Category: Cloning

Cloning hit the mainstream news media when Dolly the sheep was successfully birthed in 1996, thus becoming the first ever mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. Cloning is a term used to describe a variety of processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of an entire living organism or part of a living organism. The copied product which has the same genetic characteristics as the original is referred to as a “Clone”.

Many types of biological materiials including genes, cells, tissues and even whole living organisms have been cloned by scientists.. Cloning can happen naturally without any human interference, this can be seen in the case of identical twins, this occurs when the fertilized egg separates, and then producing in most cases two separate embryos resulting in identical twins that are genetically identical, however they do not share the same genetic makeup as either of their parents. Other examples in which cloning happens in nature is through the asexual reproduction of certain plants, fungi and bacteria.

Types of Artificial Cloning:

Artificial cloning can be achieved in various ways depending on the purpose. Gene cloning is aimed at producing copies of portions of DNA which can be used for treating cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders. Therapeutic cloning produces embryonic stem cells and can be used to treat Parkinson’s Disease. Reproductive cloning generates copies of whole animals used for producing livestock without any defects. Cloning is also used in agriculture where plants are cloned for healthier and safer produce and is referred to as Plant Propagation.

The aim of this report is to provide credible information about “Reproductive Cloning”, how the process works, highlight some of the key benefits and look at its disadvantages whilst also throwing some light on the ethical debate surrounding Reproductive cloning.

Reproductive Cloning:

Reproductive cloning or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is one of the most common types of artificial Cloning mainly used for producing healthy livestock, for preventing endangered species from extinction, and for producing genetically identical animals for scientific and medical research.

The reproductive cloning process involves the removal of a mature ​somatic cell​, such as a skin cell from the animal to be copied. The DNA of the donor animal’s somatic cell is then transferred into an enucleated egg cell, that has had its own DNA-containing nucleus removed. A needle is used to remove the DNA of the donor and then injected it into the empty egg. The alternative method is to fuse the entire somatic cell with the empty egg using an electric current. The fused egg develops into an early-stage embryo in a test-tube and then is implanted into the womb of an adult female animal. The cloned embryo then grows within the surrogate mother into a fetus. Finally, the adult female gives birth to an animal that has the same genetic makeup as the animal that donated the somatic cell.

Benefits of Cloning:

There are many perceived benefits of cloning and some of the important ones are given below:

1.​ ​Treatment for diseases​: Cloning may enable scientists to clone other animals in the fields of medicine and agriculture to benefit mankind. The Scottish scientists who cloned Dolly were also able to clone other sheep which were genetically modified to produce milk which contains a human protein very essential for the clotting of human blood. This gave rise to a posibility to extract this protein from the milk and supply it to patients suffering from hemophilia, a rare disorder in which their blood does not clot sufficiently as it lacks proteins which enable blood clotting. This is a lifesaving solution. Cloned animals can also be used Testing new drugs and developing treatment strategies is another possibilty with clonedanimals.. As the cloned animals have identical genetical makeup, drug testing becomes more effective as their reactions to the administered drugs would not vary as it does if we were to use animals with different genetic make-ups.

2.​ ​Saving endangered species from extinction​: Reproductive cloning can also be used to create clones to increase the population of animal species which are endangered and are on the verge of extinction. In 2001, scientists were able to successfully clone the Asian Ox known as a “Guar”, which was an endangered animal. Unfortunately, the baby guar which was birthed using a cow as a surrogate mother lived only for a few days. A couple of years later, another endangered species of ox called the “Banteg” was cloned successfully.

3.​ ​Potential answer to infertility​: Reproductive cloning can enable infertile couples to not only have children but also can modify the child’s genes to remove any undesirable traits. During the process, somatic cells are acquired from the male’s sperm and are injected into the female’s egg for fertilization. By the time the embryo has developed, it is then implanted to a surrogate mother, who will carry it for 9 months until birth. This means cloning can potentially ease fertility problems. What’s more, the children produced will have the DNAs and qualities of both parents, instead of just one of them. However, this raises severalethical issues which has resulted in many countries banning human cloning.

4.​ ​Organ Transplants​: Another important benefit of cloning is producing organs for transplantation. Cloned body parts can be used to replace defective organs and in turn save lives. It offers another alternative avenue to patients needing organ transplants, as in most cases they must wait for years for a suitable donor. The cloned implanted organ has less chances of being rejected by the body as it is produced from the body cell of the person who needs the implant.

Disadvantages of Cloning:

There are a few disadvantages of cloning and the main ones are listed below:

1. Loss of Genetic diversity​: Genetic diversity is required for the survival of any species including humans especially in time of unpredictable events especially epidemic diseases. Animals originating from the same genetic profile will have reduced genetic diversity and this may not have any initial adverse impact on the health of the species, however, will cause problems in the long run. The chances of developing genetic disorders and other related health issues increases in children from parents with similar genetic profiles. The lack of genetic variation in a population makes it lose its ability to adapt or overcome adverse environmental changes. Thus, cloning instead of saving the species might indirectly lead to its extinction or reduction in its population.

2.​ ​Inefficient process and adverse health effects in cloned animals: ​The​ ​Reproductive cloning technique is not very efficient as its success rate is very low as majority of the cloned animal embryos do not develop into healthy individuals. This is demonstrated by the fact that in case of Dolly, she was the only clone to be born live out of a total of 277 cloned embryos. The application of Reproductive cloning can be effective only if its efficiency is improved and the safety concerns are addressed satisfactorily.​ Scientists have also observed many adverse health effects in sheep and other mammals that have been cloned, which includes increase in birth size and clones having many defective vital organs, like the liver, brain and heart.

3.​ ​Premature aging and problems with the immune system​:​ Cloned animals tend to have a shorter lifespan. The age of the cloned animal depends on the age of its chromosomes. As cells go through their regular rounds of division, the telomeres (tips of the chromosomes) shrink. With time, the telomeres become so short that they cannot divide any further and death of the cell occurs. This is how the aging process works in all cell types. As a result, clones created from the cell taken from an adult donor will have a shorter lifespan as its chromosomes will be shorter than normal because of the age of the donor cell. This is evidenced by the fact that Dolly lived for only six years, which is about half the average lifespan of a sheep, who normally live for 12 years.

Ethical issues

Since the topic of cloning made headlines in 1996, it has sparked many debates and disputes on whether cloning is ethical. ​Reproductive cloning would present the possibility of creating a human that is genetically identical to another person who has died or who is still alive. ​This idea clashes with many cultural, societal and religious norms and values. Cloning is seen to be something that violates these long-standing ideas. Much of the dispute is caused by the possibility that this biotechnology could be used to clone humans, this idea raised many issues however most of the concern was focused on the wellbeing of children produced using this procedure. The main concern centered around the fact that cloned individuals could be a subject of psychological harm due to a weakened sense of self-identity. Many questions how clones would fit into today’s society, would they have the same rights as a normal person? This may even create tension as cloned individuals may face discrimination or hatred. Others believe this biotechnology could be abused by organizations and governments, for example, humans could be cloned solely for the purpose of them being made into soldiers. Although there are not that many ethical issues surrounding therapeutic cloning there is one that is highly debated among individuals as some believe that the technique of therapeutic cloning is equivalent to murder as this process involves destruction of the human embryos, however, others believe quite the opposite as they believe embryos are comparable to skin cells that are shed on a daily basis. Cloning has been used in many laboratories world wide neverthles it poses many ethical and moral issues.

To conclude

Cloning and in particular reproductive cloning has been proved to be a significant discovery in the world of science, it has potential to innovate and change the world around us however this new found technology has a long way to go in terms of safety, legalities, research and ethics.

Bibliography

1. Britannica.N.D.​https://www.britannica.com/science/cloning/Reproductive-cloning​.Cloning.accessed3/03/2020
2. BSGCT. September 18th 2014.​https://www.bsgct.org/gene-cloning-and-its-medical-uses/​.Quasim Munye.accessed 3/03/2020 CNHealth.May 16th 2013.​https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/time-cloning-stem-cells/index.html​.Alice Park.© 2020
3. Cable News Network.​Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.​All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network​..​accessed 3/03/2020
4. FutureofWorking.​https://futureofworking.com/9-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-cloning-animals/ Regoli,N.accessed 3/03/2020 Ittana.N.D.​https://vittana.org/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-cloning​.Natalie Regoli.accessed 3/03/2020
5. Learn.Genetics.N.D.​https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whatiscloning/​.What is Cloning.accessed,Copyright ©​University of Utah​GSLC​ 3/03/20
6. Michael J Sandel.The ethical implications of a human cloning.N.D.Project Muse.Hopkins University. NCBI.January 8th 2007.​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796746/​.Lee Turnpenny .accessed 3/03/2020
7. NIH.March 21st 2017.​https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet​.Cloning fact sheet.accessed 3/03/2020 Uk Diss.March 1st 2018 ​https://www.ukdiss.com/examples/ethical-issues-concerning-cloning.php​.Ethical
8. Issues in Cloning.Copyright © 2003 – 2020 All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. accessed 3/03/2020

Our cloned future. Has the arrival of a new science era created ethical anxiety about cloning?

