Cloning Essay, Research Paper
& # 65279 ;
To Clone or Not to Clone?
In February 1997, when Dr. Ian Wilmut and his squad of scientists in Scotland astonished the
universe by denoting that they had successfully cloned a sheep, it sparked an international
argument. Since the innovation of Dolly, scientists have been faced with the at hand engineering to
ringer human existences. This has raised inquiries about what it means to be human and what
limitations should be placed on scientific research.
Scientists should utilize methods of cloning of single human cells because it provides
benefits of bring arounding diseases and regrowth of damaged variety meats or tissues. However, scientists
should non clone whole grownup human existences because of the misdemeanor of moral, ethical, and
spiritual concerns. Hence, scientists must divide doing trim organic structure parts from doing whole
Compton? s Interactive Encyclopedia defines cloning as:
The production of duplicate transcripts of familial stuff, cells, or full multicellular life
beings. The transcripts are referred to as ringers. Cloning occurs of course and is besides
engineered by human existences. The possibility that people might be cloned from the cells of
a individual grownup homo had long been a capable chiefly of phantasy and scientific discipline fiction but
became really definite at the terminal of the twentieth century. This possibility stemmed from the
successful cloning of lower mammals, go forthing small uncertainty in many scientists? heads that
worlds could and would one twenty-four hours be cloned. ( 1 )
In nature, and even in the lives of worlds, ringers are present. A ringer is an being that
has the same familial information as another being. Cloning occurs with all workss, some
insects, algae, and even worlds. Identical twins are ringers of each other. They have the same
exact familial information due to the division of an embryo in early development which produces
two indistinguishable embryos. Therefore, natural cloning already exists. Cloning is presently a engineering
that many people could utilize.
The benefits that cloning could offer scope from bettering conventional carnal genteelness to
extinguishing any desirable cistrons in worlds. Scientists are besides chew overing the thought of cloning
endangered species to increase their population. The possibilities are eternal. However,
scientists are making much of the research to profit human life.
Agribusiness may profit greatly from cloning research. Livestock breeders could use the
cloning techniques to bring forth more consistent merchandises. For illustration, a cow that has really tasty
meat could be cloned so that a husbandman or corporation would hold a whole herd that produces
really tasty meat. Therefore, a more consistent merchandise might stabilise monetary values husbandmans receive for
their meat, which would profit little farms. This type of benefit could be extended to most
farm animal. It might be possible that animate beings could transport out familial changes that could take
some familial human diseases. These animate beings would so bring forth human proteins in milk.
In the New York Times, Gina Kolata reveals, ? cloning could besides better the agricultural
industry as the technique of atomic transportation improves, farm animal can bring forth biological proteins
assisting people who have diseases including diabetes, Parkinson? s, and Cystic Fibrosis? ( A3 ) .
Cloning could offer a agency of bring arounding diseases or offer a technique that could supply
healthy variety meats and tissues for people who need them. For illustration, in a Time magazine article
? The Case For Cloning? , one author negotiations of more benefits through cloning.
She elaborates by stating, ? An aged adult male develops macular devolution, a disease that
destroys vision. To bolter his neglecting seeing, he receives a graft of healthy retinal tissue
? cloned from his ain cells and cultivated in a lab dish? ( Nash 6 ) . In the same article
Madeleine Nash besides states, ? A babe miss is born free of the cistron that causes Tay-Sachs disease,
even though both her parents are bearers. The ground? In the embryologic cell from which she
was cloned, the blemished cistron was replaced with normal DNA? ( 6 ) .
Cloning could offer new hope for twosomes who aren? T able to hold kids. Besides cloning
could supply a new option for individual adult females who would wish to hold kids. Some
scientists are already researching these avenues of research. For illustration, a scientist by the name
of Richard Seed plans to clone babes for sterile twosomes.
Jeff Flock, a newsman for CNN says, ? Seed, who is non a medical physician, says he has already
assembled a group of physicians willing to work with him and has four twosomes who have
volunteered to be cloned. Seed plans to utilize the same technique utilized by Scots scientists in
1996 to clone the grownup sheep Dolly. If he is barred from prosecuting his work in the United States,
he plans to travel to another state. He said he has talked with functionaries in Mexico, and besides was
sing the Bahamas. ? Seed says, ? Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first
serious measure in going one with God? ( 1 ) .
Get downing in Chicago, Seed plans to put up profitable human ringer clinics nationally.
Roger Highfield disputes, ? whatever the Seed brothers are stating their human clients, they
are surely non able to state them what the hazards might be, since no 1 yet knows the scope or
magnitude of hazards in Primatess, allow entirely worlds? ( 10 ) .
All of these are good grounds for cloning, but who is to state that this engineering should be
used in the first topographic point? There are several grounds for censoring cloning and legion dangers
associated with the cloning of worlds. It? s much easier to clone sheep or caprine animals than worlds,
and harmonizing to the facts, it took over two 100 attempts to bring forth one cloned sheep ; the
unsuccessful efforts were merely discarded.
In Robert Marquands article he confirms, ? An experiment to ringer worlds would necessitate
repeated attempts, with the possibility of many failures in? trial? instances taking to success. Dolly
the sheep took 277 attempts, with a figure of ugly errors, before a healthy and complete sheep
was born. Experiments with worlds could take between 100 and 1,000 attempts, some geneticists
speculate? ( 2 ) .
