Position On Cloning Essay, Research Paper
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, cloning is to make multiple identical copies of a DNA sequence, to reproduce or propagate asexually. A clone is a group of genetically identical cells descended from a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell as a result of binary fission.
The process of cloning has challenged every mind in the world. Is it right to make a human being from the cells of another? In this paper I plan to discuss the ethical, moral, religious, and humorous views on cloning. I was a little confused on how a clone is made, so I will also discuss that. Are we playing God by believing that we have the right to manipulate nature in such a manner that we are actually bringing new lives into the world? At the conclusion of my paper I hope that you will be able to make an educated decision about your views on cloning.
It all started when Ian made a lamb. Ian Wilmut removed an udder cell from a 6-year-old Finn Dorset ewe and reproduced the cell within the means of the law. He placed one of the resulting udder cells in a bath of chemicals, forcing it into suspended animation. This step ensured that the cell s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) would keep working after the transplant. An immature egg cell was removed from a second sheep, this one a Scottish blackface ewe. A needle was used to take out the egg s nucleus, where DNA is stored. The egg cell and the udder cell were placed next to each other and then given a jolt of electricity, causing them to fuse. The electricity also prompted the fused cell to start dividing, forming an embryo. After six days, the embryo was transferred to the womb of yet another Scottish blackface ewe. Five months later, in July 1996, a Finn Dorset named Dolly, undoubtedly now the world s best-known sheep, was born. (Herbert, Wray et al)
The recent successful cloning of an adult sheep, raised the possibility that a human could also be cloned. This discovery is presenting the federal government with some serious and difficult policy issues. Soon after the news of the birth of Dolly, Congress and the administration began considering action to limit human cloning research and the ban the actual cloning of a human being. The chief concern was whether sheep cloning would soon lead to human cloning. This fear was heightened when the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center revealed just a few days later that it had cloned rhesus monkeys using nuclear transfer technology. (Issues in Science and Technology, v13) Although this is a well-established method involving the transfer of a full set of chromosomes from one embryo cell to another, the process had not been used successfully in primates until now. Many scientists and ethicists, however, are warning against swiftly implementing legal restrictions without first thoroughly analyzing all aspects of cloning technology. President Clinton set the stage for the cloning policy debate by banning the use of federal funds for human cloning research and requesting that the private sector voluntarily abstain from such research for 90 days. He also asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to investigate the implications of human and animal cloning. Although scientists and ethicists generally agree that there are some uses of cloning technology that clearly are morally wrong, the federal role in regulating cloning remains uncertain. According to scientists, cloning research has the potential to produce enormous health benefits. Ian Wilmut told the Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Public Health that cloning and the genetic manipulation it allows make it possible to create better genetically engineered animals for use in treating human diseases. (Herbert, Wray et al) Cloned and genetically modified animals could also be used as models for studying human disease. Eventually, cloning technology could make it possible to regenerate human tissue such as spinal cord tissue. Although there is very little opposition to the idea that human cloning is wrong and that banning it is justifiable, members of Congress are recognizing that they must work to craft policies that clearly discriminate between beneficial research involving cloning and actual wrongful cloning of people. Do we let scientists decide? They could justify any cloning as research.
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. While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm, either. Theologians believe that to clone a human would violate human dignity. That would be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with fewer rights or lower stature. Why suppose that cloned persons wouldn t share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? A leading lawyer-ethicist has suggested that cloning would violate the right to genetic identity. Where did he come up with such a right?
Many of the science-fiction scenarios prompted by the prospect of human cloning turn out to be absurdly improbable. There s the fear that parents might clone a child to have spare parts in case the original child needs an organ transplant. Parents of identical twins don t view one child as an organ farm for the other, why should cloned children s parents be any different? Another disturbing thought is that cloning will lead to efforts to breed individuals with genetic qualities perceived as exceptional (math geniuses, basketball players, business letter writers). (Macklin, Ruth)
So who will likely take advantage of cloning? Perhaps a grieving couple whose child is dying. This might seem psychologically twisted, but a cloned child born to such parents stands no greater or lesser chance of being loved, or rejected, or warped than a child normally conceived. Infertile couples are also likely to seek out cloning. That such couples have other options is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Even if cloning offers no obvious benefits to humanity, why ban it? In a democratic society we don t usually pass laws outlawing something before there is actual or probably evidence of harm. A world not safe for cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us.