What is Fear? Is it an emotion; thought or perhaps an illusion? This week’s ‘New Scientist’ will explore the value of human life, or rather, a cloned human life by examining two different texts. Kazuo Ishiguro’s “Never Let Me Go” and Michael Bay’s “The Island” explore various social thoughts about modern society.

Senior reporter Alen Abraham is here to investigate the author’s and director’s points of view on the social morality of a dystopian society.

Who doesn’t fear death? I certainly do. If you are one of those, there’s good news for you. Through making a copy of yourself, otherwise known as cloning, it is possible to increase your lifespan. Research has shown that aging is not the main cause of death; it is the failure of vital organs.

What if we clone ourselves to take their organs for our survival? However, is it morally ethical to have one’s clone continually donate their organs? Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel “Never Let Me Go” and Michael Bay’s “The Island” delve into the impacts of cloning on their audience.

Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ is a science-fiction novel written in 2005. This remarkable novel was also shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize in the same year of its publication. Moreover, In the same year, the film ‘The Island’ which was directed by Michael Bay, was released and also comments on whether human cloning is ethical or not.

Ishiguro’s novel and Michael Bay’s film “The Island”

Both these texts show that clones are developed and harvested for their organs, simply for human survival. But do you think clones have souls like humans? if you think that clones have souls like humans is it morally correct to use them for our benefit?

In Ishiguro’s “Never Let Me Go”, Madame and the guardians took the clone’s artwork to prove to the real world that these poor creatures being harvested for their organs also had souls. Madame expresses her thoughts on this when she says, ‘We took away your art because your art would reveal your souls. Or to put it more finely we did it to prove you had souls at all. This idea is further repeated by Miss Emily when she says, ‘Your art will reveal your inner selves! That’s it, isn’t it? Because your art will display your souls!’.

The idea of clones having souls was also proven by Michael Bay’s film “The Island” when the female protagonist Jordan-2-Delta purchases ice cream for human children rather than buying it for herself. This selfless act of caring for others over herself shows that clones have a pure heart and souls like humans.

Both the narrator and the filmmaker present the idea of clones having souls in two different scenes. My thoughts and opinions are in sync with both of them. In my opinion, it would be heartless of us humans to treat clones as just another entity that can be used and thereafter discarded; it would be completely selfish on our part to not consider them as other human beings.

The two texts try to show that human clones don’t only have a soul, but they also have brains; they have the thinking capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. For instance, in the novel, Kathy says, ‘This might all sound daft, but you have to remember that to us, at that stage in our lives, any place beyond Hailsham was like a fantasy land; we had only the haziest notions of the world outside and about what was and wasn’t possible there’. This shows that she can imagine a life outside Hailsham.

Similarly, in the film, holographic technology was used to brainwash the clones to make them believe that they had survived a ‘world contamination’. Even though all the clones on the island are brainwashed, the central character Lincoln Six Echo proves that clones can have a thinking capacity. This is seen when he questions the president (Dr. Merrick) about the things that seem unexplainable and yet something so simple which definitely can be explained. He states, “Why is everyone wearing white all the time? It’s impossible to keep clean, I’m walking around, I get – I always get the grey stripe, I never get any color, and I hand it in to be cleaned, and someone cleans it and folds it neatly back in my drawer, but who? Who is that person? I don’t know”. This shows that he clearly understands that it is not illogical to wear a color that quickly catches dirt or fact that there is someone who does the laundry.

The Island also reveals the social norm of the society on clones through the use of the character McCord. He says “Well, you’re not like me. I mean, you’re not… human. I mean, you’re human, but you just, you’re not real. You’re not, like, a real person. Like me. You’re clones. You’re copies of people out here in the world”. McCord may have a viewpoint that clones aren’t real, but I think after reading the above, you’ll begin to question McCord. Both texts try to prove that clones can feel and think; they have souls as well as brains that allow them to make decisions and question things. 

Reproductive human cloning has the potential to do good. Globally, there is a shortage of organs available for transplantations. This is partly because donor organs need to be an exact match so that the recipient’s body does not reject them. Therefore, human reproductive cloning could be a possible solution as it would produce two genetically identical individuals and one could donate their organs to the other without the possibility of rejection. (1) From a utilitarian perspective, this would be good as it is what benefits the majority of people. However, the cloned individual would still be a human being with human rights and thus have personal autonomy – a right to refuse to donate their organs. In addition to this, human reproductive cloning could give individuals who are infertile or in same-sex relationships the opportunity to have children who are genetically related to them. However, there are already methods that can assist with this that do not have the potential to be used for harm like cloning does. Cloning is better than an egg or sperm donor or bank because of its ability to produce a child who would be genetically identical to the parent. However, cloning limits the gene pool by decreasing genetic diversity that would naturally occur when using an egg or sperm donor or bank and would in this way be worse than an egg or sperm donor or bank. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is better than human cloning as it has proven to be successful and the technology was only used in humans after extensive animal trials deemed it to be safe (2) Furthermore, due to the nature of cloning, more eggs would be required for cloning than in IVF and more women would need to be exposed to the risks that accompany egg donation (1). IVF is costly and cloning would be costly, meaning that the theory of distributive justice would need to be considered as issues such as who should be given access to it are raised. Those in favor of cloning argue that if an individual gives voluntary informed consent, they can proceed with the procedure if they so wish. However, informed consent requires that individuals be made aware of all risks and consequences. This is not possible to do when it comes to human reproductive cloning as the risks are still largely unknown. Thus, any consent given will not be informed consent and may provide grounds for individuals to bring legal action against the individuals who performed the procedure. In addition to this, the fetus – which is at the greatest risk for death and abnormalities – is unable to give informed consent. (1) It would therefore be irresponsible to proceed with human reproductive cloning when the validity of informed consent is in question. The requirements of non-maleficence have also not been fulfilled, as performing a procedure on an individual when the risks are unknown does not minimize harm to the individual.

Although cloning could be used for good, it can be used for bad too. Some believe that because human reproductive cloning will produce genetically identical individuals, individuality will be lost and that two exact copies of a person will exist. However, this is not the case. Although the individuals would be genetically identical, their upbringing; unique experiences, and genetic mutations would mold them into different people, such as is the case with identical twins. (1) In addition to this, should cloning be allowed, some individuals will use the opportunity to develop and test other genetic engineering methods that may not be regulated by the same laws as cloning. Such as using CRISPR Cas-9 to edit the fetus’ genome to eliminate a known disorder. This issue could be combatted by the drafting and strict implementation of laws that specifically mention what human embryos can be used for, who can use them, and the consequences for any transgressors. Another reason why human cloning would be wrong is because it is unsafe, with most experiments on animals having resulted in miscarriages or stillbirths. (3) Although some success has been documented in animal experiments, such as Dolly the sheep, the consequences of failure in humans would be much more severe and lifelong. (1) The use of animals in experimentation is also largely frowned upon and the alternative, using human participants, is currently illegal.

Reproductive human cloning should be regulated by the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and any other relevant laws of the country in which the cloning will occur. In addition to these laws, an advisory committee should be established. This committee should include professionals in the medical, scientific, and ethical fraternities and its role will be to draft new laws specifically about reproductive human cloning, as no such laws currently exist. These laws should provide guidance on, but not be limited to, who should be allowed to perform the procedures; how the procedures should be performed; documentation required before the procedure; and protocols to follow should the procedure not have the expected outcome and consequences for those who break these laws. In addition to these laws, the safety of reproductive human cloning should be evaluated using medical and scientific criteria. More specifically, the risk of morbidity and mortality for the woman who is carrying the fetus; the risk of morbidity, mortality, and abnormalities for the fetus, and the risk for the woman whose eggs will be used in the cloning process. (1) Furthermore, ethical criteria may be used to evaluate the impact that reproductive cloning will have on the individuals’ mental well-being; the lives of the individuals; society, and how technology used for reproductive cloning may be used in the future. Reproductive human cloning is a possibility that will have far-reaching implications for all facets of society. Thus, a blend of medical, scientific, and ethical criteria should be used to evaluate reproductive human cloning to ensure the best possible outcome for all involved.

