Category: Cloning

My essay will focus on the topic of cloning. Last year, I did a project on social knowledge on this subject, I was interested in it and wanted to study this issue in more detail. And it seems to me that this is an ideal topic for the theme ‘technology of the 21st century’

“What is cloning, and how can it threaten humanity?”

Sooner or later, everyone will leave this world. When our beloved people leave us, tragedy for everyone, and great sorrow. In this state, a person is capable of much and is ready to sacrifice everything to return a loved one to the living world.

 This, of course, is just fantastic, but perhaps someday medicine will be able to make an exact copy of a person.

Initially, the word clone began to be used for a group of plants (for example, fruit trees) obtained from a single producer plant in a vegetative (non-seed) way. Over time, the meaning of the term expanded and began to be used when growing bacteria cultures. Later, the name “cloning” was also transferred to the technology of obtaining identical organisms obtained by such technology, from the first tadpoles to animals.

A clone is if you place an egg in the cell nucleus of another individual, the cub will be an exact copy of its donor. In practice, the hypothesis was confirmed only after 20 years, when the mouse was cloned, but it immediately died from diseases of the immune system. Since then, scientists have managed to clone pigs, sheep, cows, and dogs, but these experiments can hardly be called successful, about 3% of the experimental subjects survived and gave birth, with many physical abnormalities. One of the first successful experiments on animal cloning was the world-famous lamb, Dolly. She was cloned in 1996, and 276 attempts were made, the clone was not perfect, as she was aged 2 times faster than her relatives, because she was cloned from adult cells.

The first experiments led to mass protests and demonstrations of people in different countries, demanding to stop experiments in this area. Religion also did not stand aside and supported by the public. After experimenting with Dolly, enterprising people began to make money from this, one such example is a cloned Sisi kitten. It was supposed to be a live advertisement for a company that was supposed to make money on resurrecting pets. At the end of the experiment, the kitten was not like his mother and because of this, the company went bankrupt.

In most countries, cloning is prohibited. Experts speak out in favor of lifting or easing the ban but under the strictest state control. Human curiosity, and hence scientific interest, is ineradicable. Many people do not want to limit themselves to cloning their favorite cats or dogs. It’s scary to even guess what this might lead to.

Yes, we have already learned to clone individual human organs, and this is of course a great contribution to medicine. And maybe in the future, it will save more than one life, but there is still a lot to do.

My opinion is that from a scientific point of view, cloning is progress, to prevent various diseases in the future. But cloning people is unnatural, humanity is not on the verge of extinction to raise the population of people on earth through cloning. After all, such an intervention can lead to irreversible consequences.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist and futurist and is one of the greatest minds to live in the 20th and the 21st centuries, his works criticizing the anthropogenic activities that caused environmental destruction made him one of the most prominent and well-known people to stand for environmental protection. In his book entitled “Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century (1997)”, he illustrated that there are three great themes in science in the 20th century – the atom, the computer, and the gene. The biomolecular revolution has undeniably transformed the way we will live today, as it did with the quantum and computer revolution, and its beginning with Dolly the sheep – the first whole-organism cloning, took the world by surprise and by storm, sparking debate about the proper, responsible, and ethical implications on the usage of biotechnology and the pros and cons associated with such (Polkinghorne, 2000; Messerly, 2014).

With the ability of humans to be able to intervene in the structure of the genome, what might be likened to the “fabric of life”, multiple ethical questions arise which have been debated for the majority of the past few decades (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Three contemporary features served as the tenets for concerns regarding the use of such. The first is the so-called “respect of life”, implying that interfering with the very biochemical compound which makes every one of us unique and fundamentally important to nature is contradictory to the integrity of nature. The second is the cautious and anxious approach wherein the presence and potential of such would drive research and development ahead of proper ethical considerations, disregarding the plausible ethical concerns associated with such. Lastly, the use of such technology which requires resources and financial assets would mean that those who can partake in the research of such means would have the power to monopolize or at the very least use their leverage in such technology for the continued unethical and discriminatory use of nature for the fulfillment of their self-interested passions/desires (Polkinghorne, 2000).

