflict within and between societies based on the inherent nature of this work and on differing attitudes towards it within society significant moral and ethical concerns related to such issues as an equal access treatment of an implanted embryos and genetic discrimination will continue to be debated heatedly between societies particularly those with very different views on this technology due to religious national or cultural differences major fault lines will begin to emerge in this context in this context states not engaged in or opposed to this work will have four basic options first they can do nothing and face competitive disadvantages and the consequences of genetic manipulation by others that could impact the species as a whole which won't be seen as a good option second they can start doing the work to quote unquote keep up with the joneses which is probably not acceptable for states with moral or cultural concerns and likely to start a genetic arms race sir and they can use coercive tactics to get others to stop which would be extremely destabilizing internationally and most likely futile given the ease of knowledge transmission and force they might develop a global governance structure to both maximize the benefits of this research and its applications and minimize the potential harms and imperfect solution but very likely the best option the challenge for the world therefore will be to figure out what type of global governance structure might work based on past efforts to negotiate an international agreement on human genetic manipulation in the un and in other forums which described in greater detail in my written testimony is clear that the lack of international consensus has thus far made meaningful progress impossible in this area that efforts in the un and elsewhere have so far amounted to very little does not auger well for concerted action in the future nevertheless it is in all of our interests to think about what such a structure might look like and what we might be able to learn from analogous models in this context one model as the chairman pointed out that might be particularly a play couple is that of the nuclear non proliferation treaty as you know the n p t has limited the spread of nuclear weapons by establishing a limit on which states can legitimately maintain such weapons and providing a set of incentives to encourage non nuclear arms states from following suit obviously as was mentioned the n p t has come under increasing strain and is far from perfect that said the treaty still boasts an overall impressive track record and could be a good starting point at least for thinking about how to prevent a genetic arms race are a number of common characteristics between the potential for a nuclear arms race and the potential for a genetics arms race a genetic arms race both deal with the implications of cutting edge technologies whose applications become increasingly accessible to the wider groups of people in states both represent capabilities that have enormous potential to improve people's lives matched by a similarly great potential to harm them both represent technological capabilities developed in more advanced countries that become desirable the world over what m t like framework for human genetic earing engineering look like first states possessing greater knowledge in the field of applied genetics we share basic science capabilities with states that agree to accept common protocols for human genetic manipulation because scientific standards will change over time we would second also need to establish an international advisory committee of experts and ethicists who could report of the latest global country by country developments and human genetic and nearing and regularly reexamine the basic tenets of the treaty including the list of abuses outlined in that which would be extremely tricky third those states that allowed violations of the treaty on their territory would be required to immediately stop violating activity or facing sions potentially including a limitation of their access to some of the benefits of the genetic manipulation process significant problems with this approach are clear which i have outlined in my written testimony but may not suggest a better course it is certainly premature  begin drafting a genetics abuse nonproliferation treaty today because the science does not yet exist to create designer babies based on meaningful human line germline genetic modification that many people are most worried about but as the chairman pointed out in your opening remarks that doesn't mean that we need to wait in order to move this process forward but my message today is that this science is moving extremely fast and that we must kickstart a national and global dialogue about a policy structure that can protect and promote important scientific advances while avoiding a self destructive genetic genetic arms race we may find this process takes us in an entirely different direction without any period any bearing to the n p t we don't know but we do know that the consequences of inaction will be great and that we must begin addressing this challenge with a whole a far higher level of tension than we are now affording it as a start i believe this committee could call for the establishment of a commission to explore the national security implications of the genetics revolution and how the united states and the world can best prepare to face the coming challenge far more will of course need to be done and i look forward to engaging further dialogue with members of this committee and the other experts on this panel regarding what the steps might be but i commend you mr chairman on this important hearing and your role in kick starting this critically important process for the future of our country thank you very much thank you but most of the topics this committee deals with there's plenty of information out there in contrast we're just beginning to get involved in this one and there is a journal on these know when the transcript of this hearing is available online i want to welcome richard hayes who is the executive director of the center for genetics and society and profit organizations working to encourage responsible use international levels of scholars scientists legal experts and with leaders in human and civil rights women's health social not nominee justice and the environment and again i really thank you for opening up this issue and holding this hearing i've