In conclusion, I do not support reproductive human cloning as medical and scientific findings indicate that it is currently not safe for human use. Although cloning could be used to combat the shortage of organs available for transplant, there is no guarantee that the cloned individual would consent to their organs being used and it would be unethical to force them to do so. Cloning could also provide a means for individuals who are infertile or in same-sex relationships to have children. However, methods such as IVF or the use of donor eggs or sperm are available and have proven to be safer. Thus, the potential for cloning to be used for good is outweighed by the fact that cloning as it stands is not safe for humans. There are also very few laws currently in existence that govern cloning and thus the potential for cloning and other genetic engineering tools to be used for bad is too great. The belief that cloning could allow parents of a child who has died the opportunity to produce a genetically identical child as redress for their loss is a reason for reproductive cloning I find unacceptable. It dehumanizes the dead child and the clone of the dead child. This is one such example of how cloning could be used for bad. I am aware that preventing cloning for reproductive reasons would hamper the progress of other gene editing techniques and the potential uses and benefits thereof. However, until laws that govern the use of these techniques are drafted and implemented, no person should be allowed to use these techniques on humans as there would be severe medical and ethical ramifications.

Recently, there has been quite a lot of community displeasure in the field of animal cloning. Animal cloning for consumption is a very debatable topic in society at this point in time, whether the products are safe to consume, humane or inhumane towards the animals. The public has stated they are against animal cloning and will not acquire ‘cloned’ foods. Scientific evidence to state the safety of the products has been expressed to them. The public has major concerns about the ‘safety’ of the food due to Dolly the sheep’s health implications: Dolly suffered from arthritis in a hind leg joint and from sheep pulmonary adenomatosis, and a virus-induced lung tumor that led to her premature death.

The evidence clearly shows experts have decided the main use for duplicated animals will be breeding. ‘Clones’ will not be used for meat or milk reasons as of right now. Researchers have clearly said that meat and products from cloned sheep and their offspring are safe for human consumption. It has been scientifically proven that duplicated meats are safe to consume as is any other meat. A significant number of tests and research has been completed on a large scale of cloned products, throughout the testing there were no health concerns they needed to further investigate as of right now.

This shows us that animal cloning is as ‘safe’ as any other animal or animal product to consume. When future ‘cloned’ meat or milk is sold, they will not be required to state whether they are ‘cloned’ or not. It will be up to the discretion of the manufacturers to disclose what they feel is necessary.

With this in mind, it is evident that cloned meat and duplicated animal products are the same as regular products. Duplicated products do not have any negative health implications or safety concerns.

From a Christian perspective, cloning or making changes to the ‘blueprint’ of an animal or human is playing God. This is something that is not condoned in the Christian faith. With this being said, I personally don’t see a problem with animal cloning. Throughout my research, I’ve come across a lot of positives, and those positives have outweighed the negatives. Bringing back a species that is near extinction or has, unfortunately, become extinct, is a massive achievement. Cloning an animal that has a rare ability to produce twice the amount of milk reducing work, money, and resources for farmers is a positive outcome for animal cloning. Therefore, I’m all for animal cloning and think it is a decent idea.

Cloning is the process of producing genetically identical individuals of an organism either naturally or artificially. In nature, many organisms produce clones through asexual reproduction. Cloning in biotechnology refers to the process of creating clones of organisms or copies of cells or DNA fragments. Beyond biology, the term refers to the production of multiple copies of digital media or software. The term clone, coined by Herbert J. Webber, is derived from the Ancient Greek word κλών klōn, ‘twig’, referring to the process whereby a new plant can be created from a twig. In botany, the term lusus was traditionally used. In horticulture, the spelling clon was used until the twentieth century; the final e came into use.

Natural cloning is a natural form of reproduction that has allowed life forms to spread for hundreds of millions of years. It is the reproduction method used by plants, fungi, and bacteria, and is also the way that clonal colonies reproduce themselves. Examples of these organisms include blueberry plants, hazel trees, the Pando trees, the Kentucky coffee tree, Myrica, and the American sweetgum.

DNA

Although these steps are invariable among cloning procedures several alternative routes can be selected; these are summarized as a cloning strategy. Initially, the DNA of interest needs to be isolated to provide a DNA segment of suitable size. Subsequently, a ligation procedure is used where the amplified fragment is inserted into a vector. The vector is linearised using restriction enzymes, and incubated with the fragment of interest under appropriate conditions with an enzyme called DNA ligase. Following ligation the vector with the insert of interest is transfected into cells. Several alternative techniques are available, such as chemical sensitization of cells, electroporation, optical injection, and biolistics. Finally, the transfected cells are cultured. As the aforementioned procedures are of particularly low efficiency, there is a need to identify the cells that have been successfully transfected with the vector construct containing the desired insertion sequence in the required orientation. Modern cloning vectors include selectable antibiotic resistance markers, which allow only cells in which the vector has been transfected, to grow. Additionally, the cloning vectors may contain color selection markers, which provide blue/white screening on an X-gal medium. Nevertheless, these selection steps do not guarantee that the DNA insert is present in the cells obtained. Further investigation of the resulting colonies must be required to confirm that cloning was successful. This may be accomplished using PCR, restriction fragment analysis, and/or DNA sequencing.

Cloning organisms

Cloning a cell means to derive a population of cells from a single cell. In the case of unicellular organisms such as bacteria and yeast, this process is remarkably simple and essentially only requires the inoculation of the appropriate medium. However, in the case of cell cultures from multi-cellular organisms, cell cloning is an arduous task as these cells will not readily grow in standard media. A useful tissue culture technique used to clone distinct lineages of cell lines involves the use of cloning rings. In this technique a single-cell suspension of cells that have been exposed to a mutagenic agent or drug used to drive selection is plated at high dilution to create isolated colonies, each arising from a single and potentially clonal distinct cell. At an early growth stage when colonies consist of only a few cells, sterile polystyrene rings, which have been dipped in grease, are placed over an individual colony, and a small amount of trypsin is added. Cloned cells are collected from inside the ring and transferred to a new vessel for further growth.

Cloning stem cells

Somatic-cell nuclear transfer, known as SCNT, can also be used to create embryos for research or therapeutic purposes. The most likely purpose for this is to produce embryos for use in stem cell research. This process is also called ‘research cloning’ or ‘therapeutic cloning’. The goal is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and potentially treat disease. While a clonal human blastocyst has been created, stem cell lines are yet to be isolated from a clonal source. Therapeutic cloning is achieved by creating embryonic stem cells in the hopes of treating diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The process begins by removing the nucleus from an egg cell and inserting a nucleus from the adult cell to be cloned. In the case of someone with Alzheimer’s disease, the nucleus from a skin cell of that patient is placed into an empty egg. The reprogrammed cell begins to develop into an embryo because the egg reacts with the transferred nucleus. The embryo will become genetically identical to the patient.

The reason why SCNT is used for cloning is because somatic cells can be easily acquired and cultured in the lab. This process can either add or delete specific genomes of farm animals. A key point to remember is that cloning is achieved when the oocyte maintains its normal functions and instead of using sperm and egg genomes to replicate, the oocyte is inserted into the donor’s somatic cell nucleus. The oocyte will react on the somatic cell nucleus, the same way it would on sperm cells. As the procedure could not be automated and had to be performed manually under a microscope, SCNT was very resource-intensive. The biochemistry involved in reprogramming the differentiated somatic cell nucleus and activating the recipient egg was also far from being well understood. However, by 2014 researchers were reporting cloning success rates of seven to eight out of ten, and in 2016, a Korean Company Sooam Biotech was reported to be producing 500 cloned embryos per day.

In SCNT, not all of the donor cell’s genetic information is transferred, as the donor cell’s mitochondria that contain their mitochondrial DNA are left behind. The resulting hybrid cells retain those mitochondrial structures that originally belonged to the egg. As a consequence, clones such as Dolly that are born from SCNT are not perfect copies of the donor of the nucleus.

Organism cloning

Organism cloning refers to the procedure of creating a new multicellular organism, genetically identical to another. In essence, this form of cloning is an asexual method of reproduction, where fertilization or inter-gamete contact does not take place. Asexual reproduction is a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species, including most plants and some insects. Scientists have made some major achievements with cloning, including the asexual reproduction of sheep and cows. There is a lot of ethical debate over whether or not cloning should be used. However, cloning, or asexual propagation, has been a common practice in the horticultural world for hundreds of years.

Dolly the sheep

Dolly, a Finn-Dorset ewe, was the first mammal to have been successfully cloned from an adult somatic cell. Dolly was formed by taking a cell from the udder of her 6-year-old biological mother. Dolly’s embryo was created by taking the cell and inserting it into a sheep’s ovum. It took 434 attempts before an embryo was successful. The embryo was then placed inside a female sheep that went through a normal pregnancy. She was cloned at the Roslin Institute in Scotland by British scientists Sir Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell and lived there from her birth in 1996 until she died in 2003 when she was six. She was born on 5 July 1996 but was not announced to the world until 22 February 1997. Her stuffed remains were placed at Edinburgh’s Royal Museum, part of the National Museums of Scotland.

Dolly was publicly significant because the effort showed that genetic material from a specific adult cell, designed to express only a distinct subset of its genes, can be redesigned to grow an entirely new organism. Before this demonstration, it had been shown by John Gurdon that nuclei from differentiated cells could give rise to an entire organism after transplantation into an enucleated egg. However, this concept has not yet been demonstrated in a mammalian system.