Throughout human history, multiple scientific revolutions were shaped by decades and centuries of research and development wherein the continuous expansion and rapid development of human civilization have dramatically improved our lives, albeit at the cost of the rapid deterioration/depletion of natural resources and the accompanied and subsequent decline of plant and animal species. With various conservation groups all around the world aiming to help protect and reverse the detrimental actions of man, the big question remains, would cloning be the solution to species endangerment and extinction? (Blomquist, 1998; Jabr, 2013)

The current rate of mammalian extinction has been growing at an exponential rate over the last couple of years, with such a rapid decline in the population of not only mammals but also reptiles, birds, amphibians, etc., experts have been quick to assert that at this current rate, we could experience the Holocene extinction within our lifetime, and some even say that we are currently in the middle of it. This has prompted much discussion on the usage of cloning as the tool to alleviate not only mammalian extinction but also the extinction of the ecosystem as a whole, be it plant or animal (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997; Lee, 2001; Ryder, 2002). Cloning can have long-lasting and far-reaching effects if such is applied to endangered species, and could change the course of conservation, for better or worse (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).

Almost any optimistic and technocentric person one may meet on the street, more often than not, he/she may think that science and technology would one day hold the key to saving those plants or animals in need and bring back those that have vanished from nature. With today’s current technology though, the prospect of de-extinction and the revival of endangered species is few and far between, as the time and resources needed to resurrect and revitalize their species is far more expensive and too much of a risk than to spend the assets on saving existing plants and animals whose natural habitats are fast disappearing (Lee, 2001). Essentially, it is not pragmatic to clone all endangered species for the sake of reviving their population if the resources needed are just not there and if the world or habitat they used to live in is already a thing of the distant past, and they may never recover without humanity shifting away from man’s self-interested passions (Jabr, 2003).

Cloning often introduces various harms to society, biology, and possibly to the environment. Utilitarian considerations on cloning help us understand the viability of such technology in today’s world wherein the world’s limited supply of natural resources, as well as the financial capacity of various research groups to undertake such marvel in genetics and engineering, may undermine the very framework such work stands on (Moss & Scheer, 2016). One thing to take note of, and it may not come as a surprise to anybody, is that cloning is taxing to the environment, especially given the tedious and intensive work with endangered species, the cost (i.e. economic and environmental costs) of individual endangered species is expensive given that they are under legal protection (Jabr, 2013). While some may say cloning is paramount to bringing back the population of endangered species, it would be counter-productive to use the very same species as donors/surrogates especially as it often takes hundreds of trials to make a successful clone. This poses a major risk to the surrogate mother/s, with the death of such an unacceptable biological and conservation cost (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Poland & Bishop, 2002).

Research involving cloning always comes at a high price, drilling a major hole in the pockets of those who dare to take the leap of faith. Such costs include vast resource allocation and reallocation wherein the costs of cloning can siphon out funds that would otherwise have helped various habitat preservation and conservation efforts (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). The Cheetah Conservation Fund, one of the many organizations with a primary goal in the preservation of cheetah special operates on an annual budget of $1.8 million, and to reallocate most, if not all of its budget to cloning would seriously hamper its ability to attain its goal in preservation. Thus, more often than not, most organizations like the Cheetah Conservation Fund would rather prefer assisted reproduction and other efforts (e.g. habitat restoration and protection) as a more effective conservation strategy than cloning (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997). Therefore, investing in cloning is greatly frowned upon by conservationists and nature advocates alike, and it’s not wrong to assume that the funds could have otherwise gone to the conservation of wildlife habitats worldwide (Lee, 2001).