been asked to address the question is there an emerging international consensus on the proper uses of the new human genetic technologies while countries differ widely in the policies they have adopted and i believe that in regard to the most consequential of these technologies the answer is yes the new human body that biotechnology is have the potential for both great good and great harm if used responsibly they could lead to medical advances and improve health outcomes is misapplied they could exacerbate existing disparities and create new forms of discrimination and any quality they could open the door to new eugenic practices and ideologies that would undermine the foundations of civil society and indeed our common humanity in combination with the emerging technologies such as nanotechnology n technology and synthetic biology they could put agents of unprecedented lethal force in the hands of both state and non state actors our organization has surveyed human biotechnology policies throughout the world including all hundred ninety two countries as well as binding conventions and declarations produced by the united nations the european union sco the world's anti sports doping agency the council of europe the african union the world health organization and the group of eight and i believe this reviews supports the following general conclusions first there is widespread support for stem cell research involving embryos created but not used in the course of assisted reproduction procedures there is similar widespread support for the use of genetic screening techniques to avoid passing serious diseases to one's offspring second there is widespread widespread support for prohibitions on reproductive human cloning inheritable genetic modification and genetic screening for non medical purposes third there appears to be widespread concern about the use of genetic technologies for so called and handsome and purposes concerned about the commercialization of human reproductive activities and concern about international trafficking in human genetic materials fo policies differ concerning the creation of clonal human embryos for research most countries that have adopted positions on this practice have prohibited it but a significant number support it now it's instructive to note that of the thirty o e c d member countries which together account for eighty four percent of world g d p and have the most fully developed biotech research sectors ninety seven percent of banned reproductive cloning eighty three percent banned inheritable genetic modification and seventy seven percent have banned genetic screening for non medical purposes none have explicitly approved these practices and of those few that haven't yet taken formal policies the all the indications are they would be opposed to these practices so this record is encouraging but it's important to note that the majority of countries worldwide have not yet adopted any policies at all on these technologies this policy deficit is an open invitation to rogue scientists and delusional demagogues if what i believe is the emerging policy consensus is to be meaningful all countries will need to be part of it in one manner or another thousand two proposal by a number of note legal scholars for a convention on the preservation of human species and other proposals so a productive next step might be to commission a high level task force with representation from a full range of concerned constituencies to undertake a comprehensive assessment of these and other options for global oversight now development and enforcement of such a global global agreement says the number you mentioned is not going to be easy the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable uses are often unclear people are understandably reluctant to forego prospective benefits without good reason and in a world still afflicted with racial cultural and nationalist conflict some will want to use these technologies for aggressive purposes these challenges are serious but if we can mobilize the needed social and political will there is no reason the cannot be met so in my remaining minutes i want to mention what i believe may be the single greatest obstacle  mobilizing the needed social political will in many countries the debate over policies a gret addressing human genetic technology has become and meshed in the politics of the culture wars in the united states the result has been stalemate and a policy vacuum at the federal level and hastily conceived programs at the state levels at the international level the result has been stalemate and avoidance opinion surveys however show broad support for what might be called a principled middle ground position consider that considering these concerning these technologies the majority of people in america and in much of the rest of the world do not necessarily oppose medical research involving human embryos but they strongly reject reproductive cloning and the engineering or selecting of the social traits of future generations so the issues raised by the new human genetic technologies transcend conventional ideological divides many women's health advocates oppose such technologies that put women's health at risk and commodify reproduction human and civil rights leaders are wary of a new free market eugenics that could stoke the fires of racial and ethnic hatred disability rights activists charge that a society obsessed with genetic perfection come to regard the disabled as quote mistakes whose existence should have been prevented and many environmentalists say human genetic modification is another hubris to technology being promoted with little regard for long range consequences similarly it is misleading to try to categorize countries as either liberal or conservative based on their positions are human genetic technology and western european countries widely regarded as bastions of secular liberalism have adopted some of the strictest regulations over human genetic technology in the world and this derives from their generally social democratic political culture and from their firsthand experience in the twentieth century with eugenics euthanasia and the holocaust europeans know all too well what can happen when idea ologies and policies that valorize the creation of genetically superior human beings come to the fore for different but related reasons developing countries such as south africa vietnam india brazil have likewise adopted strong policies of