To Clone Or Not To Clone

To Clone Or Not To Clone Cloning is an issue that has been evolving during time. At the begining, cloning was been researched and was described as something that was hard to reach. Even science fiction movies, such as Multiplicity, were produced about cloning. As the time went through, cloning became a reality. In 1996 Dolly, the first mammal, a sheep was born.

Dolly was created by Ian Wilmut, an embryologist of the Rosling insitute ( World Book, http://www.worldbook.com ). Since then, many mammals, such as mice and calves were created. Right now, there is a fear, that humans might be the next to be cloned. Ruth macklin and Charles Krauthammer discuss this matter in two essays were they state whether cloning is right or wrong. Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, wrote an essay about this issue.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No is the title of her article. Her essay discusses the negative response of the people to Human Cloning. As the title of the essay says: Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No, Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed in humans. Macklin talks about Human Clones not being accepted as human beings. She states that an ethicist said once, that human cloning would be a violation to the right to genetic identity (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg.

508). Macklin doubts about the exsistence of this right. She explains many points about Human Cloning and about ethics. One of the points she mentiones, is about the violation to human dignity. Theologians say that cloning would be a violation to dignity and also that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings.

Another issue she discusses is the fact that Human Clones could be used as human farms or organ donors. Macklin gives many examples about the cases where human cloning might be accepted. Mothers that can not have children, families that have children that are sick to death or also couples that may have genetic defects (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg. 508). In conclusion, Macklin thinks, that human cloning should be accepted or at least an opportunity should been given to develop Human Cloning.

On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer, the author of the second essay Of Headless Mice…And Men is totally against Cloning in every way. His essay talks about the cloning that was made in mice. Researchers have been able to locate different genes and than delete some genes, just to see what comes out. They erased the clone that creates the head and produced headless mice that obviosly died when the were born. Krauthammer does not understand, how humans can create such type of mice. He talks about the chance of creating humans with no heads.

He says, that the goal of these production of headless humans, could be kept as an organ farm. He also gives examples of Cloning, such as the possibility to create models, and geniuses (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg. 510). Krauthammer mentiones that President Bill Clinton banned cloning, but it won’t be long until it is accepted. Krauthammer cloncusion is the prohibition of Human cloning and every type of cloning. These essays are a clear example of what cloning is and what the responses might be.

As Macklin is in favor of Cloning, Krauthammer is not. Macklin’s essay talks more about cloning as having a twin, a person that will be living with us and form part of the family. A companion that will be there to live life as it is. There are other terms for cloning such as carbon copy. On the other hand, Krauthammer’s essay describes human clones with no heads.

Human farms that will be there in case something goes wrong with the original. These half human beings would be different, they would be kept alive, like an organ reserve if the original loses a hand, then the clone gives that person a hand. What kind of thoughts are those? Is it possible that scientists have come to a point were they want to create Monsters? This would really be a violation to human dignity. A harm to the cloned person that might not have a brain to think, but he sure will have the same arms, legs, hands, etc.. as the original.

He might not have the same face as the original, but he will have a heart and I am sure that he would not like to live headless. If cloning will be this way, than it should be completly banned. Both essays are very persuasive, but there is a difference in both. The examples given by the authors have a huge roll in the persuasive part, Krauthammer has examples that might be more persuasive than Macklin’s. They both explain the two faces of cloning and under which conditiond it might be developed.

Macklin gives us an explanation trying to convince the public of giving human cloning a chance to happen. She also describes cloning as some kind of human farm, but mostly what she explains is that cloning can be taken as something normal, as an in- vitro fertilization, for example. Many people do not really know what human cloning really is and misunderstand its meaning. Macklin gives a short explanation, but as every experiment, it must have some dificulties. Krauthammer’s essay is totally against cloning.

He is very persuasive and gives examples that will change the way of thinking of many people and turn them against cloning. He gives exapmles, that are almost imposibble to believe. Headless people, headless mice, keeping human clones alive as an organ farm, etc. All these examples are a reality and anyone who is mature enough and has reasoning will be against the creation of headless humans. This essays have the same topic, but are different.

