Cloning Persuasive Essay

Introduction

The term cloning describes a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a clone. Researchers have cloned a wide range of biological materials, including cells, genes, tissues and even entire organisms, such as a sheep.

The techniques used in cloning research raise important ethical issues especially concerning the potential use of these techniques in humans. Science has an ethical obligation to present the public with both the benefits and burdens of cloning research, because cloning research could have detrimental effect on humanity. Cloning could be detrimental due to the uncertainty of science and technology and the possibility of extinction of a particular species.

Body Topic

Scientists

should let public know that there are no promises that a clone will grow and develop healthy because they are not certain about their scientific methods and technology. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues, from Roslin Institute in Scotland, cloned the first mammal for the first time in history (1996). A sheep, named Dolly, was the successful clone. But what really happened during the experiment? The experiment started with 277 fused eggs of which 29 became fertilized. The fertilized eggs were then transferred to 13 sheep, but only one became pregnant with Dolly and she was born on July 5, 1996. There were several dead fetuses that were discovered from the remaining 12 sheep. It was later concluded that the methods and technology that were used were not very effective. Dolly eventually died in early 2003 from an abnormal disease in sheep of her age. Should cloning be continued so that more sex cells will be sacrificed? Thomas E. Lovejoy quoted, “Genetic engineers do not make new genes, they simply rearrange existing ones”. Because of these rearrangements of genes, genetic diversity may be lost
A species may become extinct because of inbreeding that may occur within the population, that is, only if cloning is prevalent in the population.

Inbreeding, also defined by the University of Utah, involves the mating of genetically related individuals. Since clones have identical genes, inbreeding will occur. But how is extinction possible? While some propose that inbreeding is beneficial to a population, statistics and studies have shown that there are more than 7.3 million infertility cases in the United States of America. If cloning is practiced, there would be more genetically related individuals to mate but who would reproduce if the infertility rates are maximized? Certainly not humans with animals! What moral right might protect at least some access to the use of human cloning? Some commentators have argued that a commitment to individual liberty, as defended by J. S. Mill, requires that individuals be left free to use human cloning if they so choose and if their doing so does not cause significant harms to others, but liberty is too broad in scope to be an uncontroversial moral right (Brock,

n.d).
Subtopic
However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died? Furthermore, there is a different moral right which might be thought to be at stake in the dispute about human cloning— the right to freedom of scientific inquiry and research in the acquisition of knowledge. If there is such a right, it would presumably be violated by a legal prohibition of research on human cloning, although the government could still permissibly decide not to spend public funds to support such research. Leaving aside for the moment human subject ethical concerns, research on human cloning might provide valuable scientific medical knowledge beyond simply knowledge about how to carry out human cloning.
Conclusion
Considering the fact that scientists are uncertain about their own methods and technology and the possibility of extinction of a population, should cloning be practiced? Positively, former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, banned cloning. However, research was allowed to be continued so that scientists, perhaps, will be able to promise and prove that their methods and technology are safe to be practiced. For now, they should not practice cloning because they will put the entire population of planet earth, both humans and animals, in jeopardy. A new evolutionary period would have to restart! We would enter an entirely new period of evolution that may be more catastrophic rather than progressive.