social oversight control despite many statements the contrary the genie is not out of the bottle i sincerely believe we have the time in the capability to get ahead of the curve and do the right president of the center for policy on emerging technologies here in washington d c in one nine hundred eighty three dr karen established the journal of ethics and medicine which focuses on the ethical assessment of new issues and technologies in medicine in bio science dr cameras current research focuses on the ethical and policy aspects of cloning then a technology human enhancement that had a chance to get to know dr cameron over the last several years focusing on these issues look forward to hearing from them thank you very much mr chairman it's a privilege and honor to be here and not least indeed to be supportive of your initiative in raising and raising these crucial questions in this context my research concerns are most of most of my life have been focused on the implications of emerging technologies we tend to c these discussions ethical discussions i think it is most significant that we see the most policy discussions and that is one reason why my major concern in this entire enterprise is to mainstream this conversation which is why i think to find this conversation taking place in this committee is of particular importance it's nowhere more the case that in the context of the asymmetric threats confronting us in the twenty first century that we find the importance of bringing the conversation about the future of emerging technologies and the social significance into the political and the policymaking mainstream in fact the implications of emerging technologies especially in relation to the increasing speed of progress and their tendency to converge  will frame essentially every major policy discussion of the twenty first century to the extent that we choose not to be cognizant of this fact which by and large our political establishment our policy makers have not been called isn't  focused elsewhere we raise significantly the risks involved not simply risks with security risks sort of model rest but also investment for us technology risks in europe of course because of the g m o food experience it's far easier to commodity hearing in policy circles for this conversation than it is elsewhere in the world but there's a salutary lesson there in the common interests both of the business community and if you like the moral and political community in raising these issues and in providing the kind of ballast which mainstream conversation then provide it's been suggested that the transformative impact of emerging technologies is best understood in the context of the convergence of technologies and in particular to use  several substantial documents of this youthful national science foundation in recent years the first was published in two thousand and two under the title converging technologies for improving human performance and this report suggests that the chief goal of convergence its improvement of the performance of individuals and of the community engaging a fundamental change in human capacities and that's why i want to focus my remarks this morning essentially on the significance of may prove to be the single most significant question to be discussed in the twenty first century will be the way in which the human brain is being unable to interface with machine intelligence and therefore damaged by its use and known by its use become science and engineering technology establishment who take these questions enormously seriously and in some cases who seem to have an susie essman for this particular application of these technologies but it has been very much in the mainstream of conversation within that community and i think that is helpful if we are seeking to bring this into the mainstream of the policy community now dramatic claims have been made for what may come from these technologies  community that we are about to enter a golden age these little now new things and the technologies that assemble to manipulate them nanotechnology will revolutionize our industries and our lives less modest projects sions referenced indeed in that n s f report and other documents have included and i'm not making this up i have included something akin to eternal life and also an end to scarcity and in principle attempts to monitor or repair elements or disabilities some of these technologies can see maltais needs to be used to control or and harms particular human characteristics and of course and he's widely noted as say some of the tories as say why the future doesn't need us technology to build your profit alternative scenarios to do either unintended disaster or intentional enhancement which will bring about a fine to the end of human nature as we know it the international significance of these sought to develop a european framing of these questions which was not so focused on the optimistic assumptions of human enhancement and more concerned about the enhancement of human experience in the human community is the goal of these technologies observation it's not necessary to take any particular view of the merits of individual uses of these technologies and i'm not for this purpose taking any particular view myself to recognize that the fundamental question we face is how we can wait the significance of these questions re weight the significance of these questions of course one can understand the political arena the sort of matrix in which political ideology comes together with the weighting of individual questions and i think we need a fundamental re waiting of the significance of the questions raised by these technologies in order that but here in the united states where of course we are still far and away the global leader in the individual technologies themselves conversation which of course will be central to our economy as well as security but also to the social order thank you very much thank you without objection the full written statement submitted by all witnesses will be included in the record together with the materials prepared for these hearings by c r s and the library of congress together with a speech i gave to  the world congress on health information technology and together with any other materials submitted by witnesses or by members in the next ten legislative days with that we'll move on to our final witness dr paul billings who is a board certified internist and a clinical geneticist and