Techniques To Clone Humans example essay topic

To Clone or Not To Clone... Since February 23rd, 1997, when British scientists announced they had successfully cloned an adult sheep named Dolly, the world has been scrambling to limit the possibility of using cloning techniques to clone humans. To most people, the idea of cloning humans, and its moral implications, has been safely confined to the realm of science fiction; as something we didn't have to think about until later. Yet, as the world has slumbered, researchers have arrived at a compelling question. Should we clone human beings Before we decide on an answer, we must remember that the subject of human cloning, like any issue with wide-ranging effects, is full of complexities that cannot be dismissed offhand with a simple affirmative or negative answer.

Yet that's exactly what President Clinton is doing with his recent proposals to ban research, federally funded and otherwise, in the developing field of human cloning. Days after Dolly was revealed Clinton said, "My own view is that human cloning would have to raise deep concerns, given our most cherished concepts of faith and humanity. Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science... I believe we must respect this profound gift and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves". Hiroshi Nakajima, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) echoed Clinton's sentiments.

"WHO considers the use of cloning for the replication of human individuals to be ethically unacceptable", he said, adding that such actions "would violate some of the basic principles which govern medically assisted procreation" including respect of human dignity and protection of human genetic material. Thus, the line seems to be clearly drawn. If you believe human beings are unique creatures "born of a miracle", then you should be against human cloning. Simple Hardly. However, it is clear that by jumping into moralistic arguments without knowing all the facts, and attempting to ban a new field of research out of hand, the President is only repeating the irrational, knee-jerk reactionism of the Reagan and Bush administrations, who used similar arguments when regulating research on human embryos.

Reactionism of this kind contributes nothing to our collective understanding, let alone advancement, of human life. Human cloning should not be banned. If the President's proposed legislation passes, then human cloning will become the only field of scientific research banned by law. The object of the ban would be to give Americans a chance to step back from this issue and appreciate the implications of this type of research. Yet cloning is not new, it reaches back to experiments with frogs and toads in the 1970's.

Plants and animal embryos have been cloned for years, while in October 1994, Robert J. Stillman cloned 17 flawed human embryos at the George Washington Medical Center in Washington D.C... Though none of these embryos survived past the 32 cell stage, the data produced led researchers to believe that cloned cells could continue to develop naturally in a compatible uterus. What have the ethicist's and policy makers done since the 1970's Haven't we had enough time to ponder the issues The only reason why human cloning is highly controversial, as opposed to the cloning of other species, is because it seems to threaten our concepts of the sanctity of human life and traditional family values. But that's to be expected in a progressive culture. The more we learn about the world, the more we must redefine ourselves and our place in it. Unless you want to keep you head in the sand, you must be prepared for such reevaluations.

Opponents to human cloning use slippery slope reasoning by assuming that a host of evils will unfold, if human cloning is not banned, merely because of the possibility of misuse. Given the difficulty of cloning Dolly, the only sheep born of 277 attempts, and the caution with which researchers are already proceeding without being banned, how can we think that cloning humans will become a common event tomorrow and used only for evil ends There are too many benefits to be gained from research on human cloning for it to be banned for any reason. Human cloning research would permit doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate nerve tissues, and provide a huge boost to work on aging, genetics and medicines. Banning human cloning research would impinge upon the rights of scientific inquiry and the rights of procreation, while the fear that clones would be mindless drones is utterly false.

If I cloned myself, I would not create a cookie-cut replica. Instead, I would become the father of my identical twin, and my twin would be influenced by such a wide array of different circumstances while growing up, from uterus to grave, that he would be a separate entity in all respects. What opponents really wonder is whether or not a clone would have a soul. If you want to know, make one and ask!