Human Clone example essay topic

Human cloning becomes more and more controversial now that the scientists are technologically ready to undertake this revolutionary step in human reproduction. There are many proponents of human cloning who find justifying arguments. They argue that cloning would alleviate trauma and grief for people who lost someone close in an accident because a "replacement" could be created. Further, infertile couples could use cloning techniques to have children. Next, human cloning would terminate genetic faults in people. Additionally, people who want an image of them to live on forever could preserve their life in clones of themselves.

Human cloning in general would contribute to research and experiments on human body and scientific limits. Cloning could also become a new source of economic activity. The arguments to the contrary include equally strong ideas. First, cloning humans is ethically questionable because it may have unpredictable social and psychological consequences. Second, a cloned individual would be genetically identical to the cloned individual, but she / he would not be the same as the cloned individual to replace her / him. Moreover, cloning is illegal in the US.

The opponents of human cloning insist that no scientist should do everything she / he CAN do. There are certain ethical boundaries for scientists to abide by. They should not do things to harm other people in any way especially that scientists' knowledge and abilities could be dangerous to human race. A situation who-CAN-do-what could create an unhealthy competition among the scientists, who would care more about their personal benefit and fame than about the benefit of humanity.

In the light of controversy on human cloning, past and current findings in this field elicit many ethical questions for future research. The idea of human cloning takes its beginnings from animal cloning. The procedure of cloning is wildly understood as extracting a nucleus from one cell and implanting it into another cell, for example, egg cell. This process would create offspring identical to the donor of the nucleus because DNA genetic encoding is wired into the nucleus of a cell. The procedure is so universal that it can be applied to any cells regardless of their complexity. Thus, although cloning was originally utilized for cloning simple organisms, now, it can be applied to duplicating human cells as well.

The cloning history started in the middle of twentieth century with cloning fairly uncomplicated creatures like frogs; and from there it spread to other species, including human cells. The cloning takes its roots in 1950's, when the first formal frog clones were created by Doctors Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King at the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia (Stalzer). The next successfully cloned frogs came to being in England in 1970's (Evans). At that time, the scientific achievement sparked some ethical concern, but cloning frogs was so much simpler than cloning mammals that nobody believed then that cloning mammals would ever be possible. Although the trial studies on cloning frogs expanded greatly to the other species and more complex organisms, scientists still believe that the technique used to create the frogs could be adapted to grow more complicated organisms and human organs such as hearts, kidneys, and liver. The research continued, and in 1996, a great achievement was accomplished; the first successful mammal clone, Dolly the sheep, came into being.

The achievement was considered the most significant thus far. In 1996, Ian Wilmot and his colleagues "extracted the nucleus of a cell just like the [other scientists before them], but his success stemmed from his treatment of the cell after it was removed. He placed the cell into a solution (which barely kept it alive), and allowed the cell to virtually 'shut down' and reprogram itself" (Stalzer). The scientists were unable to explain why this procedure worked better than the other ones, and why this attempt was successful. All in all, a new live sheep was created. The cloning research was continued; and it was approaching humans even faster.

In March 2000, iwon. com published news provided by Reuters about the first successful pig cloning. The news announced that PPL Therapeutics Plc, the British biopharmaceutical company that helped to clone Dolly the sheep, has created the world's first five cloned pigs named Millie, Christa, Alexis, Carrel and Dotcom. The pig cloning has been perceived as a new opportunity to establish a great source of organ transplants for humans, known as "xenotransplantation" (Reaney). Pigs which have organs of similar size to human organs can be grown very quickly, so if genetic engineering solves the transplant rejection problem, pigs could bring hope to "68,000 people in the United States and 50,000 in Europe who are waiting for livers, kidney and hearts. The lists increase by 15 percent a year, while the number of organ donors are dwindling" (Reaney). The success of animal cloning in the past is believed to contribute to progress in human cloning in spite of the fact that the current trials of creating people do not seem to be successful.