Although both talk about human cloning, the essays are different. As we could see, in Macklin’s essay, the cloned humans are considered persons. Krauthammer’s essay mostly discusses human clones as human farms. Macklin talks about cloning being banned, but she does not state who banned it. Krauthammer explains this as saying that Dolly made president Clinton create a comission and temporary banned human clonning. Eventhough there is a temporary ban, this could someday be accepted. Krauthammer thinks, that this should be banned forever.

There are a lot of different opinions about cloning and also a lot of mistaken thoughts about this issue. Many articles have been written and discussed. Many questions are to be answered and more research is to be done. This type of essays can clear some doubts people have, but are not enough to say I am in favor.. or I am against…

It is an issue that will be a controversy for al long time. It might be right to create a human clone as a person, but it is very wrong to use a human clone as a human farm. Everyone has the right to live a normal life. If this right will be violated than, no cloned humans should be created. As Macklin says: A world not safe foe cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us. Bibliography Macklin, Ruth Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No Perspectives on Contemporary Issues.

Pages 507-508 Krauthammer, Charles Of Headless Mice..And Men Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Pages 509-511 Wachbroit, Robert Human Cloning Isn’t as Sacry as it Sounds Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com.

To clone or not to clone

On February 24, 1997, the whole world was shocked by the news that Scottish scientists had successfully cloned a sheep. Dolly an artificially cloned mammal was born a star. After the shock, that cloning was not only a possibility but a reality, wore off the out cry against human cloning began. Physicians, scientists, politicians and church leaders and many more have been trying to ban the cloning of humans ever since. Is cloning something to be afraid of? I do not believe it is. I believe that cloning will become a tool of science that will, in time, bring many benefits to humankind.

The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia describes a clone as “an organism by an asexual (nonsexual) reproductive process”(clone 1). This definition means that we already have many clones on the earth today. The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia also states that “the organisms known as prokaryotes (the bacteria and cyanobacteria), a number of other simple organisms, such as most protozoan, many other algae, and some yeasts, also reproduce primarily by cloning, as do certain higher organisms like the dandelion or aspen tree”(clone 1). The Biology Textbook Concepts and Connections describes a clone as “a single organism that is genetically identical to another”(G-5). With this definition we can come to the conclusion that identical twins are also clones. Cloning then is not a new idea but one that has been around since the beginning of time.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Embryo Splitting or Blastomere Separation
Embryo splitting as Gregory Pence, a medical ethicist, writes is when “an embryo that has already been formed by sexual reproduction is split into two identical halves”(Flesh My Flesh: intro). The National Bioethics Advisory Committee calls this process blasotmere separation and explains that “each cell, called a blastomere, is able to produce a new individual organism”(15). See Appendix A figure one. Pence also writes that embryo splitting is “a process that has been used for years to help infertile couples who could not produce enough embryos, it is neither a breakthrough nor startling”(Flesh My Flesh: x).
Nuclear Somatic Transfer or Nuclear Transplantation Cloning
In nuclear somatic transfer a nucleus is taken from the cell of an already existing person and placed into a fertilized egg which has had its nucleus removed. The egg cell is then stimulated to divide and grow. Thereby producing a clone or twin of the person whose DNA was used. This is the manner in which Dolly was created (Whos Afraid Cloning 11).

Clones Are Not Always Completely Identical
In Embryo Splitting the clones would be identical twins. However, in Nuclear Somatic Transfer, where most of the controversy lies, a clone will not necessarily be an identical twin. The reasons for this lie in the host egg. Although the nucleus is removed, and therefore the majority of the DNA, it is impossible to remove all the DNA. The mitochondria (tiny organelles in the cell) contain tiny bits of DNA. Because of these mitochondria DNA a cloned person may not be completely identical to the person whose DNA was used(Whos Afraid Cloning 18). Please see diagram labeled figure four in appendix A.