Moreover, the deontological implications of cloning question whether or not humans must revive or bring back those plants and animals whose species have suffered at the hands of man. Such thinking has pushed researchers to often forget that focusing on a limited number of species, especially those that are valuable in the field of research, with the hopes of rebounding its population with a technology that is not yet fully realized, typically blurs the very definition of what it means for humanity to have a sense of duty to our planet and all of its inhabitants (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009).

Cloning is not a viable conservation strategy as the biggest threats to biodiversity loss today cannot be solved by such, but rather it is a distraction that deters the public mindset from the main job of the preservation and conservation of nature. Essentially, given a utilitarian and deontological viewpoint of cloning endangered species, the inherent costs of such and the prevailing debates regarding the job of humanity as saviors of natural wildlife come into play and question cloning as the future of environmental conservation. (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).

Given that the low conception rates and high costs of cloning are some of the major factors that deter researchers, and pragmatical thinking, this cannot be taken as an excuse to not use the technology. At the current rate of how technology is progressing, it is pragmatic, but to do so is disingenuous and only serves to hamper technological progress and advancement. Practical considerations also come into play when using cloning technology in wildlife conservation, as the basic physiological knowledge of certain endangered species that humans aim to clone does not exist. With such, the inability of researchers to effectively minimize the risks of such given the lack of knowledge, animal welfare is then sacrificed for the sake of gathering experimental data which may be invalid.

Another major significant drawback is the viability and survivability of the offspring that would be produced are still uncertain. In its current state, it’s almost guaranteed that the resultant offspring would suffer from some kind/degree of abnormality. And this is only taken into account if given sufficient resources and funds which yielded a successful offspring from hundreds of trials. The abnormalities present may range from physiological to mental impediments, and such has been attributed to inefficient programming and imprinting of nuclear DNA as a result of an experimental and non-final procedure and lack or minimal knowledge about the organisms (Young & Fairburn, 2000; Humpherys et al., 2001; Chung et al., 2003). The successful cloning of endangered organisms in the hopes of reviving their populations without any major drawbacks in the financial, environmental, and conservational aspects would be a major feat in the application of such technology, but essentially, the theoretical benefits outweigh the cons are yet to be seen in the reel world (Holt, Pickard, & Prather, 2004).

In certain cases, and with certain species, the use of cloning is a useful tool for the preservation of the genetic material of an endangered species on the verge of extinction or for species whose genetic diversity is limited or dwindling. The usage of cloning in such circumstances is only beneficial once the technology is there wherein the pros outweigh the cons and that the world, we have in the future would still viably support such cloned species who have once got used to a world that is long gone. But in reality, no one knows whether cloning is the solution to curbing the 6th mass extinction that would take place or is currently taking place (Jabr, 2013).

The bottom line is that it all comes down to the costs of cloning, the sacrifices it takes, the funds it will need, and the resources it will drain, along with the vital question of whether a man should be the one responsible for solving its actions by reversing the process which would lead to natural disruptions (i.e. a solution in search of a problem) or continue solving the root problems and/or causes of species endangerment via conservation and preservation. The bottom line here is that for the cloning of endangered plants and animals to at least retain its ethical value and be environmentally, financially, and economically viable, it must not diverge from the overall goals of conservation and the sacrifices needed to get there must be outweighed with the benefits that nature would reap later (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Lastly, the ends of cloning do not yet justify the means, and such is a haphazard and unstable technology that in its current state, only serves as a proof-of-concept product for a world that is yet to be seen, a remarkable first-generation technology that would eventually become better, but given everything we have today, it’s still just a solution in search of a problem.

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. 

My essay will focus on the topic of cloning. Last year, I did a project on social knowledge on this subject, I was interested in it and wanted to study this issue in more detail. And it seems to me that this is an ideal topic for the theme ‘technology of the 21st century’

“What is cloning, and how can it threaten humanity?”

Sooner or later, everyone will leave this world. When our beloved people leave us, tragedy for everyone, and great sorrow. In this state, a person is capable of much and is ready to sacrifice everything to return a loved one to the living world.