Are scientists to put this sort of value on human life? If this is true, they have crossed the
line in scientific experimentation. Even the scientist who created Dolly, Dr. Wilmut and his
coworkers believe that it would be unethical to
attempt and ringer worlds. The House Majority
leader Dick Armey submitted a statement to the House Commerce Committee in support of a
lasting prohibition on human cloning. Armey provinces: ? Cloning worlds is incorrect. It should be
banned for good, without loopholes, throughout the United States. ? He continues, ? the
international devastation of populating human embryos is unethical and unacceptable. If an embryo
is spliting and developing, it is a member of the human household and deserves our regard. And
destructing it is abhorrent to the American populace? ( 2 ) .
The United States lags behind many other states that have already placed prohibitions on homo
cloning. Nineteen European states have signed an understanding to forbid the familial reproduction
of worlds, some of these states include: Britain, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and
Spain. Bills were introduced to Congress in 1997 that would forbid cloning worlds and
criminal federal support for research in human cloning, but several scientists have urged Congress
to detain action until the committee makes its recommendations. Clinton established the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission in 1995. It? s chaired by Princeton University
President Harold Shapiro, and includes experts from scientific discipline, jurisprudence, doctrine, divinity and
industry. Two old ages after the Commission was created, they were faced with intense populace
argument to turn to the issues of human cloning.
Despite the statements from scientists who urged the committee non to hotfoot opinion with
prohibitions that could forestall human cloning and research, the committee approved The Human
Cloning Research Prohibition Act. This measure prohibits federal financess from being used for research
that includes the usage of a human bodily cell atomic transportation engineering to bring forth an embryo ;
in other words, it bans federal support of human cloning.
As Deborah Mathis notes, ? their proposal would do it a offense to make human embryos by
trading Deoxyribonucleic acid in a procedure called bodily cell transportation. Violators would be capable to up to 10
old ages in prison and mulcts every bit high as $ 250,000 & # 8243 ; ( B3 ) .
There are moral and ethical grounds for censoring human cloning. Worlds are a cherished life
signifier and should protect the self-respect of human life. It is incorrect to utilize cloning to experiment with
the creative activity of human life. Cloning is an abuse to spiritual beliefs. It seems like scientists are
playing God, and cloning interferes with the natural procedure that God has mapped out for people.
In his article, Steve Berg writes, ? The cloning of worlds is a signifier of? God drama? that violates
single human self-respect. Believing that God created worlds in God? s ain image means that
every human being is of import, that none is disposable, that each has a portion in populating out God? s
creative activity, and that each is responsible to God for the life he or she lives, bookmans say? ( E7 ) .
Religious organisations consider atomic transportation would do work forces to be reproductively
obsolete. This claim was drawn from the assemblage of information that cloning requires merely any
cell and a adult female to develop in. They besides claim that cloning does non esteem the fact that
worlds have souls. Cloning and familial technology both effort to take the cistron pool out of
the custodies of natural choice and into the custodies of worlds.
Familial technology adds a new dimension into the image. It would let scientists non merely
to double worlds, but to hone them every bit good. This seems good when seeking to destruct
familial diseases, but it rapidly turns into serious moral and societal struggles. When people
make up one’s mind what cistrons to put into the population, and which to go forth out, so they are in a sense
playing God. Human cloning and familial technology would necessarily turn into the hunt for
the perfect homo.
Throughout history world has been full of societies and civilizations in which one type of race
is valued over another. In China, for illustration the violent death of babe misss was a common pattern
because of a jurisprudence which permitted merely one kid. Males where more valuable in their civilization, so
females were selectively exterminated. Besides, Nazi Germany killed Jews, homophiles, and
other imperfect people in order to make the perfect Aryan race. Eugenicss such as these would
have been even easier by cloning and familial technology. Alternatively of kill offing people who
didn? t fit the criterions of flawlessness, full populations could be made to suit the cast.
The job with this perfect society in head is the diminution of familial diverseness. Diverseness
makes life and human interaction interesting. Peoples were given different genetic sciences for a ground.
One ground may be the likely goon of a disease or virus that could ensue in destructing an full
population. Another ground is that cloning could interfere with the procedure of natural development.
It is indispensable that other countries of familial research and non-human cloning research continue.
Scientists are doing great paces in understanding the implicit in causes of diseases,
developing possible remedies, and prosecuting other assuring countries of research. Because of the
moral, ethical, and spiritual concerns raised by the cloning of worlds, it would be good to
explore the direct usage of single human cells to bring forth tissues or variety meats for organ transplant
As of yet, there has been no possible good usage for the cloning of worlds, so possibly scientists
should see keeping off on human cloning. There is more of import scientific research that
these talented scientist could be working on.
& # 65279 ;
Armey, Dick. ? Testimony in support of a Permanent Ban on Human Cloning to the House
Commerce Committee. ? 12 Feb 1998. Capitol Hill Press. 2 Dec 1998
Berg, Steve. ? Begotten non Made? ? Minneapolis Star 26 Apr 1997: E7+
? Cloning. ? Comptons Interactive Encycopedia. 1999ed.
Flock, Jeff. ? Who is Richard Seed? ? 9 Jan. 1998. CNN Interactive [ www document ] URL
Highfield, Roger. ? Science: What next: Vicky the Clone? ? Daily Telegraph 5 Dec. 1999: 10+
Kolata, Gina. ? Lab outputs Lamb with Human Gene. ? New York Times 2 Dec.1997: A2+
Marquand, Robert. ? Cloning Bolts Ahead & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; .Toward People? ? Christian Science Monitor
22 Jan. 1998: 1-3
Mathis, Deborah. ? Senators offer a Bill that would Ban Human Cloning. ? Gannett News
2 Mar. 1998: B3+
Nash, Madeleine. ? The Case for Cloning. ? Time 9 Feb.1998:15-18