Cloning is a Misunderstood and Underestimated Science
On February 23rd of 1997, an announcement was made that would shake the world and, inevitably, change it forever. Ian Wilmut, an embryologist with a genetic research facility named the Roslin Institute in Scotland, claimed that he and a group of scientists had successfully cloned a sheep. The sheep, named Dolly, was revolutionary in the Bioengineering world because it was the first mammal to be cloned directly from the genetic material of another sheep and was, in essence, an exact replica of its “mother.” Soon after, groups sprung up from all over the world claiming that, they too, had created clones. A group in Oregon declared that they had cloned monkeys while a Japanese research team professed to have created perfect clones of mice. What followed was a worldwide outcry for the world governments to regulate cloning before it bulged out of control. President Clinton rushed to stop government funding of human cloning research and urged independently financed researchers to stop cloning research until his National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which was founded the previous year, issued their report on the “ethical implications”(Bailey 1) of human cloning. The Committee issued the following statement in May of that year:
The [National Bioethics Advisory] Commission concludes that at this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. The Commission reached a consensus on this point because current scientific information indicates that this technique is not safe to use in humans at this point. Indeed, the Commission believe...
... middle of paper ...
...rt of Human Cloning.” February 26, 1996. www.humancloning.org. Date of Access: February 7, 2001. An insite into cloning. Reveals all of the intricacies of genetics, many facts. Also includes bookmark to a page of recent cloning-related issues.
Lanza, Robert P. “Cloning Noah’s Ark.” Scientific American, November 1, 2000.
Mooney, David J. “Growing New Organs.” Scientific American, April 1999: 60-65.
Nash, J. Madeline. “The Case for Cloning.” Science, Februaury 9. 1998: 56-57. Provides a clear, un-biased case for why cloning should be legalized.
Ross, Emma. “Ethicists say Abortion Issue Tempers U.S Embryo Research.” Associated Press, January 24, 2001.
Torr, James D.,ed. Genetic Engineering: Opposing Veiwpoints. Ssan Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2001.
Wilmut, Ian. The Second Creation. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.
Walters, LeRoy. “Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14.1 (2004): 3-38.
Brown, Alistair. "Therapeutic Cloning: The Ethical Road To Regulation Part I: Arguments For And Against & Regulations." Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics 15.2 (2009): 75-86. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Farrell, Courtney. "Cloning: An Overview. By: Farrell, Courtney, Carson-Dewitt, Rosalyn, Points of View: Cloning, 2013." Ebscohost.com. Mackinvia.com, 2013. Web. 21
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
Choi, Charles Q. "Cloning of a Human." Scientific American 302.6 (2010): 36-38. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
“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.
Scientist clones human embryos, and creates an ethical challenge. New York Times. October 26, 1993: A1.
In earlier times the subject of cloning human beings has been no more than just a fantastic idea to play around with in science-fiction books and movies. As time progresses though, more and more fantasies become realities. Such is the case with cloning. What has only been dreamt up before by artists on pen and paper can now be performed by scientists in laboratories. With the ability to clone humans now possible the question of whether such an act should even be carried out is raised. How far should cloning be allowed to go if it should even be allowed at all? The answer is that cloning should be allowed, but only in moderation.
A growing controversy in the world today is cloning. One stance is that cloning and cloning research should be banned altogether. Another position is in support of no restrictions of cloning and that scientists should be able to test on animals if they deem it necessary. Many other views are squeezed into different gray areas on the topic. It would be beneficial to explore the methods, benefits, moral and ethical conflicts involved with human cloning to fully understand the pros of cloning. The methods of human cloning and the research that accompanies them can provide a great deal of benefits. The benefits of human cloning include important medical breakthroughs, reproduction, and morality issues.
Imagine living in a society where the ideology of human cloning is accepted. Envision being able to practice the procedure of taking a genetically identical copy of a biological entity and copying it to create an exact replica of the same genetic makeup. Today, in the field of genetics and developmental biology, the American Medical Association (AMA) has defined cloning as “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)”. The idea of cloning surfaced in 1997 when Dr. Ian Wilmut, a British scientist, successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. This turned the scientific world upside-down and was a prodigious success in the advancement of biotechnology. The success of the experiment was the starting point to animal cloning and further progression of cloning in general. In bioethics, the dissimilar notion of human cloning has been a very controversial yet sensitive issue which essentially questions the morals and principles of cloning as well as the merits of Science and Biology. Due to the breakthroughs in science, researchers have made outstanding advancements in biological science; however, the ideology of cloning is still a strong provocative issue. It not only provokes worry on the ethical issues and concerns of the use of biotechnology, but it also promotes the question is contemporary artificial cloning justifiable?
In conclusion, the thesis of this paper is supported by three contentions. First, if successful, cloning can have a lot of positive technological advancements that would help humanity. Second, 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. Finally, 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 are not ready for human trials. The failure rate is overwhelming; we should master cloning animals with close to 100% success rate before starting human cloning trials.
For those who are new to what reproductive cloning is, it is a method in which a professional takes an egg and removes the nucleus. In its place is transferred a somatic cell nucleus with all the desired genetic material. This presents the opportunity for potential parents to choose desirable characteristics of their offspring like eye color, height, and even intellect. As ideal as this may sound, reproductive cloning should not be legalized because it ultimately objects human dignity, poses a serious threat to the survival of humanity and individuality, and can segregate people’s preferences because of monetary advantages.
John A. Robertson, “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
Human Cloning Foundation. “The Benefits of Human Cloning.” 1998. Human Cloning Foundation. 1 October 2001 <http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.htm>.