The first mammalian cloning had a success rate of 29 embryos per 277 fertilized eggs, which produced three lambs at birth, one of which lived. In a bovine experiment involving 70 cloned calves, one-third of the calves died quite young. The first successfully cloned horse, Prometea, took 814 attempts. Notably, although the first clones were frogs, no adult cloned frog has yet been produced from a somatic adult nucleus donor cell.

There were early claims that Dolly the sheep had pathologies resembling accelerated aging. Scientists speculated that Dolly’s death in 2003 was related to the shortening of telomeres, DNA-protein complexes that protect the end of linear chromosomes. However, other researchers, including Ian Wilmut who led the team that successfully cloned Dolly, argue that Dolly’s early death due to respiratory infection was unrelated to problems with the cloning process. This idea that the nuclei have not irreversibly aged was shown in 2013 to be true for mice.

Ethical issues of cloning

There are a variety of ethical positions regarding the possibilities of cloning, especially human cloning. While many of these views are religious in origin, the questions raised by cloning are faced by secular perspectives as well. Perspectives on human cloning are theoretical, as human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not commercially used; animals are currently cloned in laboratories and livestock production.

Advocates support the development of therapeutic cloning to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs, Advocates for reproductive cloning believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to the technology.

Opponents of cloning have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe and that it could be prone to abuse, as well as concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.

Religious groups are divided, with some opposing the technology as usurping ‘God’s place’ and, to the extent embryos are used, destroying a human life; others support therapeutic cloning’s potential life-saving benefits.

Cloning of animals is opposed by animal groups due to the number of cloned animals that suffer from malformations before they die, and while food from cloned animals has been approved by the US FDA, its use is opposed by groups concerned about food safety.

Cloning extinct and endangered species

Cloning, or more precisely, the reconstruction of functional DNA from extinct species has, for decades, been a dream. Possible implications of this were dramatized in the 1984 novel Carnosaur and the 1990 novel Jurassic Park. The best current cloning techniques have an average success rate of 9.4 percent and might be used to clone extinct species. Anticipating this possibility, tissue samples from the last bucardo were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately after it died in 2000. Researchers are also considering cloning endangered species such as the giant panda and cheetah.

In 2002, geneticists at the Australian Museum announced that they had replicated the DNA of the thylacine, at the time extinct for about 65 years, using a polymerase chain reaction. However, on 15 February 2005, the museum announced that it was stopping the project after tests showed the specimens’ DNA had been too badly degraded by the preservative. On 15 May 2005, it was announced that the thylacine project would be revived, with new participation from researchers in New South Wales and Victoria.

In 2003, for the first time, an extinct animal, the Pyrenean ibex mentioned above was cloned, at the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon, using the preserved frozen cell nucleus of the skin samples from 2001 and domestic goat egg cells. The ibex died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs.

One of the most anticipated targets for cloning was once the woolly mammoth, but attempts to extract DNA from frozen mammoths have been unsuccessful, though a joint Russo-Japanese team is currently working toward this goal. In January 2011, it was reported by Yomiuri Shimbun that a team of scientists headed by Akira Iritani of Kyoto University had built upon research by Dr. Wakayama, saying that they would extract DNA from a mammoth carcass that had been preserved in a Russian laboratory and insert it into the egg cells of an African elephant in hopes of producing a mammoth embryo. The researchers said they hoped to produce a baby mammoth within six years. It was noted, however, that the result, if possible, would be an elephant-mammoth hybrid rather than a true mammoth. Another problem is the survival of the reconstructed mammoth: ruminants rely on a symbiosis with specific microbiota in their stomachs for digestion.

Is Human Cloning Worth the Expense of Further Research?

Introduction

What is Human Cloning?

Human cloning, refers to the process of creating a human being that is genetically identical to a pre-existing person through the use of their cells. (Science Daily, 2019), (Center for Genetics and Society, 2019).

Despite many scientist claiming to have done so, there is no verified experiment that has actually cloned another human being.

The process of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) was used to clone Dolly the Sheep in 1996, who was one of the first successful cloning experiments, is the most likely process to be used for human cloning.

The SCNT cloning method includes the process of taking the enucleated egg of a female donor and fusing it with the cell of the person who is to be cloned via electricity, therefore creating an embryo. The embryo is then implanted into a surrogate mother who will eventually give birth to the clone through the normal processes. (Bonsor and Conger, 2019)

Purposes of Human Cloning

One of the main purpose of human cloning would be to use the embryos to harvest stem cells, and help repair damaged or diseased organs/tissue. This would be the solution to matching the stem cells with the body, since the DNA used to create the embryo would come from the individual needing the stem cells. (Learning. Genetics, 2019)

Another purpose could be to revive an endangered animal species. Though this is not human cloning, it is still a possibly useful purpose of cloning in general. This could prevent the extinction of species if executed correctly. (Learning. Genetics, 2019)

There is also the possibility of cloning deceased pets and animals, which may also lead to cloning deceased people. (Learning.Genetics, 2019)

Cloning “geniuses” or athletes is another reason, so as to further the world in all sorts of ways. Like putting the brain of Einstein in 2019 and giving him today’s resources, to see what he could accomplish. (Learning.Genetics, 2019)

However, the current results of the present day procedure is shown to be quite inefficient and ineffective. Despite several years since Dolly, the SCNT process is still quite dangerous. The success rate has been recorded to be only around 1-4% of all attempts. (Bonsor and Conger, 2019). Even the successes have many abnormalities and don’t survive for longs.

This leads to many eggs to be lost, thus making it difficult for any experiment to be socially and legally accepted.

Human cloning is banned in around about 78 countries (Geib, 2018). This includes the 15 states of the US, and the Commonwealth of Australia,(Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act, 2002), therefore currently blocking scientists from continuing research into human cloning.

Ethical Considerations

Despite having laws that stop scientist from conducting human cloning experiments, there are several ethical barriers that prevent many scientist from even thinking about it.

Harvesting stem cells in itself creates several ethical problems, and many people argue over whether the embryo is allowed to be classified as a human being. So taking them from a clone would still be no different.

Even cloning a loved one creates many ethical issues. Despite it being a genetically identical to a loved one, the clone would be essentially a whole new person, due to a person being made up of genetics and environment. (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002).

So the cloning would be essentially useless since it would be impossible to bring the person that was lost back to life. This also relates to “reviving” geniuses. Even if their genius-ness was genetic, there is still no guarantee that they would ever have the same intellect as they once had. It also raises the issue of whether it is fair to revive someone simply for the purpose of their brain, with no consideration for their own wants and desires. Using them simply as a means to an end. (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002).

There is also the significant loss of eggs during the process to create just one clone. Their must also be consideration of the possible genetic defects that can effect some clones. These risks is why many countries banned it in the first place.

These dilemmas bring forward the question of “Whether Human Cloning is Worth the Risks and Expenses of Further Research?”. Should human cloning be legalised everywhere, and even funded? Do the potential risks and ethical issues outweigh the possible gains and benefits.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesised that after investigating the two journal articles, human cloning will still present several risks and seem very unlikely to be worth further research.

Journal Articles

Cloning of a gene-edited macaque monkey by somatic cell nuclear transfer

Aim

To clone a generation of macaque monkeys with a specific genetic makeup to for non human disease model.(Liu, 2019)

Method

To use the SCNT process to clone the macaque monkeys and the Cas9 gene editing tool to genetically change them to meet the requirement. (Liu, 2019)

Results

Out of the 325 embryos implanted into the 65 surrogate monkeys, only 5 of the monkeys were born alive. The clones were shown to have the genetic makeup of the donor monkey and no relation to the surrogate monkey, therefore making them successful clones. (Liu, 2019)

Birth of clones of the world’s first cloned dog

Aim

To discover the possible effects that cloning may have on an organisms lifespan. (Kim, 2017)

Method

To use the SCNT process to reclone Snuppy the dog, who was already a clone and investigate the lifespan of the organisms born. (Kim, 2017)

Results

Of the 97 embryos (fused with Snuppy’s cells) implanted into the 7 surrogate dogs, 4 dog clones were born. One died due to severe diarrhoea. The other dogs were shown to be healthy. They also exhibit no sign of ageing quickly or any physiological defects. (Kim, 2017)

Analysis

The cloning of the dog does have a limitation. Technically the experiment is not complete as it couldn’t be until the clone dogs become deceased.

Both experiments show no signs of breaking the laws of their respective country, and they haven’t received any social backlash for their actions.

Conclusion

Both experiments show the capability of cloning technology of recent years, and that is its downfall. In both cases many embryos were lost, thus still presenting a problem if scientist wanted to take this to Bioethical committees, as it would likely be no different for human cloning. This supports the previously stated hypothesis, which states that human cloning and even cloning in general still present many problems. However, it is important to note that the success rates of animal cloning is slowly increasing, therefore making a possibility for future human cloning.

