Medical and scientific advancements are reasons for celebration as humans move forward to a new era where innovation furthers human understanding and allows new possibilities to form. However, one major scientific innovation seemed to do the exact opposite. As the news of a cloned mammal spread nationwide the opposition to cloning was almost instant, perhaps too instant. The hasty reaction of an overwhelming portion of the population indicates that an already existing ideology towards cloning had developed even before cloning was achieved. Scientists and philosophers agree that the previous use of generic engineering in literary works, even if unconsciously, caused the vast majority of individuals to develop a negative or unrealistic perspective regarding cloning. The apprehension towards cloning was only solidified by the negative and bias reaction of the media as they covered the news of Dolly the sheep as well as by new science fiction books and films that focused only on the potential negative risks of cloning.
Cloning might not have been a real possibility or an issue until the 1980s when the success of nuclear transfer in mammals was reported. However, as soon as cloning became a reality in 1996 with the birth of Dolly the first cloned animal derived from an adult cell (). It became increasingly clear that a large majority of the population was against it. Perhaps it was the lack of clear scientific information individuals received as the news of Dolly spread that lead the public into a period of fear and confusion, or perhaps it was the previous attempts of manipulating human genetic traits during the 1930s and 1940s when the Nazis tried to create a super-race know as eugenics (40), that many individuals feared the discove...
... middle of paper ...
...their dignity” (Marcus 408). For more than a century individuals have been warned trough literature and films about the moral wrongness of genetic engineering. Was it then mere coincidence the instant negative reaction of the public when cloning became a real possibility? Or is it possible that the novels, films, and News individuals use for entertainment purposes, actually had a greater psychological impact that resulted in the adopted formation of beliefs fed to humans by years of bias fictional and unrealistic scenarios that resemble reality. Can humans than separate reality from fiction as new helpful innovations surge such as therapeutic cloning were the harvesting of embryonic stem cells could be used to potentially cure diseases or be used to replace damaged organs. Simply because they have been lead to believe nothing good can come out of genetic engineering.
After British scientists had cloned a sheep called Dolly, people were asking them why they had done it and they said because they could do it. Last week it was anounced that the human genome had been decrypted. Although everybody agrees that this is a blessing for mankind, many people are worried about what scientists might do with their new toy, again, just because they are able to do it. Long before anybody even thought about cloning sheep, Russel Edson had them shrinked. His poem "Counting Sheep" is a subtle approach to the question of use and misuse of science.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
In the past, cloning always seemed like a faraway scientific fantasy that could never really happen, but sometimes reality catches up to human ingenuity and people discover that a fictional science is all too real. Such was the fate of cloning when Dolly, a cloned sheep, came into existence during 1997, as Beth Baker explains (Baker 45). In addition to opening the eyes of millions of people, the breakthrough raised many questions about the morality of cloning humans. The greatest moral question is, when considering the pros against the cons, if human cloning is an ethical practice. There are two different types of cloning and both entail completely different processes and both are completely justifiable at the end of the day.
Genetic cloning has become an issue in these past years, and many questions have arisen due to this scientific breakthrough. As with any new technology, ethical and moral ideals have clashed between those who support it and those who favor the opposing side. The dispute involves what to do with our ability to clone and manipulate DNA of human beings, plants, and animals, and whether it is ethical for us to pursue research and experiments with genetics or whether it is people just playing "God". Genetic cloning is a problem because it splits the country and for many of its questionable natures causing people not to trust it. Yes, it is a proven fact that people are scared of what they do not know about, and with genetic cloning, they have a very good reason to be both scared and relieved.
A compelling issue that has come into focus in the past several years is the idea of human cloning. Many scientists believe that it is inevitable because the technology is there, and anything that can be done eventually will be done. They preach the value of human clones, dropping phrases like 'cure for disease' and 'prolonged life' to entice the public into supporting their cause. Though these concepts seem beguiling, the notion of human cloning, when looked at as a whole, has serious repercussions and should not be entertained lightly. From a strictly scientific point of view, we are just not ready to attempt the cloning of a human being.
In modern society, eugenics most recently became a hot topic when scientists announced the first successful cloning of Dolly the sheep. Dolly had the exact genetic make up as her mother. This revelation immediately got people talking about the possibility of cloning humans. “If cloning research were pursued, it has been estimated that human cloning could become a practical reality within the next one to two decades.” (Pearson)
Not so far in the future, a young boy of the age of six, dying a heart-wrenching death, will only be able survive with a bone marrow transplant. His parents will have searched near and far for a match, but none will come to their aid. The only possible way that they can produce a perfect match for their son's bone marrow is to clone their son. Unfortunately, at this time this topic is still being discussed and debated upon with the government. Their only child that has been their treasure for six years might die. A clone of their son becomes their apple of aspiration to keep the treasure from being buried.
As technological advancement grow, scientists begin to speculate the realistic doing of human cloning, as this happens opposing groups and organizations raise their voice against it and create the question whether scientists should be allowed to clone humans, the promise of cloning at any level can revolutionize the world, and change it for the better, but are we are not ready for human trials. If successful, cloning can have a lot of positive technological advancements that would help humanity. Dolly, the first cloned mammal, inspired many scientists to speculate a new era in cloning technology and raise hopes for future probability in which human cloning was possible. At the center of the controversy, surges the closest thing to a clone that lives a healthy and regular life, identical twins. The promise of cloning at any level can revolutionize the world, and change it for the better, but are we really ready for human trials?
In recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
In recent years, many new breakthroughs in the areas of science and technology have been discovered. A lot of these discoveries have been beneficial to scientific community and to the people of the world. One of the newest breakthroughs is the ability to clone. Ever since Ian Wilmut and his co-workers completed the successful cloning of an adult sheep named Dolly, there has been an ongoing debate on whether it is right or wrong to continue the research of cloning (Burley). Recently, in February 2001, CNN conducted a poll that stated, 90% of American adults think that cloning humans is a bad idea (Robinson). Even though the majority of Americans are opposed to human cloning, there are many benefits that will come from the research of it. Advancements in the medical field and in the fertility process will arise from human cloning. These advancements make cloning very beneficial to the human society.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.