Why would anyone want to clone their pets or loved ones? Some say that if they have those who they love cloned, that they will not have to miss them once they die. If people want to clone their pets, or family members, and have the money and technology to do so, should they be allowed to do so? This is something important to discuss because as technology evolves and becomes more available, the demand for such procedures is greatly increasing. Each year the number of cloning attempts increases….and Cloning pets, humans, or any other organism, should never be allowed no matter their financial status, their ability to give permission for these procedures, or the amount of technology available.
Although the clones are genetically identical, this does not mean that they will act, or look the same as the organism from which they were cloned. “Anyone who thinks they might be able to get Spot or Fluffy back is mistaken. Cloned animals have distinct personalities, just like identical twins”, said Robert Lanza who has both successfully and unsuccessfully cloned several animals (Singer). In most cases, the clone will act different than the organism from which it was cloned because animals, including humans, are products of their environment. If a pet was abused as a baby, they will likely act timid and afraid when around people similar to their abuser for the rest of their lives, but the clone would not know to act this way because they were never abused themselves. Another example could be cats; the clone of your old pet cat may be larger than the old one, because it was fed more or does not exercise as much. Also, the cats may have different hair colors as well because their genes for hair color can randomly switch on and off. In a recen...
... middle of paper ...
...re too high for attempting these procedures to be allowed. The defects that could occur are too risky for it to be allowed. And the ethical issue of completing such procedures is yet another reason for cloning to never occur. No matter the thoughts on the subject of the person being cloned, the scientists doing the cloning procedures, or the organism being cloned, cloning anything, even stem cells, should never be allowed.
Works Cited
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/411834/the-dark-side-of-pet-cloning/
http://m.livescience.com/32083-cloning-people-biology.html
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/europe/24bull.html?ref=cloning&_r=0
http://www.genome.gov/10004765
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cloning/qa/questions_answers.html
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningrisks/
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.
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
When the novel “Frankenstein”, by Mary Shelley came out in 1831 the general public was introduced to the idea of man creating another man scientifically; without the use of reproduction. This idea is still very interesting today, however many ethical problems are implicated when scientists, like Victor Frankenstein, disrupt the moral and ethical standards like many modern day scientists have done today with cloning. The astronomical effects that followed after the creation of The Monster, demonstrates the horrid fact that creating a human was not natural or ethical.
Although it would be pretty cool to have someone look exactly like you, and maybe even act exactly as you do, but it could be frightening not knowing what is going on in the mind of a clone. I don’t think it would be safe to have clones living amongst us. Also in order for clones to be born, a human is needed to give birth to the clone which would also be dangerous for the woman giving birth to the clone due to the fact that 95% of experiments dealing with cloning mammals are unsuccessful.
successful clones often have problems with their body and are subject to a short lifespan ridden with health problems. This hurts the person or animal cloned rather than to help them, making cloning an immoral
To start, it is important to understand what cloning is and the process that makes it possible. As defined by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, cloning is “one that appears to be a copy of an original form” (233). In layman’s terms, human cloning is using medical procedures to make an exact genetic copy of an already existing or previously existing person. The process for cloning entails a method called Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. According to The University of Utah’s Genetic Science Learning Center the way SCNT is performed is “an egg cell's single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes” (Genetic). Now that the egg has a complete DNA configuration, it is allowed to grow and the being that is engendered is a clone. Though the original human and the clone will have the same genome, they will not be exactly the same person. As Wray Herbert points out, there will be differences in personality an...
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.
There is no real need to clone a person, sure it would be neat, but there isn't a need. Then there is xenotransplantation where there is a real need and you are actually able to save lives. In society we have an obligation to do what we can, within reason, to save the lives that can be saved under the guidance of skilled medical professionals who have taken an oath to act ethically. We trust them with our lives, why not trust their opinions? Bibliography 1.
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.
Human cloning destroys individuality and uniqueness. “What makes people unique is the fact that we have different genes and cloning would lose these important parts of our bodies makeup.” There would be less of a variety of people and everyone would be the same. This would not only be the good qualities, but also the bad that would pass on. Since clones and the original donor will look alike and have the same DNA, it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference. Overtime, they would lose their individuality and uniqueness. For example, say a crime was committed.
First of all, “Australia’s first cloned sheep appeared to be healthy and energetic the day she died, during the autopsy they could not find the cause (Castro, 2005).” There are many risks to cloning and you are seldom able to identify the cause of their death. “More than 90% of cloning attempts fail (Human Genome Program, 2006).” Most cloned animals died mysteriously even before they were born or when they were very young, so there is hardly any information on how clones age. Clones may be born with a normal looking body but may have internal functioning problems. “Cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders (Human Genome Program, 2006).” There are many risks of cloning and a major factor is genetic differences.
John A. Robertson’s article “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” raises three important reasons on why there shouldn’t be a ban on Human Cloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using sperm, eggs, or embryo’s from anonymous donors. In conventional in vitro fertilization, doctors attempt to start with many ova, fertilize each with sperm and implant all of them in the woman's womb in the hope that one will result in pregnancy. (Robertson) But some women can only supply a single egg. Through the use of embryo cloning, that egg might be divisible into, say 8 zygotes for implanting. The chance of those women becoming pregnant would be much greater. (Kassirer) Secondly, it would benefit a couple at high risk of having offspring with a genetic disease choose weather to risk the birth of an affected child. (Robertson) Parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic defect to a child could make use of cloning. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for the disease or disorder. If the clone were free of genetic defects, then the other clone would be as well. Then this could be implanted in the woman and allowed to mature to term. (Heyd) Thirdly, it would be used to obtain tissue or organs...
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?
Human cloning is dangerous. It is estimated that between 95 and 98 percent of cloning experiments have failed (Genetics and Society). These downfalls to cloning are in the form of miscarriages and stillbirths (Genetics and Society). Cloned human beings also run the risk of having severe genetic abnormalities. Children cloned from adult DNA would, in a sense, already have “old” genes. These children’s main problem would be developing and growing old too quickly. This includes arthritis, appearance, and organ function. Since the chance of having a child with mental and physical problems is so much higher than that of a normally conceived child, cloning should be illegal.
As the author argues the other side of the issue, he states referring to pets, “ Plus, implanting an embryo is an invasive procedure that puts the surrogate mother through enormous stress.” In other words, cloning can take a toll on the mother’s health. One pet could be harmed while trying to bring back another. Those against cloning also believe that it could lead to emotional issues in the cloned pet. The author describes this problem in a story about a cloned bull named Chance.