These findings could be used by anyone seeking to find an opinion on human cloning but could be possibly helpful for bioethical committees.

Sources

1. Center for genetics and society , . c2019. Center For Genetics and Society. [Online]. [7 August 2019]. Available from: https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/topics/human-cloning
2. Geib, C.G. 2018. Futurism. [Online]. [10 August 2019]. Available from: https://futurism.com/human-cloning-whats-stopping
3. Bonsor & Conger, B.C. 2001. HowStuffWorks. [Online]. [10 August 2019]. Available from: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/human-cloning.htm
4. Sciencedaily. c2019. ScienceDaily. [Online]. [10 August 2019]. Available from: https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/human_cloning.htm
5. Australian parliament legislation. 2017. Australian Parliament Legislation. [Online]. [10 August 2019]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00306
6. Utahedu. c2019. Utahedu. [Online]. [12 August 2019]. Available from: https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/
7. The president’s council on bioethics. 2002. Georgetown. [Online]. [12 August 2019]. Available from: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/cloningreport/children.html

Journal Articles

1. Liu et al.. 2019. Cloning of a gene-edited macaque monkey by somatic cell nuclear transfer. National Science Review. 6(1), pp. 101-108.
2. Kim et al.. 2017. Birth of clones of the world’s first cloned dog. Scientific Reports. 7(15235), pp.

As scientists try to understand the existence of DNA and genetics, they soon discover the concept of cloning in biotechnology. Cloning is a process that creates exact copies of DNA on different molecular levels. For example, there is molecular cloning where copies of DNA fragments are made. There is also cell cloning, as well as organismal cloning. Moreover, there are three different types of cloning that are currently known in biotechnology. First, there is recombinant DNA technology which is also known as DNA or gene cloning. This is where DNA fragments are transferred from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element which is then propagated in a foreign host cell. This type of cloning has different applications that can potentially lead to a diagnosis and treatment of various disorders. The second type of cloning is reproductive cloning. This is where genetic material is transferred from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus has been removed. In order to stimulate cell division, chemicals are needed to be injected into the egg, to eventually allow it to reach a suitable age where it can be transferred to a female host’s uterus where it then continues to develop until birth. The third and final type is therapeutic cloning which is also known as embryo or reproductive cloning. This is the production of human embryos exclusively for research that will allow scientists to study human development and possible disease treatments. Cloning is a scientific and technological issue that must be recognized due to its raising of ethical implications. In this paper, both good and bad applications will be discussed, as well as a final verdict of a potential middle ground thoughts regarding reproductive cloning.

To start off, cloning is a technique that researches have initiated in the hopes of creating a better life for different species or organisms. One very beneficial use of cloning is drug testing, which is a potential method of determining causes and treatments of various diseases and mutations. Since clones are genetically identical to each other, their responses will be uniform to drug testing, making it easier on researchers as they have consistent results rather than varying ones, depending on the genetic makeup of the being. Another beneficial application of cloning is the creation of an extinct, or an almost extinct species. As some species are currently endangered and their population is decreasing tremendously, cloning is a method that could prevent extinction from happening, hoping that the lack of genetic variability would not decrease their chances of survival. *POSSIBLY ADD MORE*

Despite these positive implications of cloning, they dispute with the negative implications that raise recognizable ethical issues. For instance, the technology that currently exists to make the cloning happen is very inefficient as very few embryos end up having the strength to develop into a healthier being. This evidently raises many safety concerns when it comes to reproductive cloning. Not only does it sometimes fail to achieve its goal of a healthy individual, it also produces additional unwanted defects that vay from birth size to mutations in the bones, lungs, heart. As a result, cloned individuals could be biologically damaged due to the inherent unreliability of cloning technology. Another huge ethical issue that involves cloning is the life that would result for those clones and their surroundings. Some would argue that since human clones would be genetically identical to humans, then they should be treated equally. That would mean that the human population would increase tremendously if many clones were made. They would eventually take over jobs, as they would be more intelligent and capable, resulting in competition, poverty and dissatisfaction among individuals. On the other side of the spectra, some would argue that they could be useful in replacing unwanted jobs and getting tested on in order to potentially develop cures to deadly diseases. That essentially means that the human clones created would be treated as slaves in a modern society where it is definitely considered immoral. Lastly, the clones would suffer a life with pressure that they would face from society due to expectations. Since they are considered ‘humans’ due to their genetic makeup, they will be expected to act a certain way and meet certain standards that humans have set throughout centuries. As a result, they would not have their own self determination or self discovery that would lead them to have their own unique life experiences.

An important view to consider is that of a religious view. Since religion currently plays a huge role in society, their views on cloning should matter greatly to researchers. First, some religions would accuse the defects or the death of the embryos as murder. As mentioned before, most of the clones created do not end up being strong enough to survive as a healthy being. And so, producing a cloned zygote that is most likely going to be unable to survive is considered to be equivalent to murder according to certain religions. This is because they consider the moral status of the embryo to be a soul, right when the sperm touches the egg. Another concern for religions is the attempt of replacing God. The only two ways in which a new individual should be created are divine creation and co creation, which are the only two natural orders. Divine creation is simply God initially creating humans (more specifically Adam and Eve) who were allowed to then co-create with their love for one another. Any other way of creation means that humans are attempting to play the role of God and thus disturbing the natural order of creation. For these two reasons, cloning is considered immoral regarding different religions.

In conclusion, it is possible to obtain a middle ground regarding this ethical issue. As Michael J. Sandel mentions in his article “The ethical issues of human cloning”, there are two most known different views on cloning. First, some would argue that there is nothing wrong with choosing their children’s traits that would ensure them a longer and a better life. Others would disagree saying that these genetic enhancements will impair the individuality of their children by violating their right to choose their own paths. In his article, he discusses many dangers of reproductive cloning enhancing the real trouble, which is whether it is morally correct to have its sole purpose to be creating children of a certain kind. This plainly portrays parents to want to master the mystery of birth. Finally, the middle ground suggests to consider the moral status of the embryo which was somewhat discussed earlier. Sandel suggests that instead of considering an embryo as a ‘thing’ where it is open to any use, or a ‘human’ who is due respect, consider an embryo as something in between. This allows research to continue as a way to enhance the lives of different humans, specifically humans. To summarize, cloning is a technological process that researchers have discovered as a way to obtain more knowledge and cure diseases. However, since it raises ethical and moral issues, it is important to consider a middle ground that would maximize the happiness and consider cloning a blessing to a healthier life.

‘To what extent does animal cloning breach morality and under what conditions can it be justified?’

Does potential warrant use of unsatisfactory methods? The future of animal cloning, a process of generating a genetically identical copy of a cell or an organism, depends on the answer to this poignant question. Since its inception in 1996 with the cloning of Dolly the sheep from an adult somatic cell, clone production has been a very controversial topic and the allowance of this practice has been a heavily debated matter with many still questioning whether its advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This is displayed as after the Dolly news broke in 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) immediately banned cloning; during the next year Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa and the United Kingdom had introduced similar bans; and in a few years’ time at least 30 countries had followed suit. (Häyry, M., 2021.)

Types of Cloning

Animal cloning varies immensely in both its methods as well as its uses, for example the differences between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, which differ on the basis that they attempt to achieve different goals. Therapeutic cloning, which employs a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), involves the removal of the nucleus of an egg cell and then replacing it with the genetic material from the nucleus of a body cell and then electrically stimulating it to begin dividing. Whilst the embryo is in early stages of development, the inner cell mass of the embryo is grown in a culture dish to yield stem cells, which are then used for medicinal purposes (Burgess, D., 2021). Similarly reproductive cloning also utilises SCNT however instead of destroying the embryo to produce stem cells, the embryo is instead transferred into the uterus of a surrogate mother which then undergoes a normal birth to produce a clone of the animal providing the somatic cell.

Embryonic stem cells produced by therapeutic cloning has large potential in regenerative medicine particularly its existence allowing for increased testing which will benefit in development of animal models of human disease, leading to development of cures such as for Parkinson’s disease and diabetes (Kfoury, C., 2007; Burgess, D., 2021). On the other hand reproductive cloning is solely intending to provide an identical version of a previously existing organism, consequently a different approach must be taken in order to assess the morality of each type of cloning. Additionally, cloning is both utilised for animals and humans and considerations must also be made as to whether a human or an animal is being cloned, due to the fact that animals are cloned to preserve advantageous characteristics whereas the arguments for human reproductive cloning look into personal interests, e.g. allowing a parent of a child who has died to seek redress for their loss.

Scientific consideration

Cloning, whilst not being fully explored, is not a new science and has been going on for centuries with plants and scientists starting cloning experiments with small animals from the 1960s. Most real controversy began when Dolly the Sheep was born in 1996, by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell, which was the first example of successful animal cloning. (Dexter, H., 2021.) This sparked controversy regarding whether the procedure is sustainable, especially regarding the restriction of diversity hence increasing the spread of diseases. Nevertheless both major variations of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive, hold great potential for medicinal and societal advancements. Therapeutic cloning offers a tremendous potential in regenerative medicine and in the treatment of genetic defects and aiding treatment of diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases and even cancer diagnosis, however there are many impediments that come with its practice.

