Essay on The Dilemma of Cloning

Reproductive cloning could also be abused by people who want to create genetically superior children. Using reproductive cloning you could clone the world’s greatest athletes and geniuses. As crazy as it sounds, this would open up the door to future possibilities of a world where genetic discrimination is the norm like in the movie GATTACA.

What was once thought to be the content of fiction novels and comic books is now being fully explored and realized in the cutting edge world of modern science. Scientists now possess the necessary capabilities and technology to make the process of human cloning a reality. While this is a controversial and rather sensitive topic, cloning is an innovative practice that has the potential to vastly improve the lives of unlimited amounts of people. Although cloning may prove to be a useful remedy for many of today’s issues, there are those in the scientific and medical fields who remain vehemently opposed to its practice. It is for this reason that lawmakers, scientists, and doctors around the world are currently locked in a fierce standoff

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

Six years ago, an event in genetic history changed our perspective on "reproduction" and added to our conscience a new element in the study of biology. On February 23, 1997, the world was introduced to Dolly, a 6-month-old lamb that was cloned from a single cell taken from the tissue of an adult donor. Ever since the birth of this sheep, a question that never before existed now lingers in the mind of many: should human cloning be a part of our society?

There are two main types of Reproductive Cloning, Blastomere Separation (Embryo Splitting) and cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology (Cibelli et al. 478). “Blastomere separation is the making of multiple copies of a genome by separating or multiplying the individual cells of an early embryo (Cibelli et al. 478).” This process can make multiple identical genotypes possible. SCNT Technology is the use of a somatic (body) cell nucleus from an existing (or deceased) person to copy the genome of that individual (Cibelli et al. 478). There are two uses to this technology, the procreative uses and the deliberate replicative uses. People who cannot have a biologically related child any other way would use the procreative SCNT technology. It appeals to both gays and lesbians or just people who want to avoid transmitting a disease through sexual reproduction (Cibelli et al. 478). The purpose is to obtain a healthy child who is directly related to his/her parents, not to re-create a living genotype (Cibelli et al. 478). On the

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.

Joshua Lederberg’s controversial article titled “Experimental Genetic and Human Evolution” promoting human cloning, published in the 60’s sparked the widespread debate on cloning that would continue for decades to come. Leon Kass, leader of the President’s council of bioethics and a prominent figure in this debate, engaged in a lively debate with Lederberg where he argued that the “programmed reproduction of a man would, in fact, dehumanize him.” Lederberg and Kass are arguably the most well-known figures in the debate surrounding the issue of human reproductive cloning, and their hardline views on this matter, to a large extent, reflect the views of most people I have talked to about human cloning. On reading pieces published by various medical ethicists and philosophers, I have had a hard-time distinguishing what pieces of information we can really trust as the process of human cloning and all of its perceived implications because of what they are: perceptions. We still have no real way of knowing what a “developed” process of cloning would look like and the only way we can really discuss this is to make rational assumptions of how human cloning could take place (the duration, whether the child will have a gestation period within the mother, the potential biological impediments of the process, etc). However, even so, we still have no real idea of how it would actually change societal

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.

The first problem that human cloning encounter is it is one of unethical processes because it involves the alteration of the human genetic and human may be harmed, either during experimentation or by expectations after birth. “Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning human is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses.”, as quoted by Mary Seller, a member of the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility (Amy Logston, 1999). Meaning behind this word are showing us that cloning have both advantages and disadvantages. The concept of cloning is hurting many human sentiments and human believes. “Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical”, as quoted by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Since human cloning deals with human life, it said to be unethical if people are willing to killed embryo or infant to produce a cloned human and advancing on it. The probability of this process is successful is also small because the technology that being used in this process is still new and risky.

As cloning slowly becomes a common reality, society is faced with a difficult question; should it be controlled? Cloning research and its advancements in the United States should be funded and moderated by the government to prevent nihilism and chaos while still promoting new discoveries, despite the physical risks and harms brought with the research. Another famous discovery was added into scientific history on July 5th 1996, when the most famous clone, Dolly

“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” - Leon Kass. The debate of whether or not human cloning should be legalised in Australia has been going on for a long time. Ever since the cloning of a sheep named Dolly in Scotland, in July 1996. There are arguments both for and against the legalisation of cloning and everyone has their own opinion on the matter. People support human cloning because it is expected to result in many medical breakthroughs and because it would help infertile couples . People are against human cloning because of the health risks from telomeric differences .

Many Americans do not understand how risky it will be to clone a human, not to mention how hard it is to clone an animal. Many news article and publications offer this information to the public, because many scientists will not address the media with the real facts. In an article titled, “Creator of cloned sheep, Dolly, says he wouldn’t want to make copies of humans”, Dr. Wilmut stresses that only 1-5% of those embryos used in cloning result in live animals, and survivors are plagued with obesity, kidney problems and other troubles, and even Dolly is suffering from arthritis (1). Most cloned animals, like cows, pigs, goats, sheep, die during embryonic development, and others are stillborn with monstrous abnormalities. Bloated mothers have laborious miscarriages, and occasionally die themselves. The clones usually struggle for air in intensive care units, only to have to be euthanized, the process of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, according to an MSNBC article titled, “Much confusion over cloning” (1). The risks and uncertainties associated with the current technological state of cloning are the basis for why

Many people have asked, "Why would anyone want to clone a human being?" There are at least two good reasons: to allow families to conceive twins of exceptional individuals, and to allow childless couples to reproduce. In a free society we must also ask, "Are the negative consequences sufficiently compelling that we must prohibit consenting adults from doing this?" We will see that in general they are not. Where specific abuses are anticipated, these can be avoided by targeted laws and regulations, which I will suggest below.

Many ethical and moral dilemmas arise when discussing human cloning, and one can have many positions for and against each. To understand the issues surrounding human cloning, one must have a basic

No one knows why these attempts failed and why one succeeded.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) To see something as valuable as an embryo carelessly destroyed in the process of reproductive cloning is a travesty, in numerous ways, not only does it further prove that cloning unable to safely provided a stable live product, but more so destroys a multitude of potential lives to create one possible abominate one. In accordance to Dr. Tanja Dominko’s reports, in the New York Time article “In cloning, Failure far exceeds success”, her three years of experimenting, and going through 300 attempts with monkeys, the only result she has come up with are some of the most grotesquely abnormal embryos containing cells that have little to none chromosomes whatsoever. Some even bare resemblance to that of cancerous cells as opposed to animals with healthy cells. (Kolata, 2001) But, the most promenade one, which has been over looked the most by far, would be the indefinite hazardous consequences cloning would have on our gene pools. “The process of cloning would inevitably invite the use of other genetic technologies, specifically genetic manipulation of cloned embryos, and this could result in permanent, heritable changes to the human gene pool.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) Such practices of artificially creating a human being only spills disaster in the laboratory, in more ways than one. Materials and funds go to waste with each failure, and those clones that do indeed exist do not last