In 1997, a group of Scottish scientists at the Roslin Institute successfully cloned a sheep, named “Dolly,” through a complicated process, called reproductive cloning (“Cloning Fact Sheet” 1). Since “Dolly’s” creation, scientists all over the world have been intrigued by the idea of possibly cloning a human being someday. This memorable event in history started a chain of experiments leading to an ongoing controversial question: Is reproductive cloning a useful technology that should be legalized, or an unethical experiment that should no longer be toyed with? Before researching this question, I would have answered it by simply saying that I am absolutely against the idea of cloning because as a Christian, I believe that the power to create humans and animals should be left in the hands of God; no one else. All I knew about cloning was that it meant reproducing an identical clone of a human or animal, but that trying to clone a human is illegal. I didn’t even know that the version of cloning I was thinking of was one of three specific types of cloning. However, now that I’ve gained an understanding of what reproductive cloning is exactly and what the pros and cons of this science are, I’ve discovered that there is more to this question, than just arguing against it without knowing what the progression of cloning could mean for the entire world. It is for this reason that I chose to write an inquiry essay on the issue of reproductive cloning.
Before taking a side on the science of reproductive cloning, it is necessary to analyze the word’s definition. As defined by the U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs, reproductive cloning is “a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or p...
... middle of paper ...
...to say.
Bibliography
"Cloning Fact Sheet." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Web. 08 Feb.2011.
.
Kane, Francis. "Reproductive Technology Is Disturbing." Reproductive Technology. Ed. Cindy
Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context.
Web. 8 Feb. 2011.
McLachlan, Hugh. "Human Cloning Should Be Legalized." New Scientist 195 (21 July 2007):
20. Rpt. in Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Feb. 2011.
Pacelle, Wayne. "Animal Cloning Is Unethical." 2005. Rpt. in Cloning. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 8 Feb. 2011.
Understanding the facts as well as procedures between the many different types of cloning is very crucial. When everything boils down there are three types of cloning known as DNA cloning, therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. DNA cloning is the copying of a gene in order to transfer it into another organism which is usually used by farmers in most of their crops. Therapeutic cloning is the use of stem cells used to help take the place of whatever cell is missing which is potentially used to help the ill. Stem cells contain the potential to grow and help replace the genes that are missing in order to fix whatever is genetically wrong with your body or any genes that you may be missing. Reproductive cloning actually produces a living animal from only one parent. The endless possibilities and perhaps hidden motives of using genetic engineering are what divide as well as destroy the scientific community’s hope for passing laws that are towards pro cloning. Many people within soci...
In the summer of 1996, an animal unlike any other was born unto the world. Roughly three feet high and covered in an insulating material, there were countless others that looked nearly identical freely roaming the countryside. But this animal was special; it was precisely identical to one of its brethren. Dolly the sheep was the first ever manmade clone, an exact copy of its genetic donor. In the fifteen years since the birth of Dolly cloning technology has been improving at a steady pace, and now humanity as a whole is at an impasse: human clones. Scientists are very close to being able to clone a human being, but should they? A ban on human cloning issued by the World Health Organization is in place (World Health Organization 1) but it is non-binding in nature, and individual governments must come up with their own cloning policies. For the United States, the choice is obvious: the federal government should not place a ban on human reproductive cloning. There are numerous reasons for this, such as the notion of cloning as an alternative to adoption, the elimination of disease, the possibility of continuing life after death, and the possibility of an improved quality of life for the clones themselves. At the same time, there are arguments against human cloning, mostly centering on moral issues, that must also be addressed.
“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.
“Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now.” Cbhd. Trinity International University, 4 June 2002. Web. 31 March 2014.
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.
Cloning is, and always has been an extremely contentious topic. To some, the ethical complications surrounding it, are far more promiscuous than what scientists and medical experts currently acknowledge. Cloning is a general term that refers to the process in which an organism, or discrete cells and genes, undergo genetic duplication, in order to produce an identical copy of the original biological matter. There are two main types of artificial cloning; reproductive and therapeutic, both of which present their respective benefits and constraints. This essay aims to discuss the various differences between the two processes, as well as the ethical issues associated with it.
Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure. Along with the risks, there are benefits to Human Reproductive Cloning. It allows couples who cannot have a baby otherwise to enjoy parenthood and have a child who is directly related to them. It also limits the risk of transmitting genetic diseases to the cloned child and the risk of genetic defects in the cloned child. Although the government has banned Human Reproductive Cloning, the issue will eventually come to the surface and force us to consider the 1st commandment of God, all men are equal in the eyes of god, but does this also include clones? That is the question that we must answer in the near future in order to resolve a controversy that has plagued us for many years.
Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed.
With the successful cloning of animals, many people have reacted with frightening and usually uninformed ideas about what cloning is and what researchers hope to achieve through it. Many wish to ban all cloning without even looking at the positive things that cloning will be able to provide for us in the future and with continued research. Like any new technology, people are at first afraid, but this is no excuse to abandon research that could one day save millions of people through cloned organs or give an alternative and safe means of reproduction to sterile couples. This fear has only been furthered by the media sensationalizing the advancement and tossing "Brave New World" into every headline. The uninformed also look to popular culture instead of facts to argue against cloning. Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and The Island of Doctor Moreau have shown to the majority of American the dark, evil side of cloning, which is not the aim of scientists and at present not technologically possible. It is obvious that we must act now and set guidelines, both ethical and legislative, but we should not ban cloning completely without further research.
Most people argue that human cloning is not morally and ethically acceptable due to both religious concerns and long-term health problems. The notion of cloning organisms has always been troublesome because of unpredictable consequences. “Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture” (C...
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.
Reproductive cloning is term which often brings up quarrel among individuals. Currently, reproductive cloning is forbidden across the county; however, more and more people try to argue that it should be legalized. Do we really understand the concept of the term, and we know what the potential outcomes may be if reproductive cloning were to be legalized? Granted, the idea of cloning may seem like a big step toward improving biotechnology in the world; but, despite this fact, many individuals argue against it. This paper will argue that the legalization of reproductive cloning may potentially result in social, moral and economic problems.
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, the development of cloning technology in non-human species has led to new ways of producing medicine and improving our understanding of development and genetics. But what exactly is human reproductive cloning and how has this technology been developed? The term “cloning” refers more specifically to a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. In this process, the DNA from the cell of ...
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?