Therapeutic cloning could be used to clone any of the body’s tissues. This does not involve cloning an entire person but only the tissue needed. Please see diagram labeled “the ultimate body repair kit” in appendix A. In an on-line scientific magazine Andy Coghlan discusses therapeutic cloning and how it is done. He writes that “therapeutic cloning would use the technique that created Dolly the sheep to grow cells for transplants that are matched to their recipients – for instance to replace the brain cells lost in Parkinsons disease”(1:3). Many thousands of people die every year while waiting for an organ transplant or as a result of tissue rejection. With therapeutic cloning there is no chance of rejection as it is your tissue that is cloned. Think of how wonderful it would be if one of your family members or even you yourself could be saved because of therapeutic cloning.

In the normal reproductive process many chromosomal abnormalities can occur during meiosis in the testes of men and the ovaries of women. When this happens if the child is born it can have major birth defects. Downs Syndrome is one such defect and is a result of an extra chromosome on the 21st chromosomal pair. The risk of having a Downs Syndrome baby increases with the age of the woman wishing to have a baby. Gina Kolata points out in her book Clone that”with cloning, such chromosomal mixups sic cannot occur,after all, you are starting with a normal cell, from a normal adult, with the proper number of chromosomes”(238).

Cloning would also be very beneficial to people who are carriers of such diseases as sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs Disease and cystic fibrosis. As they have only one gene for these diseases and it requires two genes to have the disease they are normal healthy adults, but they would not wish to pass on these genetic defects to their children. It its report to the president of the United States the National Bioethics Advisory Commission wrote of just one such scenario where both the husband and the wife are carriers of a lethal gene.

“Rather than risk the one in four chance of conceiving a child who will suffer a short and painful existence, the couple considers the alternatives: to forgo rearing children; to adopt; to use prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion; to use donor gametes free of the recessive trait; or to use the cells of one of the adults and attempt to clone a child. To avoid donor gametes and selective abortion while maintaining a genetic tie to their child, they opt for cloning(85).

One of the arguments, that has been heard against cloning, is that to many potential babies are lost because it takes so many embryos to make one baby. However when the septuplets were born, with fertility drugs, in November of 1997 everyone rejoiced that such a feat was possible. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that a lot of multiply-gestated babies are born disabled or dead (Flesh of my Flesh 119). What about having a baby the usual way? Professor Gregory Pence explains that “at least 40% of human embryos fail to implant in normal sexual reproduction”. He also noted that “about 50% of the rejected embryos are chromosomally abnormal, meaning that if they were somehow brought to term, the resulting children would be mutants or suffer genetic dysfunction”(Flesh of my Flesh 119). How about in vitro fertilization? Pence points out that “on average in in vetro fertilization… it will take 900 embryos to produce 30 babies, for an efficiency rate of 1 in 30″(Flesh of my Flesh 120). The Biology Place states that “it took 277 cell fusions… to produce one Dolly”(Kimball 1). Please consider that Dolly is only the first of her kind and the technique will become much more efficient before it is ever tried on humans.

Altogether I feel that cloning will definitely benefit humanity. It may do this by allowing people, who are not able to by other, means to have children. Cloning may be used to grow new organs for people who would otherwise die while waiting for a donor match. It may help couples, who have defective genes, to have a child that is free of birth defects and disease. I do feel however that cloning must be used with caution. Every new invention or discovery has the potential to be used improperly and immorally and it is up to us, the public, to ensure that the proper laws are put in place. We should not ban cloning just because we are afraid of it. Rather we should study it and use it as a tool to benefit not just ourselves but the whole world.


Bibliography:
Pence, Gregory E., Flesh of my Flesh: the Ethics of Cloning Humans.
Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Inc., 1998.


—. Whos Afraid of Human Cloning. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 1998.


Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell and Jane B. Reece, Biology:
Concepts and Connections, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc., 1999.


—. Kimballs Biology Essays: Can Humans Be Cloned. The Biology Place.
Online. 1999.
http://www.biology.com/Kimbell/C/CloningMammals.html
Encarta Encyclopedia
United States. National Bioethics Advisory Committee. Cloning Human
Beings volume 1: Report and Recommendations. ?????