serves as president and c e o so point diagnostics inc dr billings experience lies with diagnostics in medical care an article i wrote nearly a decade ago outlining the problems with germ line modification and without objection the attachment will also be part of the record i'm also here as a director of the council for responsible genetics the oldest watchdog in biotechnology organization which is based in cambridge massachusetts and is an incoming member of the secretary's committee and you know much help in society science is a hopeful  creative human activity it is crucial that scientific freedom not be fettered on reasonably or on the sara lee in fact we should cherish scientific freedom and look for ways to unleash science and scientists more insights an advancement should be nurtured for a whole range of demanding human concerns even reforms in our policy in law generating practices to accommodate more easily and quickly proven scientific fact should occur they are likely  system that produces more rational appropriate legislation and other historical systems we will slide over the course of human culture and history i only point out to the committee that the translation of genetic science into d forensics has allowed for the identification of new ways of identifying people who have committed crimes but also has revealed that we've unjustly convicted people in the past so  we need more examples of how science when applied when good science when applied can change our lives so what is good science well even more important than the uniqueness of its discovery component is the rigor applied to the design of experiments the critical view of the purported facts generated by applied message and the absolute necessity for independent and multiple verification of results but researchers open this publication sharing and professional societies verification across labs geographies and other sources of variability are all essential to good science and for the production of true and applicable scientific fact any consideration of international scientific policy must first enforce values and principles that will enhance the production of good and reliable science where the applications and limitations of scientific facts are sought and made known what is possible particularly in the biotechnologies as a famous physicist neils bohr once said to have noted forecasting particularly about the future is difficult but we can what can be said reliably is that the conduct of basic research in the human via technologies now more common than ever before is produced by more skilled and motivated scientists and that its patient accomplishments are dizzying the speed that we have accumulated basic knowledge about the kimonos over genes cells and bodies and then the creativity demonstrating taking the core information and manipulating it and the methods used to produce it into a hypothesis studies and hopefully in scent progress are breathtaking take for example my own interest in circulating tumor cells and their role  cancer we've known that cancer spreads but we've never had a tool to identify the motive that spread we've just invented tools now to show how the tumor spread through the blood this sequencing of human genes in genomes isolating and studying stem cells imaging measuring and modifying aspects of human brain behavior easy manipulation of genetic materials creating new solutions to biological other problems with sunsets and synthetic biology programs these are all now possible projects of biological in biotechnology inquiry and are underway as scientific methods for these and other programs are created and mixed with the rapidly evolving protocols in engineering the potential to translate some of this basic science work into attempts by scientists physicians and other components of society to alter the human germline engage in reproductive cloning create protect national insist might be attempted techniques that may provide benefits like those employed in prenatal and preamp plantation clinical settings could be perverted to some eugenics or instrumental aim for instance and there are of course many examples of this the use of ultrasound during pregnancy has improved the health of many fetuses and mothers while also resulting in the abortion of millions of female conceptions worldwide despite that's fact success or even socialist programs on a significant scale is generally unlikely but attempts may be made in an intermediate but unfortunate comes could occur even endorsement by powerful government elements of such programs is conceivable we must consider carefully how to lessen the probability of these occurrences and resulting harms how should we proceed first we must reemphasize the great value by technologies for societies with very little history of respect for individuals and that includes our own this will be likely generate new power and respect for all individuals i would only point out that the recent passage of the genetic non information on this criminalization act is an example when you add this the civil rights legislation and protection for example this law to modernize us and broadens our traditions to include an inclusion acceptance of individuality and human difference scientists and community and sides of can be should be more transparent about how projects are created funded and how individual scientific careers are motivated and incented conflicts of interest political cores and other differences in international scientific cultures should be well known what when scientific facts and methods are translated to human societies particular base powerful basic biotechnologies multi to some areas multi disciplinary assessments and approaches to study should occur it is very interesting development that research groups comprised of basic and applied scientists engineers social scientists with a story and others are now common in many biotechnology investigational settings in the developing world this development may help curtail premature application and point out more limitations of knowledge or potential for misuse in balancing other human values with the goal of fostering scientific insight and progress international pausanias laws may be necessary to generate some uniformity that should be only pursued after a significant study by multiple broadly constituted bodies and the determination of need it should be clear that while prohibiting methods and applications may be necessary individuals