One source of stem cells are adult stem cells, however they are multipotent, in other words can only differentiate into a small range of cells, thus the applications for them are limited. Consequently, many researchers are unable to use these stem cells for developing cures for certain diseases. Additionally, therapeutic cloning is a novel field hence it has some deficiency regarding the use of the stem cells, as there are possibilities that when the stem cells are inserted into the patient’s body the immune system rejects them and instead mounts an attack on the stem cells, thus destroying them. There is also scope for stem cells to randomly mutate resulting in tumour development in the body. As a whole, therapeutic cloning has simply not been explored enough to be in use for humans as a definite cure for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. (Ayala, F., 2021.) The issue of rejection can be solved thorough use of embryonic stem cells where the SCNT is carried out with the invalid’s genetic information so that the body recognises the stem cells’ self-antigens and avoids attacking them. However they also possible issues in that they can be contaminated with viruses which will then be directly transmitted to the patient and the process itself of SCNT is very expensive due to its high failure rate. As an example, it took 277 unsuccessful embryo implantations just to produce Dolly the sheep. (Head, T., 2021.) Nevertheless if the field is ventured fully, just based off the scientific perspective it should be used in the foreseeable future, since the small drawbacks of costs of the procedure will be covered by the lives saved by the cures that the stem cells helped create.

Reproductive cloning within science can be used and has been used on animals where it can create clones of animals that have specific genetic mutations and then be used to study diseases. This allows scientists and doctors to find cures for life threatening genetic diseases through a clearer understanding of genetics and what the genetic diseases are with clones. In addition to this, reproductive cloning could also lessen the number of patients waiting for an organ replacement and can also be beneficial for improving the pregnancy success rate. (Lanza, R., 2021.) It is a useful tool that can help those who have difficulties to have a baby by cloning the eggs used during IVF. On the contrary, no one can guarantee that the child born due to cloning would be a healthy one due to the high failure rate in cloning mammals and other species is completely unacceptable when it comes to cloning humans. Furthermore, in order to use reproductive cloning for medicinal purposes a life must be taken, e.g. if a pig’s vital organ needs to be used for a transplant hence it brings the question as to whether the procedure is righteous. If reproductive cloning becomes used for more personal reasons such as for preserving impactful individuals or to help a family that cannot produce children, over time as It becomes widespread, the genetic diversity of humans will go down ‘ leading to a decrease in immunity of humans against diseases, thus making humans susceptible to epidemics and unknown diseases.

Just from the scientific viewpoint both types of cloning seem to have much potential in the medicinal department and if used have so many benefits to humanity. But a common concern for both types, is that they are both quite unexplored and need to be ventured fully and guarantee success rates for both to be effective and used. Overall, cloning seems quite justified as the advantages are too great compared to the proposed disadvantages where methods have been created to work around it, for example: the issue of rejection can be alleviated through use of immunosuppressants. Scientific consideration only benefits therapeutic cloning rather than Reproductive cloning due to the currently unattainable state of human reproductive cloning as well as unintended impacts of cloning such as high chances of inheriting disorders.

Ethical and societal viewpoint

There are many ethical issues, controversies and debates concerning both these different types of cloning. The complexity of this issue itself and the prejudice of the people against reproductive cloning are the reasons of the differing opinions among the people and the possible ban of this technology. Everything which is beneficial for humans have disadvantages too.

As a result of adult stem cells having limited potential within medicine, researchers have sought the more flexible option of embryonic stem cells. This causes the most prominent disadvantage of therapeutic cloning – the usage of embryos. Most critics claim that it is the death of a human being if an embryo is used to extract stem cells thus therapeutic cloning is seen as murder of humans causing many ethical issues. The ethics hinges on the question of when does life begin and whether or not an embryo should have the same rights as a human being. On one side those that believe that life begins at conception would be strongly against the idea of using embryonic stem cells, since taking a human life would be immoral. On the other hand, some may argue that life begins when the brain first develops hence suggesting that on ethical grounds destroying an embryo cannot be made comparable to murder. Even with this point brought up it is difficult to fully justify the use of embryonic stem cells since it can be regarded as use of a potential human life without any form of consent which could be seen as opposition to medical principles. Being a major drawback this impedes therapeutic cloning’s potential as it cannot be nurtured and therefore not used. However the research of stem cells and therapeutic cloning have not been banned in most countries.

Whilst countries around the world may have mixed opinions on the allowance of therapeutic cloning and its research. Unanimously, most countries have deemed the practice of reproductive cloning to be against the law due to the countless moral and ethical dilemmas it contains. A person, along with their clone can never be dignified as a single identity. In addition to this, the process of creating clones is done by objectifying these potential humans by buying and selling desirable nuclei for transfer therefore making the children to seem as a product. Furthermore, cloning fundamentally challenges the ideas of individuality and personal identity, due to the fact you are brought into the world as a mere copy of someone. Hence human cloning as an asexual method of creating progeny would distort the sense of family and natural relationships within it. Cloning would irrevocably confuse the essential concepts of being a mother, a father, a child, an aunt, an uncle, and so on, and humanity as we know it would come to its end. (Kass, L., Wilson, J.Q. and Wilson, J.K.) Researchers may argue against this and suggest that no two humans are the same due to time lag and different experiences, e.g. identical twins have the same DNA but are still 2 distinct human beings, and instead suggest that artificial cloning is the only method of creating a perfect clone. There are also some plausible scenarios where reproductive cloning can be argued to be acceptable. One might think of a couple unable to have children, or a man or woman who does not want to marry, or of two lesbian lovers who want to have a child with the genotype of one in an ovum of the other, or of other special cases that might come to mind. Cloning can result in a stronger relationship in these scenarios however the fact that reproductive cloning has not been developed to this stage serves as a statement of whether it is truly possible to carry this out sustainably.

Both these forms of the same practice have an abundance of roadblocks for its usage to be deemed righteous yet considering the arguments for each type reproductive cloning can be considered to be less moral than therapeutic cloning, since therapeutic cloning helps to fight degenerative diseases whilst reproductive cloning is a more personal process of creating a cloned child which lacks originality. Personally, I believe that ethically speaking reproductive cloning is morally wrong particularly as it takes away from ones identity and also creates avenues for criminal behaviour such as illegalforced organ donations as well as abuse of human rights. However, Therapeutic is cloning is more morally ambiguous due to heavy controversy surrounding when life really begins. Thus, for therapeutic cloning, other factors need to be considered in order to make holistic judgement.

Religious Views

Religious views regarding the credibility of cloning is very complex and takes many perspectives. First of all some believe that cloning goes against the basic belief of certain religions that only God has the ability to create life and that the process of cloning is copying life through artificial methods. This rejection of cloning by most theistic religions is a result of them considering life to be a ‘gift’ from God and bringing life from cloning as opposed to normal sexual reproduction is considered to be an act against God’s creation.

However some researchers have stated that creating a copy of a person is impossible as it involves creating a genetically identical copy of a living thing but it has to start out as a fertilized egg and so it would not be an identical clone due to it being a baby while we may be different ages, so there is a time gap. Yet this does not debunk the argument that humans cannot act as “God” since even if non-identical by some standards life is created by artificial means. Most religions find it hard to define a clear position on cloning as religious texts make no mention of such a modern advancement.

Some religious arguments look towards the intentions behind such procedures as it is argued in Islam that, ‘research on stem cells is regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God, as long as such an intervention is undertaken with the purpose of improving human health’. (Frazzetto, G., 2004.) These arguments thus support the use of therapeutic cloning but seem to work against the justification of reproductive cloning. There is no agreed consensus on the moral status of the embryo among the various schools of Islamic thought. Islamic scholars emphasise the belief that all knowledge emanates from God and therefore human beings have an obligation to use that knowledge to server society. Similarly in Judaism, the Torah states that Jews have an obligation to seek knowledge and scientific knowledge is granted high value. As a whole, religious viewpoints seem to very split on the matter of cloning but since some show support the use of science for the betterment of society, it seems to suggest that they lean towards the use of therapeutic cloning at least comparatively to the use of reproductive cloning. (Dexter, H., 2021.)

Personally, due to the complexity of cloning many religious sources do not mention any specific teaching regarding the prohibition of cloning. Therefore almost all of the arguments for and against cloning are human interpretations of scriptures and religious books that mention aspects of God. Thus, religious views are highly subjective and so provide little ground to make a definitive choice to make cloning or not.

Finally, I had conducted some Primary Research on popular social media platform – Instagram. The purpose of this really was for me to see what other teenagers’ opinions were on this topic.

Both questions received 57 completions each.

