CLONING: NO LONGER A MATTER OF "CAN WE"
Cloning
is the proverbial case of yesterday's science fiction turned reality. As history
has shown, the question that comes with scientific discovery is: "Should
we?" Much has been done in the area of genetic engineering and cloning. Now
that we know it really works, more people are starting to question the
ethics involved in using it.
So what is
cloning? Cloning is the production of one or more individual plants or animals
(whole or in part) which are genetically identical to an original plant or
animal. There are two different procedures that are referred to as cloning:
embryo cloning and adult DNA cloning. Embryo cloning is the removal of one or
more cells from an embryo and encouraging the cell to develop into a separate
embryo with the same DNA as the original. Adult DNA cloning or nuclear
replacement is the removal of DNA from an embryo and replacing it with the DNA
from a cell removed from an original. Embryo cloning can occur naturally and
does happen anytime identical twins are born. Adult DNA cloning could involve
using person A's DNA and using person B as the surrogate mother to give birth to
the identical twin of person A.
There are many
people that support cloning and have very good reasons to do so. Here is a list
of benefits people can receive from using human cloning:
· Rejuvenation
· Reversing Heart Attacks
· Reproduction of Organs and/or Tissues via Human Stem Cells
· Overcoming Issues of Infertility
· Plastic, Reconstructive, and Cosmetic Surgery
· Breast Implants
· Replacing Defective Genes
· Curing Down's Syndrome
· Curing Tay-Sachs Disease
· Liver Transplants
· Kidney Transplants
· Conquering Leukemia
· Possibly Curing Cancer
· Possibly Curing Cystic Fibrosis
· Repairing Injured Spinal Cords
· Testing for Genetic Disease
· Eugenics
· Megalomania
· CURIOSITY
The support for cloning is counteracted by a larger
number of non-supporters. Among the reasons not to support cloning are:
· Health Risks from Mutation of Genes
· Emotional Risks
· Religious Reasons
· Abuse of Technology
Health risks
are a concern because of the uncertainty of abnormalities until after birth.
Different experiments with animals have shown that a nightmare is possible, and
currently neither gene testing nor ultrasound scans can prevent them.
The emotional risks stem from the potential loss of identity. "Is she my
mom or my sister?" And what about the so-called father who could watch his
wife's genetic twin grown up? In the world we live in today, it is very
conceivable that by the time she reaches eighteen and is matured, he will see
the girl he fell in love with and try to establish a sexual relationship, and
technically, this is not incest. Also, a child may be burdened by the thought
that he is a copy and not an "original."
Many
religious people believe that personhood begins at the time of conception. With
that comes the person's soul and sense of spirituality. Anytime cloning is used
for parts or anything in which a full clone is not born, the embryo is
ultimately killed. Most pro-lifers consider this to be murder because you are
essentially killing a human being. Also, even if cloning results in a full
clone, many people believe that it bypasses a higher power and perhaps because
of the means of conception, no soul will be attached to the clone. Without a
sense of a god, what good could a clone be?
Abuse of
cloning is actually the concern many people dwell on. They fear some fascist
dictator will use it to form an army or a group of overzealous scientists or
even to clone him or herself so that, essentially, the same person (better said
as the genetically identical person) could control the country forever. There is
also a less dramatic view that a father will want a clone of himself in order to
see what he "could" have done if he had lived up to his potential, or
if he would have had different opportunities (which I stated as a benefit before
because this is basically megalomania). The list of abuses could go on
forever, and perhaps I better not give any other suggestions to those who may
read this.
The American
government has been baffled by the situation, and many people are skeptical of
how politicians will handle the issue. Dr. Patrick Dixon, author of Futurewise
has been very involved with the media debates on genetics. He claims that
"Politician are populists. They tend to go with the flow of public opinion
on things like human cloning which in turn is often swung by media debate. That
is why it [is] so vitally important that people from every walk of life take
every opportunity to contribute to the human cloning media debate."
The U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Committee
recommended in 1997 that:
· No federal fund be used for creating embryos as a source for stem cells.
· Stem cell research use only the material harvested from aborted fetuses or
from embryos left over after infertility treatments.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health suggested in
their set of guidelines in 1999 that it:
· Would allow federal funding of stem cell research only using cells derived
from aborted fetuses or from embryos left over after infertility treatments.
· Would not allow federal funding for research in methods of extracting stem
cells from embryos.
On August 17,
2000 a chief medical officer's expert group in England recommended that the
government's ban be lifted on human "therapeutic cloning" (used for
replaced ruined or tainted cells, tissue, or organs-but still involves killing
the embryo created to make it). England permits limited experimentation using
young human embryos.
History proves
that, in reference to science, whatever is possible will be tried somewhere by
someone at some time. Some people argue that in this case we need to prevent it
from going any further. Their claim is that either we control gene technology
today, or gene technology will redesign us by tomorrow.
Where do you stand on cloning? Is it ethical or unethical (or is it not a black and white situation)? If you are interested in telling us your opinion or if you want to hear our opinion please contact us-our e-mails are on the authors' page.