There are private groups of scientists, for example, a private consortium of scientists founded by an Italian physician, Dr Severin o Antinori of University of Kentucky, who told BBC News Online: "It would be wholly irresponsible to try to clone a human being, given the present state of the technology... The success rate with animal cloning is about one to two percent in the published results, and I think lower than that on average. I don't know anyone working in this area who thinks the rate will easily be improved" (Kirby). The main problem in achieving a success is keeping the offspring alive in late pregnancy and right after birth. On one hand, Dr. Antinori underlines that the chances of successful human cloning are very slight and risks are very high; on the other hand, he promises that the first human clone will be possible as early as 2005.

To clone a human being, the scientists would use the same technique they used for cloning Dolly the sheep, which took 277 attempts (Kirby). Due to possible abuses, the technological advancement and the relatively close probability of creating a human clone have started a startling worldwide controversy. Creating humans out of a single cell raises some ethical concerns in many countries. Because human cloning may lead to abuses and undesirable moral, social, and psychological consequences, different countries adapt contradicting policies. Some nations think that the advantages of cloning offset the possible disadvantages. Still, other groups definitely are against this way of reproduction since it would impose oddities humans never dealt with before.

The foremost concerns regarding artificial creating human embryos are probable abuses of the technique and its product. The moral consequences could lead to diminishing the worth of human life. If one could be simply cloned in case of his / her death, individuals would no longer be perceived as unique and irreplaceable. Thus, "cloning jeopardizes the personal identity and autonomy of the clone because a cloned child is deliberately deprived of a 'normal social identity,'. .. and cloning turns humans into commodities and artifacts, thereby demonstrating callousness toward, and depersonalization of, human life" (Post). Another serious danger is seen in social implications human cloning may have.

Simply, undesirable groups of society would be eliminated through deliberate breeding of only chosen qualities and individuals. "The process of cloning would necessarily increase conformity and eradicate genetic variety" (Post). In multicultural nations like the United States, such process of perfecting the social qualities through cloning would produce dangerous social tensions between diverse ethical groups. In addition to the moral and social effects, there would also arise negative psychological effects. Doctor Patricia A. Baird of University of British Columbia thinks that possible psychological harms to cloned individuals include diminished individuality, a sense of foreclosed future, or a disturbed sense of identity: "An important part of human identity is the sense of arising from a maternal and a paternal line while at the same time being a unique individual. Many children who are adopted, or conceived from donor insemination, show a deep need to learn about their biological origins.

Making children by cloning means that they do not have this dual genetic origin; they are not connected to others in the same biological way as the rest of humanity. The first person born this way would have to cope with being the first not to come from the union of egg and sperm. Social, family, and kinship relationships that support human flourishing have evolved over millennia - but there is no way to place replica nts. Is the DNA source the twin? The mother? The father?" (Baird) Due to the various and fully unpredictable social, psychological, and moral disadvantages human cloning may impose onto the cloned individuals as well as the societies, countries around the globe dispute policies they should adopt to manage the issue effectively and justly.

In the United States, public polls show overwhelming opposition to human cloning. In June 1997, President Clinton ordered the National Bioethics Advisory Commission consisting of eighteen members to prepare a report on the ethics of human cloning research. In the report, the commission concluded that human cloning was ethically unacceptable at that time and suggested banning cloning of humans. As a result of this report, legislative bills were presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate making it illegal "for any person to use a human somatic cell for the process of producing a human clone" (Kass and Wilson). Several other countries like France, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and other nations support the US policies against human embryo cloning. Some European countries including United Kingdom, Belgium, and Russia, however, allow highly regulated embryo research.

In the UK, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 prohibits the transplant of nuclei into embryos, but it does not prohibit transferring the nuclei into eggs, as it was done in cloning Dolly the sheep, and as it is to be done to clone humans. (Post). The support of human cloning is not as much direct and intended as coming from existing loopholes allowing for scientific manipulation. The future of human cloning is difficult to predict because arising concerns build rather unfavorable atmosphere for future research.