• Question 1: How ethical do you believe cloning to be on a scale from 1 to 10?
• Question 2: To what extent do they believe that cloning research should be encouraged?

For the 1st question the average was calculated to be 6.5, therefore showing that people generally thought that cloning was decently ethical and not something completely unethical.

For the 2nd question, I gave 4 options: Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. These were the results.

• Strongly agree: 7
• Agree: 38
• Disagree: 6
• Strongly Disagree: 6
• Total: 57

It can be seen that the mode option was “Agree” therefore insinuating that most of the respondents were fine with encouraging cloning research but also understanding to not fully comply with cloning research as it does have some drawbacks.

35718750I conducted it based on the results from an online survey ‘SURVEY2001- and as you can see from both sets of results even if the 2nd was marginal, the mode votes for cloning research were ’Agree’

This shows that the community understand not only the power of this practice but also know that it is still not good enough for a majority strongly agree voting. (Bainbridge, W.S., 2003)

Cloning is extremely not only in its applications but also its issues for example the questions that arise such as when does life begin and whether the embryo has the same rights as a fully developed human being regarding Therapeutic cloning since it involves the destruction of embryos. In this case, I believe that in medical scenarios where the situation is life threatening or is affecting the lifestyle of a person greatly, it is acceptable to use Therapeutic cloning as a form of regenerative medicine. This is because it is said that it can act as a cure for genetic defects and can aid treatment of diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases and even cancer diagnosis. I agree with the general opinion of Islamic scholars (Dexter, H., 2021.) that therapeutic cloning should be implemented since, the widely agreed benefits outweigh the relatively minimal disadvantages such as the heavily disputed claim that life starts at conception. Hence, I will only oppose the practice of therapeutic cloning if there were to be stronger evidence that proved an embryo is equivalent to a human being. On the other hand, I firmly oppose the notion of encouraging use of reproductive cloning in any circumstance. Although, it may create potential happiness for couples unable to have a baby as the procedure allows them to have a cloned baby from an egg (donor) and a somatic cell. (Kass, L., Wilson, J.Q. and Wilson, J.K.) However, it must be, first, pointed out that the cloning technology has not yet been developed to an extent that would make possible to produce a healthy human individual by cloning and that happiness that could have been created for example a gay couple could possibly be ruined from their cloned child having new, undiscovered defects and diseases and so a low life expectancy. To get to that point itself, can be seen as extremely rare due to reproductive cloning on humans having not even been proven successful. Moreover, within Reproductive cloning there is the main drawback which is that it challenges personal identity and practically objectifies the clone as something not worthy of being an original human being. This could feed into current problems that are already at large such as: exploitation and slave labour as well as general human rights dilemmas such as voting. Consequently, I believe that reproductive cloning would only push forward a corrupt narrative in today’s world therefore I am heavily against its use.

In the wake of fast scientific and technological advancements witnessed in the 21st Century, much has been debated concerning human cloning and the use of technology. Most of the discussions have centered on different religions that provide different views regarding cloning and the use of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Human cloning has raised different controversial sights in Christianity, Buddhism, Protestant Churches, Islam, and many others. The religions that oppose human cloning are of the view that it is a practice that violates human dignity and the Biblical account of the story of creation. Some argue that humans are expected to be responsible over nature and at the same time, have respect for procreation and human life. In response to the emerging trend, particularly the Christian Church has embarked on a mission of using the pulpit to caution the public against human cloning. However, these religions do not speak in one voice because others have silently accommodated the beliefs of this technology, thus leading to contradicting views regarding the subject.

According to Christianity, human beings are supposed to be responsible for nature. It is because they resemble God; thus they have to take care of everything on earth. Therefore, the question of human distinctiveness is deeply explained in Christianity and Judaism where the two religions cite man as being created in the image and likeness of God. The different features of the image of God make believers draw different responses. More generally, undertaking the scientific mission of cloning is viewed as a practice of playing God. However, in some religious doctrines, this warning is not enough to warrant an argument against technology and human cloning. For most religions, a man’s quest for scientific knowledge is not considered threatening. For instance, some scholars of Islam believe that scientific discovery is important and is a revelation of God’s continuation of creation. Teachings embodied in Hadiths and Quran reiterates that assisted reproductive technologies are morally acceptable because they can address the problem of infertility (Al-Bar & Chamsi-Pasha, 2015). They believe that semen and ovum should come from the same persons who are legally married. According to the religion of Islam, a person’s infertility should be accepted, and the couple is permitted to seek other ways of procreation, such as the use of technology. Thus, to their understanding, science and technology are enough signs of God’s creation, and in this sense, they are of the view that human cloning is acceptable.

Moreover, some thinkers from the Jewish community ascertain that God has empowered human beings with the mandate of controlling his destiny in the world by making it a better place for generations to come. They draw their conclusion basing on the ground that God gave man the power to innovate and discover in the face of uncertainties. They add that man should not be overly cautious to the extent of inviting trouble, which could eventually lead to paralysis that may become difficult to control (Lavi, 2014). Besides, they find some reproductive technologies such as artificial contraception to be generally fundamental. Therefore, if they rule out the possibility of such techniques to be unacceptable, they may be contradicting their stand on the cloning of humans. Moreover, some Protestants believe that it is the responsibility of man to continue the creation of man so that a better tomorrow is secured for the man’s offspring. In this view, human destiny is a world full of possibilities, and therefore the man is expected to act as co-creator to God. Therefore, these religious perspectives offer support to human cloning and the use of Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church believes that human cloning is immoral and that it is a violation of the dignity of human beings. However, religion’s stance is a recent definition of personhood in the tradition of Christianity. A while back, the medieval church considered life to be constituted of a human form with a soul and that an embryo could not be considered as for that case. Even so, abortion was not regarded as a serious crime during the middle ages as compared to murder (Robertson, 2014). However, this view took a turn when Pope Pius IX became critical on the topic of research in the embryo. He then made a stand that a fetus is equally a human being from the time fertilization occurs in the womb. Ever since 1870, the Catholic doctrine has stuck to the position, and it considers the destruction of an embryo a sin and a murder case. Thus, they draw a thin line of distinction between the embryos that are a result of cloning and those that are naturally conceived. Also, the Catholic Church maintains that cloning violates the dignity of human beings because it jeopardizes the identity of both the clone and the person that his or her genome was used in coming up with the former. Furthermore, other church leaders such as Donald Bruce of the Church of Scotland strongly oppose the support of cloning.

However, other religions are not clear on their position on cloning and the application of technology in reproduction. For instance, the theological objections vanish when viewed from a Buddhist perspective. According to this religion, they believe that there is no universal creator, and the creation of life is neither a formal nor fixed process. The religion particularly maintains that life can be viewed from different angles, including but not limited to sexual reproduction (Xiarhos, 2018). Therefore, this perspective disregards the view that sexual reproduction is the only way of procreation; therefore, cloning can be one of how life can begin. On the contrary, Buddhism offers a vague approach to the utilization of stem cells from the embryos. In particular, religion stresses the importance of respecting every aspect of human beings, including the embryos that most scientists use when conducting their research. Also, Islamic scholars seek for guidance from the Quran when considering cloning and stem cell technology ethics. Many ascertain that the embryo becomes a soul only after one hundred and twenty days of fertilization, which is about four months in pregnancy. In this regard, there is no vivid consensus in various Islamic schools concerning the topic of the moral status of the embryo.

The relationship between religion and science has been complicated, especially in the 21st Century. The latter has repeatedly shaken the former’s beliefs, especially in Western countries. For instance, Charles Darwin’s take on origin and evolution cause a significant uproar between the two disciplines. Moreover, the introduction of technology and human cloning has deteriorated this matter, leading to contrasting opinions regarding the subject. Even these differences are in the religion itself, leading to the question of the role of science in man’s origin and destiny. A different section of religions supports the current development of human cloning, whereas others are in opposition to the trend. A part of Jewish, Judaic, and Christian leaders think that human cloning and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is essential. They point that it aids in cases where natural fertilization is complicated; therefore,considering alternative means is vital. Moreover, they add that human God created man in His image and likeness and therefore conducting innovation and research is a critical step in continuing the work of God. Besides, they add that man must continue shaping his destiny for the betterment of his future generations. Thus he must solve current problems that might paralyze the progress of his future.

On the other hand, some religions such as the Catholic Church are in total opposition to cloning and technological researches seen as disobedience to God’s creation. They argue that conducting such studies and the use of scientific reproduction methodologies is a violation of the dignity of human beings. Moreover, it is seen as a challenge to the beliefs of Christianity. Nevertheless, other religions, such as Buddhism, do not have a clear stand on the matter of human cloning. In some instances, they note that there is no creator, and therefore life can take any form, meaning through sexual reproduction or scientific exploration. However, they contradict their previous stance by pointing that it is fundamental to attach value on respecting every aspect of the living being; thus, in this view, human cloning should not be done. My opinion on the matter is that scientists should take into account the opinions raised by the opposing religions and establish a way of balancing. Failure to do so could further widen the hostility between religion and science, and that continual acceptance of science could be jeopardized in the long run. Similarly, religious beliefs must be open to a changing technological and scientific environment and offer their advice on how science could be applied accordingly. Indeed, the two depend on each other as Einstein postulated,“science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.’

