theiconoclast.info

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/ e/e5/Clone_Troopers_Phase_I.jpg

 Recent advances in the biological sciences have made cloning, the production of a genetically identical copy of an organism, a reality. However, not everyone believes that scientists should attempt to clone human beings. Opponents of human cloning present a compelling case. First, they argue that cloning is an inefficient process that would likely produce an unhealthy clone. Furthermore, opponents warn that a clone would unfairly bear heavy psychological burdens. Finally, those against cloning caution that human cloning would be detrimental to society at large. However, those in favor of human cloning raise some valid points. For instance, advocates argue that cloning research may lead to medical benefits. They also make the case that cloning is just another form of reproductive technology that people should be free to use. Despite these arguments in favor of cloning, the negative aspects of human cloning outweigh any positive ones; scientists should not try to clone human beings.

Organismal cloning, the generic term for cloning that produces an entire human, animal or plant from a single cell, first emerged as a technology in 1958 when carrots were cloned from mature carrot cells. Like all clones, the cloned carrots carried the exact same genetic code as the mature carrot cells from which they were cloned (Petechuck). Cloning research continued to make incremental improvements over the next few decades, and in the summer of 1996 scientists accomplished the successful cloning of a mammal for the first time with the birth of Dolly, a cloned sheep, at the Roslin Institute (Nardo 35). Dolly’s birth spawned a media frenzy, and for the first time the public and politicians seriously debated the morality of organismal and human cloning. Shortly after Dolly, in June of 1997, President Clinton called on the U.S. Bioehics Advisory Commission to review the ethical and legal implications of cloning (Human Cloning). The debate on the ethicality of cloning, and specifically human cloning, hasn’t stopped since.

The technology that produced Dolly, and that could also create a human clone, is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, often abbreviated as SCNT. In SCNT, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed, literally using a glass pipette. This nucleus is then replaced with the nucleus from a cell that contains the genetic material of the organism that is being cloned. Naturally occurring chemicals inside of the egg cell then cause the egg to develop into an embryo, just as it would if the egg had been fertilized naturally by a sperm cell (Sive). However, unlike a normal embryo, the embryo that results from SCNT is genetically identical to the organism that supplied the donor nucleus. In the case of humans, a clone would be a younger identical twin of the individual that had supplied his nucleus.

Though extraordinary, the technology of SCNT contains several peculiarities that create the first objection raised by opponents of human cloning; cloning is an inefficient process that produces physically abnormal clones. First, for reasons that remain obscure, the success rate of cloning experiments in producing organisms is extremely low. In a recent experiment that cloned human embryos through SCNT, only three out of twenty five attempts worked (Caplan). More generally, scientists estimate that the success rate of SCNT hovers around a mere one percent (Sive). Furthermore, animal clones almost always suffer physical problems that normal animals do not. For instance, Dolly suffered from extreme arthritis and lung disease that forced veterinarians to euthanize her at the age of six, when sheep normally live to the age of twelve (Petechuck). In addition to these physical problems, research showed that Dolly possessed DNA that was older than her chronological age. Carrying this older DNA made Dolly more susceptible to age-related illnesses, especially cancer. Old DNA and physical problems similar but not limited to those of Dolly have been observed in a wide range of cloned animals; nearly all clones have something wrong with them (Sive). Consequently, the pattern suggests that a human clone would be difficult to create and suffer many physical abnormalities.

As a consequence of the near certainty that human clones would bear many health problems, opponents of human cloning make the valid point that human cloning cannot be ethically carried out because it exposes clones to physical harm. Though future technology may be able to create healthy clones, the experimentation necessary to create such technology also violates moral principles, as the experimentation would likely produce physically damaged clones (Kaebnik).   Furthermore, regarding human cloning research, the President’s Council on Bioethics concluded that, “There seems to be no ethical way to try to discover whether cloning to produce children can become safe, now or in the future” (President’s). Since human cloning would produce clones with dramatic health problems, and any research that would make cloning safe would also produce babies with health problems, no situation exists where human reproductive cloning should be attempted.

Not only do opponents of human cloning argue that cloning would inflict physical health problems on clones, but they also warn that a clone would suffer psychological burdens to such an extent that cloning a person would be unethical. First, a clone would likely grapple with pronounced problems regarding his sense of identity and self. The President’s Council on Bioethics cautions, “Cloned children may experience serious problems of identity both because each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and because the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the ‘original’” (President’s). Also, a clone may feel as if he had been denied an open future, as he would be constantly compared to the person he had been cloned from. Finally, any human clone will have to learn to handle the thought that he is a copy of someone else and not an original person (Wachbroit). Adversaries of cloning make the point that forcing a clone to accept his status as a copy and not his own unique individual fundamentally violates human dignity. Because a clone would have many painful psychological issues to confront, human cloning can only lead to suffering, and thus it should not be carried out.

