The Cloning Debate

Unlike some movies, cloning in real life doesn’t produce a full grown exact replica of someone. A type of cloning that occurs naturally is when identical twins are born (“What Is Cloning?”). Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a type of cloning that has to be done in a lab. In SCNT they take the nucleolus out of an egg cell, replace it with the nucleolus of a somatic cell (body cell with two complete sets of chromosomes), and make the egg cell divide into a blastocyst (“What Is Cloning?”).

Any time someone had to get a lung transplanted there would be no need to find a donor; and once the lung was transplanted, the patient would not have to receive drugs afterwards, because his immune system would automatically accept the lung. Also, organs that cannot possibly be donated and accepted in a new body, like spinal tissue, could be duplicated. This means if an individual was paralyzed, hers or his spinal tissue could be duplicated by stem cells and then transplanted. In addition, it may become possible, with embryonic stem cells, to generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those cells into patients with chronic heart disease. Through the use of embryonic stem cells, brain cells and many other cells can be cultured and then transplanted into a patient to cure Alzheimer's disease and other brain and heart related diseases. A person diagnosed with diabetes, a disease in which a person is unable to produce insulin, can have cells cultured to form insulin producing cells and have them transplanted. Because of the limited number of cells adult stem cells are able to produce; these diseases would be unable to be cured through their use. Stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. With this achievement scientists could be able to cure cancer and many other diseases. This would reduce the view of cancer as a fatal disease, to something that can be overcome, such as a common cold. Patients

Genetic cloning is one of the most controversial topics of all time. People, specifically scientists, are constantly searching for ways to improve the quality of human life. As a result, they began genetically engineering animals and are currently in search of a method to genetically engineer humans as well; which is called human cloning. There are many reasons why people should not go forward with this step since genetic cloning, consequently human cloning, does not respect nature nor does it ensure diversity and survival in natural ecosystems. In addition, genetic cloning is a cruel, harsh, and an unsafe experiment.

The act of cloning a human being comes dangerously close to human beings acting as God. Do human beings have the right to tamper with nature in this way? This essay explores the various ethical issues related to the cloning debate, and seeks answers to this deep philosophical question at the heart of bioethics. As a student of genetic biology and future biologist, this question also has personal relevance. Our science is evolving at a rapid pace. As human cloning becomes increasingly possible, it is important that we analyze the ethics of cloning so that judicious public policy can be created. It is therefore my position that research into cloning should continue to fulfill the fundamental goals of scientific exploration and to explore the possibilities that cloning might have in terms of benefitting human society; on the other hand, there are certainly ethical limits to the practice of cloning. It is important to define those ethical limits, so that scientists understand the best ways to proceed.

The controversy of human cloning has contemplated the reasons it should or shouldn't be allowed. Human cloning is the reproduction of human cells and tissue by creating a genetical copy artificially. Clones contain original characteristics of the individual or cell. There are many dangerous risks and great benefits to human cloning. Many people have an extraordinary reaction to cloning because it creates all sorts of images. Cloning is a medical breakthrough that can help millions of people if it is scientifically proven to be 100% safe. Is science really ready to officially clone a human?

Lastly, one of the main ethical issues discussed concerning stem cell research originates in the fact that embryonic stem cells have to be generated from embryos that are destroyed in the process. This means that stem cell research again raises the question of whether there are any ethical limits concerning the destruction of human embryos for research of therapeutic purposes, as well as the most fundamental question of the moral status of the human embryo. (Holm p. 10) If human embryos have any moral status we need a good explanation to destroy them, and the greater their moral status the more important or weighty the justification has to be. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, it is impossible to respect both moral principles. To

Zubin Master and G. Crozier in “ The Ethics Of Moral Compromise For Stem Cell Research Policy” try to explain, and inform anyone that is interested in knowing more about the stem cell research, and the ethics involved in that subject. The main idea of this Journal Article is to analyze some of the scientific proposals of using stem cells, and which methods are more ethically corrects for the research. In the article, Zubin and Crozier talk about new techniques that can derive stem cells without having to destroy embryos. One of those techniques are to “use a non-human animal source of ova or ova created from the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells”(53), so the researchers can keep doing experiments without having to use humans embryos,

A mad scientist stands in one part of a double-chambered machine, leaving the other empty. As he presses a button, gears begin to whir and smoke. A bright light flashes, and out of the empty chamber steps a perfect replica of the scientist, complete with clothes and command of the English language.