who are suffering may find relief delayed by these actions this is a harm to and should be minimized finally as biotechnology is gain more momentum in discovery development the delivery in our society and as we consider policies to control the inevitable ways these powerful insights will alter how we consider human life we should emphasize in a national policy to traditions that are codified in the un charter and other global documents first that citizen where those individuals or patients or research or adjustments are in other ways and gauging the applications of science is paramount their knowledge and consent are required our ability to alter aspects of human life by technologies needs to be matched by powerful new ways to assess safety and optimize this crucial value then after we are sure our neighbors that scientific facts and applications are safe we must strive to deliver them with equity to all those who need or desire them mr chairman and members only when science is allowed to be fully creative in international environment of optimal human safety and act with the builder of the of needed progress with the great potential of advances in biotechnology to be realized w brought in careful study novel policy crafting and a healthy sense of how scientific knowledge is how limited scientific knowledge is how unlikely bad translations are along with a recommitment to all those who are in need into better monitoring of harms good science policy and goods science will rise thank you thank you and though some of our witnesses may be thinking they'll be out of here soon but we will do probably more than one round so doctor he's put forward the idea that there are at least some areas where we have an international consensus and that one of these is not to affect permanently the human genome another words not to change somebody's genetics in a way that will be inherited by their offspring and yet i can imagine someone who is has taste sacks or sickle cell saying hey wait a minute virus skin carry in each of my cells a genetic patch that solves  one of those diseases permanently changes my genetics frees me from the effect of the diseases that would be good and if it also works for my offspring that's even better  there a consensus that any medical treatment that affects not only the patient but also their offspring is is is is out of bounds reason well you know this question always comes up knowledge discussions and actually the example given it's really the most common is fortunately one in which we have i don't want to use the term technical fix but where the existing practice really does unable couples at risk of passing on a genetic disease to avoid doing so and this is the practice of pre implantation genetic screening so it is possible if there's a couple who has a low that there are a couple of things there first that involves what some would consider an abortion and second what if as an inherent byproduct of treating someone who  has sickle cell anemia you don't have a choice if you're going to affect the cells in their body are going to affect all the genes including their reproductive glands and  you will inevitably affect their offspring is there a consensus against a treatment inherently effects sprin you may have an adult who's suffering from this disease and there's a treatment and the person says hey i don't know if i'm ever going to have any kids or not i want to just get treated but oh by the way don't deny me the of eggs and sperm and in fact that can be precluded in the course of any of those therapeutic treatments so this is one of the areas where fortunately we have a way to proceed that should meet many of these concerns i have to knowledge thing you seem to indicate there was consensus on is that we shouldn't be using this technology to try to sow lacked which embryos are allowed to develop for the purpose of improving the species and yet you just suggested selecting the embryo without sickle cell instead of the embryo with sickle cell right one hand and using genetics to try to breed a a slightly more optimal human being well get this is one of the areas where there are some questions fortunately the gray areas  rather few on this though we have to acknowledge they do exist in most cases the kinds of conditions you can select for through prenatal or implantation diagnostics are single gene defects which are of the nature of their disease the r severe impairments it's difficult if not impossible to select for social characteristics or for complex characteristics that you need to select from more than one gene to have any real effect on that so again we're in fortunately we're in a fairly good position on that there are gray areas and as a number of folks mentioned we would need some sort of you know federal agency or commission that does make rulings on exactly those gray areas but this is what countries have already done and have confidence we can do that whether a child not only one that doesn't have taste x and use genetic screening to pick the embryo with a sax but perhaps the one that doesn't need glasses or the two different ends the use of this technology to solve the problem of disease is highly controversial i'm not arguing a case on their behalf of lines of these groups but my point is if you're looking for a way to build consensus which is the assumption of this conversation i think that that that that is a minefield and if we can find a way to avoid that minefield we should but it's the same time a case like sickle cell anemia which we were just discussing i'd like your views on whether you you because the the the embryo screening questions are so controversial i think there will be huge pressure to in engaging in german marshall pressure as you say well conversion but i mean the political pressures to engage in  changes to deal with inheritable diseases because that will prove a lot less controversial than these embryo interventions and so i'm not a sanguine as my good friend rich hayes as to the capacity of the international community minutes on that on that question because and he's written remarks dr mitchell said an international advisory committee of experts and sources who would report yearly on the state of development the field of human genetics engineering globally and country by country could be developed and i was wondering does united states have an interest in being overseen by an international committee where the viewpoints would be composed of