If human cloning becomes possible, few doubt that it will be feasible to clone a person by 2025, even the link between sex organs and reproduction will be broken. You will then be able to take a cutting from your body and grow a new person, as if you were a willow tree. And if it becomes possible to screen or genetically engineer embryos to “improve” them, then in-vitro fertilization and cloning may become the rule rather than the exception among those who can afford it.
In a sense, we have already divorced sex from reproduction. In the 1960s, the contraceptive pill freed women to enjoy sex for its own sake. At the same time, greater tolerance of homosexuality signaled society’s acceptance of nonreproductive sex of another sort. These changes are only continuations of a trend that started perhaps a million years ago.
Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish theologians all caution against applying the new technology to humans, but for different reasons. Catholic opposition comes largely from the belief that natural moral law prohibits most kinds of tampering with human reproduction. A 1987 Vatican document condemned cloning because it violates the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union. Protestant theology emphasizes the view that nature is fallen and subject to improvement. While they tend to support technology to fix laws in nature, Protestant theologians say cloning of humans crosses the line. It places too much power in the hands of sinful humans, who are subject to committing horrific abuses. Judaism tends to favor using technology to improve on nature s shortcomings. Doesn t cloning intrude on the Judeo-Christian view of God as the creator of life? Would a clone be considered a creature of God or of science? Like Adam and Eve, we want to be like God, to be in control, says philosophy Prof. Kevin Wildes of Georgetown University. The question is, what are the limits? (Herbert, Wray et al) Some theologians argue that cloning is not the same as creating life from scratch. The ingredients used are alive or contain the elements of life, but it is still only God who creates life.
Would a cloned person have its own soul? Most theologians agree with scientists that a human clone and its DNA donor would be separate and distinct persons. That means each would have his or her own body, mind, and soul. Would cloning question religious views about death, immortality, and even resurrection? Not really. Cloned or not, we all die. The clone that outlives its parent would be a different person. Cloning could be said to provide immortality, only in the sense that, as in normal reproduction, one might be said to live on in the genetic traits passed to one s offspring.
The lab process that produced Dolly, theoretically could produce humans as well. A world of clones and drones is suddenly within our reach. It is science fiction coming to life. (The freaky kind of science fiction.) Multiplicity, starring Michael Keaton, was an all too real account of what could happen with the influence of clones. Of course, no one without the influence of Hollywood would be able to afford to clone himself 3 times, but we ll go along with it for the sake of humor. In the recent hit comedy Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me a clone of Austin Powers is produced to help carry out his evil plan to take over the world. The clone was called Mini Me and he was the highlight of the show. Mini Me was not a realistic view of what cloning can do, but it made the world stop and laugh.
Cloning is much more than taking a picture of someone s inner being and making a photocopy of it. Cloning involves a person s spirit, soul and personality. Those are all things that you can t duplicate. Every little thing about you makes you the person you are today. Cloning frightens even the most educated people. How can we expect cloning to be a success when no one feels comfortable with the experimentation.
I hope that you now have a better understanding of cloning and how it works. I had a lot of confusion before I began this paper, but now I feel confident with my decision. I think that cloning is wrong. We should not be the one s to decide how humans are produced even if it is for scientific research. Producing extra babies just in case yours gets sick is demented. Things are meant to happen for a reason and we cannot allow the world to be taken over by people who just wish to change everything around. We need to stand for what we believe and not let ourselves be overcome with indecision and confusion. We all know what is right in our hearts and we need to continue to believe that. This world is full of smart people and we need to use our knowledge for purposes of growth and the betterment of our lives.