Cloning your pet, or any other animal, may seem like a thing of the future. Until now, scientists have developed a way to clone animals including your deceased pet. Cloning is a tricky task to perform. In most cases only one out of every 277 cloned embryos is successfully born. On top of that it is also a very expensive procedure costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to execute. Even though, it is an amazing scientific feat.

In the creation of technological advances that survives today, the dispute of cloning is ever existent as a debate of morals and human rights. People are asking if we have the right to clone humans and other animals. Cloning, the process of taking a cell from one organism, taking a donor womb cell from another organism of the same species, inserting the original cell in the donor cell, and placing the newly developed embryo inside a surrogate mother. This is an inhumane desecration of human rights and an obscene act against the natural balance of life. There are those who think that cloning is a brilliant idea and that it is tolerable to create life from an individual which already exists. Those in support of cloning have countless reasons for their opinion. They say that clones and cloning can be used for medical and research purposes, that clones are capable of populating our military. Another reason for cloning is to replace a deceased child or pet, or to enable infertile couples to have children. But these people in support of cloning seem to ignore one key factor that makes this act a violation of nature. All living human beings have feelings and thoughts, and that also includes clones. Cloning belittles the individualities each person and animals acquires, and many consider it an ethical injustice.

Another ethical concern many people have with therapeutic cloning is that the process is defying God since it involves cloning and thus is morally wrong. Many people do believe that the process defies God since it is cloning and creating something only God can create. Although this concern is understandable, supporters of therapeutic cloning suggest that the process is only helping people survive diseases through healthy organ transplants and scientists have no intention of challenging God in any way.

There are actually many benefits that would come with cloning, such as being able to cure defective genes s, many cosmetic surgeries, and possibly, being able to cure cancer. The way that cloning would be able to cure defective genes, would be by cloning the same genes, but altering them to be benefit the human body rather than be a negative aspect.

In this present day and age, cloning has gained much controversy in relation to its development and scientific use. Applying this contentious process to extinct organisms – known as ‘de-extinction’ - fuels further debate. Through various experiments – the first instance of cloning, Dolly the sheep in 1997, scientists have observed that this could serve as a gateway for further scientific discoveries. Also, it has been hypothesised that an ecosystem could highly benefit from the revival of an extinct species. Nonetheless, however advantageous it appears for some scientific development, the act of cloning an extinct organism itself has major implications involving the welfare of the animal itself. The controversy has also arisen

What if individuality and diversity no longer existed throughout our world? What if everyone was so similar to each other one could not tell the difference between people? This could very easily be a true statement at some point in the future due to human cloning. Human cloning can be done but not actually performed yet, as in a human clone being born. At first it started with animals, but then it moved to human embryos. Scientists figured out a way to make it possible to clone a human being. Scientists do this through stem cells as well as harvesting women’s eggs. Scientist grow these embryos in petri dishes and once they are done experimenting, scientist destroy these embryos that could be human beings. This is where a big controversy begins

What is more, cloning a child could produce a tissue match for treatment of a life-threatening disease. Also, two lesbians could elect to have a child by adult DNA cloning rather than by artificial insemination by a man's sperm. Each would then contribute part of her body to the fertilized ovum, one woman would donate the ovum, which contains some genetic material in its mitochondria, the other woman the nuclear genetic material. Both would have parts of their bodies involved in the conception. They might find this more satisfactory than in-vitro fertilization using a man's sperm.