individuals representing countries with very different viewpoints and i just i just wonder about the  t concept here that that's being advanced i work to try to make the m b t work but you know if we start to get into the countries that have basically international solution let me try to address the two questions the one that you raised in the very beginning just asking my viewpoint on the comments that were just made and then this i also would respectfully screen out the taishan forte sex or whatever down syndrome and the line between that and making the leap towards selecting for desirable traits and he's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to draw that line because all of us have lots of mutations of all types that's the very underlying principle of human diversity and as we have more and more information that we're able to read through the p g d process and the d n a analysis that comes with it we're going to have a choice of which mutations are we choosing are we selecting against and the flipside of that is which are the mutations that we are selecting for and as i mentioned in my testimony driven by global competition so that whatever we decide to do as a country other countries are going to make different choices that's going to be and really supercharge this debate and even now days for research purposes in the debate in singapore that's happening right now there are published articles where people are saying for singapore in order to maintain our competitive position in the world and they have been very competitive in the matter of fact they're so competitive that lots of our top side senses are leaving the united states and going to singapore to work in a more permissive environment for them to reach that point they need to be as or more permissive than britain so whatever we do as a country competition is going to drive this process forward and i certainly agree with the gist of your question about my proposal that it would be extremely difficult to maintain how we would have a can absolutely develop and get everybody to sign right now and then so i think it would be absolutely difficult as i said in my testimony i'm not sure that this is the best approach is only the best approach that i could think of but i think that we need to have some kind of consensus about what are the red lines and that means that it's not in our conversations it's not going to be somewhere in the absolute middle if you put all of the countries of the world together because the countries like singapore like britain that are pushing ahead on this they're going to say we don't want to be part of this if it's going to be used to clamp down on things that we believe are in our interest and that we want to do so it's going to have to be a pretty permissive structure but one that identifies  are the for what is the worst abuses and then can police who is going beyond those red lines but it's certainly would be extremely difficult and lastly just ask what other countries are involved in this type of where's the infrastructure developing for a number of places israel has south korea of course is extremely aggressive in these areas we all know about the experience a couple of years ago of dr  and what happened with dr wong it pointed out a couple of things obviously the big story that was reported was that his his research process he's were flawed but another story that i think was was critically important was that the debate in korea was very around the experience of dr wong and the reports of human cloning was very different from the debate we would have had in the states there people were upset because they were hoping that dr one would be the national champion and win the nobel prize there weren't the kind of moral debates that we would have had here as a matter of fact there were national religious leaders who were calling on korean children to stop using wooden chopsticks and start using metal chopsticks so they could be part of early training for how to be involved in genetic engineering activities in the future it's just there are enormous cultural and national and religious differences that are really going to drive this process and that's why finding some kind of international consensus where we can say there are some things that are going to happen elsewhere in the world that we may not be fully comfortable with the we're going to have to accept but in exchange for that we're all going to determine what are the outer red lines that we don't want to cross because doing so will harm our species as a whole that i see is the essential challenge thank you quickly one approach completely different from the involved in these hearings is for us to just usa usa and figure that the world belongs to the genetically enhanced and we want to be first with the most  the next century may not be inhabited by exactly humans but at least one it is it will be of our creation i hope i can get my hair back under that scenario tell me about it thank you mr chairman i am very glad that we have this setting to discuss this crucial set of topics  as i've contemplated this issue in the past it's not a matter of what we were able to do but there are the challenges of the wisdom that we bring to the issue  some scientists have approached me and some of these discussions that we should never ban any form of excess of experimentation and my reply to them has been that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty some restrictions on primate testing and human testing there are experiments that we have by agreement banned there are cultural differences and norms but over a multi century period we have by and large abolished slavery have come to agreement that some forms of behavior outside the bounds i have a little bit of a scientific background i'm strongly pro science but i think i've come to  better appreciate with time the limits of knowledge versus wisdom and the difference between the two and i wonder whether we would have a better world or a worse world if we had come to nuclear power five hundred years from now now circling that it seems to me that we are on the edge of one of the great challenges of our era there's a question about why there aren't more intelligent species around and one theory is that they don't last very long and right off the top of my head these are things that i think we are in part paid to think about threats to human long term survival identifiable today would be potentially an all