The conflict between proponents and opponents of this way of human reproduction may shift the public opinion and legislation in a new direction relatively soon. Undoubtedly, the arguments for cloning of humans seem to have some merit. Cloning in general have brought multiple advantages in food production, medicine, and genetics. Human cloning is argued to allow infertile couples or couples with genetic defects to have healthy children of their own. Further, the technique would enable scientists to produce organs for transplants, which due to the genetic similarity would not have the risk of being refused by the organism.

And finally, human cloning could help people bring to life historically significant figures like Marilyn Monroe, George Washington, or Isaac Newton. As identical twins of the famous individuals, the cloned persons could have certain traits benefiting humanity (Stalzer). Ethical aspects of the matter may, nonetheless, slow down the scientific research for many years to come. The lawmakers are considering cloning of human cells from different perspectives to analyze all possible options. Although they are prone to allow adult stem cell cloning meant to produce organs, they are pushed away by the public from human cloning destined to produce people.

While growing adult cells into a limited number of cells is ethically acceptable for most people, it is the least desirable way of proceeding with the research for scientists because adult stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic cells. Although scientists would prefer to work on human embryos, this is viewed as ethically unacceptable by those who believe that human life begins at conception, traditionally - the union of the sperm and egg, in cloning - by implanting a nucleus of one cell into another cell (Gibbs 20). There is yet another possibility; researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts predict "that within 15 years, scientists will be able to reprogram human cells without having to rely on human eggs and embryos at all. They call it cellular DNA remodeling" (Gibbs 19). Scientists argue that they will be able to achieve this technique only if they are allowed to work on human embryos, which are the fastest way to progress the DNA remodeling studies.

Still, they do not state that this is the only way to study human DNA and cell development. Human cloning is a relatively new field of bioethics and genetic research. The field shows a promising potential for all human imperfections caused by DNA abnormalities. Despite many promises, human cloning triggers many ethical and moral questions because one of the techniques requires creating human embryos later destroyed to provide cells used for the research. The public and pro-life lawmakers are firmly against this research tactic. Still, another cloning procedure allows using adult stem cells to grow organs; it is not as easy as utilizing embryo cells, but it is possible to work with.

While, generally, working with adult stem cells is acceptable and desirable if it actually hopes to bring medical benefits for many patients, cloning humans in order to reproduce the same individual over and over again seems to be inappropriate. Although "twins and even triplets have been around for millenniums, engineering multiple copies of an adult or a lost child is just too creepy" (Gibbs).

Bibliography

Baird, Patricia A. MD. "Should Human Cloning Be Permitted?" Annales Apr. 2002.
27 Apr. 2002 Burley, Justine.
The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
netLibrary. 1999.
3 May 2002.
Evans, John H. "Cloning Adam's Rib: A Primer on Religious Responses to Cloning". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 15 May 2002.
The Institute for Advance Study in Princeton web. Frist, Bill. "Not Ready for Human Cloning". Washington Post 11 Apr. 2002.
26 Apr. 2002.
Gibbs, Nancy. "Cloning: Where Do You Draw the Line?" Time 13 Aug. 2001: 18-21.
Kass, Leon, and James Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, D.C., AEI 1998.
29 Apr. 2002.
Kirby, Alex. "Cloned Human Planned 'by 2003'".
BBC News 30 Jan. 2001.
Post, May Mon". Human Cloning: New Hope, New Implications, New Challenges". Temple International and Comparative Law Journal Spring 2001: 171-93.
OCLC FirstSearch. 20 May 2002.
Reaney, Patricia. "Firm Says It Creates First Cloned Pigs". iWon. com 14 Mar. 2002.
25 May 2002.
Smith, Simon. "All the Reasons to Clone Human Beings". 26 Nov. 2001.
20 Apr. 2002.
Stalzer, Eric. "Human Cloning: How Far Should We Go?" Technology and Culture PL 212 30 Apr. 1998.
Loyola College. 20 May 2002.