References

1. Al-Bar, M., & Chamsi-Pasha, H. (2015). Assisted Reproductive Technology: Islamic Perspective. Contemporary Bioethics, 173-186. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18428-9_11
2. Lavi, S. (2014). Cloning International Law: The Science and Science Fiction of Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Patenting. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2389574
3. Robertson, D. (2014). Religion and science fiction. Culture And Religion, 15(2), 250-252. doi: 10.1080/14755610.2014.912877
4. Xiarhos, M. (2018). Ethics and Morality in Cloning Technology. Philosophy And Theology, 30(1), 255-267. doi: 10.5840/philtheol2018910102

Xenotransplantation vs. Therapeutic Cloning

“Data from the Centers for Disease Control, it has been estimated that approximately 3000 Americans die every day of diseases that could have been treated with embryonic stem cells derived tissues”(Koh, and Atala 194). What if we could change that? Humans can be cloned using many different methods and techniques but they all lie under the single unit of nuclear transfer. Nuclear transfer has two main branches: Somatic cell nuclear transfer and undifferentiated embryonic cell transfer. These transfer processes both have the process of taking the nucleus out of a cell and inserting it into an unfertilized egg that has had its nucleus removed. The only difference is where they retrieve the nucleus from. In an undifferentiated embryonic cell transfer, the nucleus derives from the human embryo, and in a somatic cell transfer the nucleus originates in any cell other than reproductive ones (Rogers).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer provides a channel for therapeutic cloning. As clearly explained by Britannica Academic, “Therapeutic cloning is intended to use cloned embryos to extract stem cells from them, without ever implanting the embryos in a womb. Therapeutic cloning enables the cultivation of stem cells that are genetically identical to a patient.” This facilitates the creation of tissues and organs for human transplants. Producing organs and tissues with this type of cloning is a passageway to minimizing the jeopardy a patient is placed in when getting a transplant. For example, when an organ from a different host is introduced in a patient’s body it has a vast possibility of being rejected by his/her immune system. This is due to the body not recognizing the foreign element and by attempting to protect itself, sends cells to attack the organ. Another outcome therapeutic cloning satisfies is the relentless worldly organ demand. It is a well-known fact that not enough organs are being donated to hospitals and medical centers to be sufficient for everyone in need of one. Currently, as of this July, there is a waiting list for organs of more than 113,000 people (“Organ Donation Statistics.”). As will be further discussed, this is an issue that therapeutic cloning can effortlessly solve. However, most people still adopt the idea of pig transplants to deal with these affairs. While pig transplants are an alternative approach to worldly organ demand and the danger of transplant rejection, therapeutic cloning is another adequate resource to solve these issues.

Another option to solve ongoing organ demand and reduce the risk of transplant rejections is by using pig organs. According to Ed Yong from The Scientist Magazine®, “Today, the organ shortage is an even bigger problem than it was in the 1980s (…) just 14,000 deceased and living donors give up organs for transplants each year.’ Searching for another source, like animals, may allow us to create more abundance for the ongoing demand. Xenotransplantation is the act of substituting an animal tissue, organ, or fluid in a human body. Why pigs? Pigs have been the predominant animals focused on the subject of cloning due to our extensive history of using their heart valves and insulin to solve other problems like diabetes. Now, scientific analysis has allowed us to observe that pig organs are roughly the same size as human organs. Also, breeding pigs in populous amounts to later remove these organs is fairly uncomplicated (as long as the right materials and tools are provided). However, certain techniques need to be taken to manufacture a perfect functional organ. The pig organ has “a sugar molecule called alpha-1,3-galactose (a-gal), which coats the surface of pig blood vessels but is absent from human tissues.” (Yong). This means the organ is inadequate for the human body because the human immune system will recognize the alien substance as a dangerous unit. Therefore, the genetic composition in pigs needs to be edited for a transplant. A scientist studying this phenomenon, “engineered pigs without the a-1,3-galactosyltransferase gene that produces the a-gal residues. In addition, the pigs carry human cell-membrane proteins such as CD55 and CD46 that prevent the host’s complement system from assembling and attacking the foreign cells.”(Yong). This incompatibility was resolved and it was further mentioned that these animals needed to be placed in a controlled environment. Another difference that has been inclined to change because of discordance is the protein controlling clotting. Solutions are still being calculated so that xenotransplantation should be successful. At least in the short term, pig organs have proven to provide a serviceful purpose. The central organs that have been transplanted are kidneys and livers which seem to operate well for a short period. Xenotransplantation could be a possibility to our many issues on organ demand and organ rejection.

However, therapeutic cloning is the most efficient way of fixing the worldly organ demand and decreasing the hazard of organ rejection. According to Ed Yong from The Scientist Magazine®, in therapeutic cloning “Such organs, grown from a patient’s cells, should avoid the problems of immune rejection that plague the field of xenotransplantation.” The complications of incompatibility and discordance do not have to be dealt with in therapeutic cloning. The makeup of the organ in this type of cloning has the same significant genetic variables so that rejection is reduced. Likewise, these transplantations have proven to be successful with the many transplantations already done with them. For example, “In 1999, Anthony Atala of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine grew bladders using artificial scaffolds and transplanted them into seven children with spina bifida. By 2006, all the children had gained better urinary control.” (Yong). Atala improved the lives of these children because he was able to provide organs quickly. In therapeutic cloning, organs can be produced fairly quickly and in abundance. In the future, if this type of transplantation is taken into consideration, it would be produced in large amounts being able to fulfill the demand and being done efficiently, it would save many lives. However, pig transplantations are less costly and if there is something abnormal concerning cells in an organ needing to be cloned, it cannot be cloned. Chiefly, therapeutic cloning displays a competent way to solve organ demand and rejection obstacles.

Even though therapeutic cloning can be a long-term solution to organ demand and risk of rejection, pig organ transplants can be an added solution. Xenotransplantation also poses itself to be an expensive area of research. Modifying pigs and designing them to perfectly simulate human organs is difficult, tedious, and time-consuming. Having to care for the pigs and perform multiple experiments is the reason therapeutic cloning is preferred. In addition, it does not present itself as a promising field due to its failure to inhabit a human’s body inoffensively for a long time while therapeutic cloning has allowed that to occur. The risk of researching an expensive field without knowing if the outcome is even possible is a chance no one has yet tackled. Therapeutic cloning likewise proves to be expensive but in the remote future, promising. Another problem with xenotransplantation as mentioned by Yong from The Scientist Magazine®, “liver transplants present a much trickier problem. “The liver makes so many proteins and hormones, and many of them that work in the pig probably won’t work in humans.” Not all organs in pigs will be available for human transplantation, although therapeutic cloning can recreate any organ. Moreover, diseases can be passed on from pigs to humans through xenotransplantation. If not in a controlled environment or cared for, diseases in pigs can be overlooked by scientists when executing a transplant. Therefore, eliminating any possibility of the patient’s recuperation process. These infections are called zoonotic and unknown zoonotic infections. It is known that “according to Taylor et al. (1), who in 2001 cataloged 1,415 known human pathogens, 62% were of zoonotic origin.” (Kruse et al.). This means that diseases or viruses that humans have obtained are mainly from animals. Throughout history, humans have been seen having diseases dating to zoonotic origin. For example, the Bubonic Plague was a disease passed from rats to humans by fleas. To clarify, if pigs attained viruses, they could be passed on to humans and cause immense problems. Especially, when breeding a large number of pigs, and performing transplants with all of them living in the same environment is dangerous. This is due to something called epizootic. This is when an outbreak occurs and all of the animals acquire the disease. This can be dangerous because if all of the pigs obtained the virus or disease, all of the people receiving the transplants would be affected. Also, animals that live so tightly together as these pigs would, are the perfect environment for these diseases to outset. Even though there is still a lot of research that needs to be completed before performing pig transplants, when perfected, they can serve as a temporary solution for the vast organ demand and rejection issues.

In conclusion, although pig transplants are another possible choice to the worldly organ demand and risk of rejection, therapeutic cloning is another worthwhile choice to settle these issues. Therapeutic cloning, showing a more profitable and feasible option for solving these issues, outweighs the probability of xenotransplantation being used. Temporarily, pig transplantations can be adopted to treat patients while waiting for a donor or a cloned organ. Both options were to be considered in an attempt to solve the organ demand and risk of rejection many people undergo as patients. Now, the problem is not having enough donors but in a while, the controversial debate between xenotransplantation and therapeutic cloning will have to be settled. We are not always given a second chance to live our lives, but therapeutic cloning can give many that opportunity.