To Clone Or Not To Clone

.. l one, it would be a totally separate human being. Would it be right to expect this child to take the place of one you have lost? This would be a huge responsibility for a child to try and live up to. What would it do mentally to this cloned child, to not be wanted for itself, but to replace another? Since this child would have the identical gene make-up of the original, would it not also be susceptible to the same illness. There are a few common misconceptions I would like to address.

A clone would be a normal human being, an identical twin, only younger. Cloning only produces life from existing life it does not create it. A human clone would have a soul. Twins have souls and the same applies here. It is widely believed that a clone would have the same emotions and feelings as the genetic parent.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This is also false. The last is probably the most outrageous. It is a wide belief that great people in our history could be re-born. This is not possible since a clone must be developed from a live cell. Here are some arguments used against and in defense of human cloning: ARGUMENTS AGAINST Cloning might lead to the creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, such as warfare or slavery.

Cloning might lead to an attempt to improve the human race according to an arbitrary standard. Cloning could result in the introduction of additional defects in the human gene pool. Cloning is unsafe. There are too many unknown factors that could adversely affect the offspring. A clone might have a diminished sense of individuality.

A clone might have fewer rights than other people. Doctors might use clones as sources of organs for organ transplants. Cloning is at odds with the traditional concept of family. Cloning is against God’s will. Some aspects of human life should be off limits to science. ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF Cloning would enable infertile couples to have children to their own. Cloning would give couples that are at risk of producing a child with a genetic defect the chance to produce a healthy child.

Cloning could shed light on how genes work and lead to the discovery of new treatments for genetic diseases. A ban on cloning may be unconstitutional. It would deprive people of the right to reproduce and restrict the freedom of scientists. A clone would not really be a duplicate, because environmental factors would mold him or her into a unique individual. A clone would have as much of a sense of individuality as do twins.

A clone would have the same rights, as do all other people. Cloning is comparable in safety to a number of other medical procedures. Objections to cloning are similar to objections raised against previous scientific achievements, for example, heart transplants and test-tube babies, that later came to be widely accepted. (*This information is from World Book) I have to admit, that when I started this paper I was deadset against cloning. The more and more I read and study about the subject, I find myself changing my mind.

There seem to be a lot of definite good things that could be accomplished. Don’t get me wrong; there are definitely some problems to be worked out. But admit it; is there really anything that does not have problems? Sure there are crazy people out there that may try and do strange things. They are out there everyday doing strange things not related to cloning. Already there is a cult out there; they think they are aliens cloned. They have some very odd ideas. This is no reflection on cloning, though. If it were not cloning it would be something else, like Elvis.

Is everyone against him, because of all the rumors and weirdoes surrounding him? No, it only makes him even more fascinating. We are constantly looking for medical breakthroughs in all areas. Why not allow the professionals in the cloning area use the knowledge they have to try and better the quality of life. Sure, there will have to be governing laws as in anything else in this country, but don’t completely tie their hands. Remember a few years ago people felt the same way about in-vitro and surrogate mothers as they do about cloning now. These days that stuff is old news. Roses are cloned all the time to make them more healthy and disease resistant.

Does the human race deserve less than a flower. Maybe we should step back and take a good look at our standards. Do we hold some less important things above the most important things? Is the quality human life not the ultimate goal in this time and age? If not, it certainly should be. I am definitely looking at cloning as a positive thing. Not all issues are resolved in my mind, yet. That may come with more information and technology.

I definitely do not think that there should be a total ban. Some type of research needs to be allowed and a some point, testing of some type. For years cancer has eluded doctors as to a cure. There are treatments and some go into remission, but are they ever really cured? Maybe the answer to the cancer cure could also be in some form of cloning. I have no doubt that there are those working outside the rules and regulations on cloning. Most of these though are not the ones we need. We need the big laboratories, with the money to back them to be working on this issue.

Maybe, like so many other things, it will take time for people to accept. But how much time do we have? What about all the people dying now that might possibly benefit from cloning? I say lets get moving and find out just what can and can’t be done. Maybe in the end we will all be disappointed but at least the effort will have been made. Science.

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out