Cloning Of A Single Adult Cell example essay topic

Human cloning is the production of one or more human beings that are genetically identical to another human being. Two different methods of cloning have been defined, these are adult cloning where an adults DNA is cloned in order to create a replica adult in due course, and embryo cloning which is where the cloning is done by reproducing an identical embryo. However, in both cases the result is the same and a duplicated human being is created. The realisation that human cloning is now actually possible is only very recent. The first successful cloning of any animal only took place in 1997 when a team of British scientists achieved what many had previously thought to have been quite impossible, namely the cloning of a single adult cell to create a whole new animal, Dolly the sheep. Researchers believe they can revolutionise medicine if they are allowed to apply to humans some of the technology pioneered in Dolly the sheep.

However, so-called therapeutic cloning, which could result in cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, is highly controversial as it requires experiments on early-stage embryos and this therefore creates many arguments against it being able to take place. There are many arguments for and against cloning but the objection that is most often raised is that cloning is just simply not natural. However, even in nature clones are created all the time in the form of identical twins who are born in approximately 31/2 to 4 births out of every 1,000. It could be argued that these are not actually clones as there are slight differences such as different fingerprints, IQ's and sexual orientations.

Cloning of humans raises many moral issues such as the religious concern that humans are 'playing at being God'. However, for some years now humans have already been 'playing at being God' in a way, because the creation of babies by means of surrogacy and IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) has already been accepted as 'normal'. Where religion and culture permit, donor sperm, eggs and embryos are used. So why should cloning be seen as 'playing God' any more than these existing reproductive technologies?

There is no evidence of any adverse effects on either the parents or the children involved in any of these technologies. There is also the religious argument that Clones will not have individual souls but theologians of all religions have agreed that they will. It is thought that clones will be treated as second rate because they are 'carbon copies' of an individual and that they will also become increasingly inferior as more copies of the same individual are produced. However, if you follow this argument then it would have to be said that within each set of twins one of the two would feel 'second rate' to the other. This may be true in some sets of twins but then the same could also be said of siblings who are not clones of each other at all. It is also unlikely that there will be mass productions of clones simply due to the fact that they each have to be born and raised individually and so therefore it would be illogical to suggest that they would become increasingly inferior.

The fact that it is unlikely that clones would be mass-produced also settles the argument that cloning will end up being used to create armies or slaves. Another factor against this argument is that there are many cheaper and faster ways of creating large armies than cloning. Having shown that some of the arguments against human cloning and how they can be refuted, we should consider some of the positive benefits that would come from human cloning. For example many leading experts in this field are suggesting that lessons learnt from human cloning are likely to lead scientists to be able to reverse, or at least to halt, the ageing process (although of course, some would say this is an objection to cloning not a benefit! ). Many scientists are also confident that heart disease and particularly heart attacks could be treated by cloning healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged.

This of course is cloning with only a part of a human being rather than a whole person and so therefore is unlikely to meet with the same level of moral objection as discussed earlier. By combining this sort of human cloning technology it may also be possible to produce needed tissue for suffering people that will be free of rejection by their immune systems. In this way diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and various joint diseases might all be made curable. None of this would be at all possible if human cloning were to be banned. Other medical breakthroughs are expected to take place through human cloning for example we may learn to grow nerves or spinal cord back again. This would mean a cure for paraplegics and quadriplegics who at the moment face the rest of their lives in a wheelchair.

This can be done as central to therapeutic cloning are the 'master' cells that exist in a human embryo when it is just a few days old. These embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into almost any kind of tissue in the body, including nerves, muscle, blood and bone. Therefore if these cells can be used to become selected types of tissue, they could be used to treat a host of degenerative diseases which at present are incurable. However, it is argued that this is like the murder of a child and poses the same kind of arguments as abortion. Peter Garrett in Life magazine says: "What is being proposed here is that we deliberately create and then deliberately destroy tiny human lives".

So far we have discussed the benefits to human beings in improving their physical condition but there are also considerable potential benefits of a less tangible nature. The quality of life can be improved for people who are not physically injured in any way. For example, if after a first child a couple were to become infertile they would be able to have a second child through cloning there first. The same could be done if a couples child were to die through an accident and the couple wished for their baby back this would be possible however, the new baby would not be a carbon copy of the lost child and so therefore would still be a unique individual.

It is seen that by introducing cloning it will make children a commodity in that you can choose your child and just buy it. However, again the scientists come back with the response that all reproductive technologies cost money and this should not make the baby less valuable to its parents for example here is a list of some of the costs of reproductive alternatives; o IVF - $10,000 - $12,000 o Donor egg - $5,000 o Surrogate mother - $45,000 o Cloning (?) - $1000,000 (?) This illustrates that it is already possible for a child to become a commodity if that is the way a person wants to look at it. Another large argument against it would be that it can be unsafe and could produce damaged children. This is because the cells of the human that is being cloned will have been susceptible to things such as environmental toxins and other factors through their life. These will be cloned and may create mutilations in the children. The child may also age more rapidly ass the chromosomes in an adult (i.e. the person that has been cloned) have shortened ends which become shorter with each cell division until it is no longer able to divide.

In the cases where cloning is clearly going to improve somebody's medical condition it is difficult to sustain or even understand the main argument against human cloning, namely that it is both unnatural and immoral. However, if cloning is being carried out merely for peoples' convenience, for example to provide them with a designer child, then the moral concerns should take precedence and cloning for that sort of purpose should not be condoned.