Though the opposition of cloning makes the case that cloning should not be tried because it would cause the clone to suffer, human cloning also should not be attempted because it would have a detrimental effect on society. For instance, cloning creates the danger that some individuals may be cloned against their will. Since people give off cells everywhere they go, it would be nearly impossible to prevent someone from cloning another individual without that individual’s consent. Fans may try to clone actors or superstar athletes, and a woman could even clone an apathetic man that she wants to have a child with (Herbert). Moreover, human cloning may cause society to look at identity differently. “Cloning might force us to regard people as repeatable, and accepting that people are not one time occurrences is to allow the value of personhood to be diminished” (Kaebnick). Since a society that permits human cloning could not prevent individuals from being cloned without their permission, and also since the value of the person may be reduced, human beings should not be cloned.

While the stronger arguments do not support human cloning, those in favor of cloning raise some valid points. First, advocates claim that research on human cloning and SCNT may produce medical benefits. For instance, scientists may learn more about cellular differentiation, a process that often goes wrong in cancer, if they are permitted to study somatic cell nuclear transfer (Kaebnik). This is a valid point, but it only makes the case for allowing SCNT as a technology; it does not make the case that human beings should be cloned. On a more profound level, supporters of human cloning have argued that cloning is just a new form of human reproduction. “In general, why should a couple using cloning have a higher justification required of them than a couple using sexual reproduction?”(Pence). Likewise, cloning could provide infertile couples their only way to have biological descendants, and the ability to have biological descendants may fall under the rights granted to individuals in modern Western societies (Kaebnik). For instance, if cloning is just the newest form of human reproduction, then it is already protected in the United States by the Constitution (Pence). For the proponents of human cloning, its potential to help the sick, as well as those trying to become parents, is most compelling.

Though proponents of cloning raise substantial points, the arguments against cloning carry the day. Specifically, a clone would suffer immensely. He would be born with many health problems, and he would be forced to wrestle with many heavy psychological burdens. “Once the welfare of the clone is considered, the anti-cloning arguments far outweigh the pro-cloning arguments”(President’s). Furthermore, a society that allows cloning would experience detrimental effects, as it could not prevent cloning without permission and would see the value of personhood diminished. For all these reasons, the technology of cloning should not be applied to people; scientists should not attempt to clone human beings.

Works Cited

“Animal Pharming: The Industrialization of Transgenic Animals.” Center for Emerging Issues.      CEI.  Dec. 1999. Web. Feb. 2010.

Caplan, Arthur. “Human Embryos Cloned:  What does it mean?. MSNBC Health. MSNBC. 17     Jan. 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.

Herbert, Wray, Jeffery Sheler, and Traci Watson.  “Ethical Issues Concerning Human Cloning.”                Contemporary Issues Companion. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000.                                                                                                      

            129-134. Print. Excerpted from “The World After Cloning.” U.S. News and World.

“Human Cloning.” Issues and Controversies. Facts on File News Services, 29 Dec. 2006. Web.

22.Feb. 2010.

The Human Cloning Foundation. “The Medical Benefits of Human Cloning.” Contemporary        Issues Companion.  Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven 2000. 153-155. Print.        Excerpted from “The Benefits of Human Cloning.” 1998.

Kaebnick, Gregory and Thomas Murray. “Cloning.” The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics         of the Ethics of New Technologies. Ed. Ruth Chadwick. 1^st ed. Vol.1. San Francisco:          Academic Press, 2001. 51-64. Print.

Mautner, Michael. “Cloning Could Halt Human Evolution.” Contemporary Issues Companion.     Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greehaven 2000. 141-143. Print. Excerpted from “Will             Cloning End Human Evolution?” The Futurist. Nov. 1997.

Nardo, Don. Cloning. San Diego: Lucent, 2002. Print. Great Medical Discoveries.

Pence, Gregory. “Reproductive Cloning Does Not Demean Human Life.” Cloning: Opposing       Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Raleef.  Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2006.  22-28.         Print.  Rpt. of “Ten Myths About Human Cloning.” 2001.

Petechuk, David. “Clone and Cloning.” Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and      Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 4^th ed. Detroit: Gale Group, 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2010.

Pinker, Steven. “How the Mind Works.” New York: Norton, 1999. Print.

President’s Council on Bioethics. “Reproductive Cloning Demeans Human Life.” Cloning:           Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff.  Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2006.    16-21. Print. Rpt. of “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” Presidents’s Council on           Bioethics. New York: Public Affairs, 2002.