out nuclear exchange self induced radical climate change that somehow radical police unforseen consequences and intentional genetic manipulation those would be the top three on my list are a couple of out of the other things we talk about now you all have addressed the gene line issue but i want to move the red zone or at least look at something that you all have not identified as in the red zone and there is research and that is because there is read yours research going on right  and on embryos that are intentionally created for scientific research purposes now as a supporter of stem cell research i have viewed this as a troubled ethical territory but if the choice is between the trash bin and the laboratory a spare embryo if you will  that was created for other purposes is between the range of choices it's an appropriate choice in my view to use that embryonic tissue for stem cell research i am deeply troubled and i'm wondering if any of you all of the witnesses are deeply troubled with the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes and what i view as the mis selling of that technology by proponents as that will lead to the cure in very simplistic way it made lead to cures for various things but not in the way the general public thinks of it the method is more likely to be the creation of intentionally flawed human tissue as a test bed for the study of disease mechanisms just as we have genetically uniform ice as a test bed for study and if the public were focused on that would we meet be more concerned and should we need be more concerned the intentional creation of human embryonic tissue for experimental purposes i think it's all over when the homes are said even a dog can tell intent even a dog can tell the difference between slightly outside of the redzone what you all have been addressing place go ahead brief comment in fact i was at the bio conference in san diego earlier this week to back last night the british government my former i've been in the what interested me was that the scientists from the u k it was done the first ever came erich embryo research successfully and he actually said agreed with me that in twenty years time it's unlikely people be using embryos for research he said he thought the science would move on and he is the person doing this work so it isn't this problem may solve itself some technical developments in the fact that time just like everybody else try to avoid controversy but i my personal view is it's a shame that we have been so preoccupied with the embryo question is not because i don't care about embryos because i'm conservative on the embryo but because this is distracted us from all these other questions which will affect all of us but i think the main we let that we will let let one more response but i want m be able to ask his questions before we have to go to vote quick response from one more with this quick response and just as nigel identifies himself in good faith on the pro life side i would identify myself on the pro choice side the interesting thing here is there are some very interesting conversions so there are differences as well and so congressman in response to your direct question let's say i too would support an organization for the use of surplus human embryos for experiment for reasons we don't believe theologically that the embryo is identical of human person but do have concerns about the creation of the intentional creation of human embryos specifically for experimental purposes because of the objectification and the things i could open up in terms of the misuse thank you dr hayes let's move on community with if you like a functional view of a large segment of troops which people can come to from very different perspectives and interests me that the unesco declaration on human rights and bioethics which is the one global instrument quick question before the vote i don't know what the nature of truth itself fits into that category but i would say you have over three minutes but i when you understand the question i do understand and and that's the hard issue for this is there are different scientists as i was mentioning before different cultures different countries that are all coming at this issue with different perspectives and there may be basic scientific truths that underlie the science and those are those i think many people or nearly everybody would agree but how those two can be interpreted what the context in which is in which those truths can be considered is entirely different and that's that's the challenge of building some kind of another that you're trying to find a standard that's what you try to find a standard but it's a standard that recognizes the difficulty is that it recognizes that so many people are coming at this from so many different perspectives and  hayes said the challenge for all of us is to find what are the common denominator trying to find some boundaries boundaries and and if even if everybody doesn't agree on every basic premise defined what are the areas in which we can agree means look at this this chart here you can see that there are some that when you go down this list although i would have some some questions about some of the categories you can just see things go straight down and the things reproductive cloning is the area where there is the greatest amount of consensus although i would say that there's not it's not one hundred two hundred ninety seven to zero and if you go down there are things that are more controversial so we need to find what are the areas in which we can agree even if there is no one absolute that's part of the reason that there is fairly high consensus on some of those issues because of the values like safety as i indicated in my in my testimony i would also agree with the previous speaker that some important there's no doubt about it it's just in my testimony i tried to emphasize that the intention of most scientists and people who apply science and medical settings is good and so i agree with you the creation of human embryos for instance to be quality control agents for pre implantation genetic diagnosis or quality control agents for something like germ line genetic modification that would be very troubling and we would rapidly want to find other ways if we decide we want to go ahead let's say with pre implantation genetic diagnosis for  medical traits we would want other controls other ways to prove that those techniques worked so that they would be in fact