 This, of course, is just fantastic, but perhaps someday medicine will be able to make an exact copy of a person.

Initially, the word clone began to be used for a group of plants (for example, fruit trees) obtained from a single producer plant in a vegetative (non-seed) way. Over time, the meaning of the term expanded and began to be used when growing bacteria cultures. Later, the name “cloning” was also transferred to the technology of obtaining identical organisms obtained by such technology, from the first tadpoles to animals.

A clone is if you place an egg in the cell nucleus of another individual, the cub will be an exact copy of its donor. In practice, the hypothesis was confirmed only after 20 years, when the mouse was cloned, but it immediately died from diseases of the immune system. Since then, scientists have managed to clone pigs, sheep, cows, and dogs, but these experiments can hardly be called successful, about 3% of the experimental subjects survived and gave birth, with many physical abnormalities. One of the first successful experiments on animal cloning was the world-famous lamb, Dolly. She was cloned in 1996, and 276 attempts were made, the clone was not perfect, as she was aged 2 times faster than her relatives, because she was cloned from adult cells.

The first experiments led to mass protests and demonstrations of people in different countries, demanding to stop experiments in this area. Religion also did not stand aside and supported by the public. After experimenting with Dolly, enterprising people began to make money from this, one such example is a cloned Sisi kitten. It was supposed to be a live advertisement for a company that was supposed to make money on resurrecting pets. At the end of the experiment, the kitten was not like his mother and because of this, the company went bankrupt.

In most countries, cloning is prohibited. Experts speak out in favor of lifting or easing the ban but under the strictest state control. Human curiosity, and hence scientific interest, is ineradicable. Many people do not want to limit themselves to cloning their favorite cats or dogs. It’s scary to even guess what this might lead to.

Yes, we have already learned to clone individual human organs, and this is of course a great contribution to medicine. And maybe in the future, it will save more than one life, but there is still a lot to do.

My opinion is that from a scientific point of view, cloning is progress, to prevent various diseases in the future. But cloning people is unnatural, humanity is not on the verge of extinction to raise the population of people on earth through cloning. After all, such an intervention can lead to irreversible consequences.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist and futurist and is one of the greatest minds to live in the 20th and the 21st centuries, his works criticizing the anthropogenic activities that caused environmental destruction made him one of the most prominent and well-known people to stand for environmental protection. In his book entitled “Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century (1997)”, he illustrated that there are three great themes in science in the 20th century – the atom, the computer, and the gene. The biomolecular revolution has undeniably transformed the way we will live today, as it did with the quantum and computer revolution, and its beginning with Dolly the sheep – the first whole-organism cloning, took the world by surprise and by storm, sparking debate about the proper, responsible, and ethical implications on the usage of biotechnology and the pros and cons associated with such (Polkinghorne, 2000; Messerly, 2014).

With the ability of humans to be able to intervene in the structure of the genome, what might be likened to the “fabric of life”, multiple ethical questions arise which have been debated for the majority of the past few decades (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Three contemporary features served as the tenets for concerns regarding the use of such. The first is the so-called “respect of life”, implying that interfering with the very biochemical compound which makes every one of us unique and fundamentally important to nature is contradictory to the integrity of nature. The second is the cautious and anxious approach wherein the presence and potential of such would drive research and development ahead of proper ethical considerations, disregarding the plausible ethical concerns associated with such. Lastly, the use of such technology which requires resources and financial assets would mean that those who can partake in the research of such means would have the power to monopolize or at the very least use their leverage in such technology for the continued unethical and discriminatory use of nature for the fulfillment of their self-interested passions/desires (Polkinghorne, 2000).

Throughout human history, multiple scientific revolutions were shaped by decades and centuries of research and development wherein the continuous expansion and rapid development of human civilization have dramatically improved our lives, albeit at the cost of the rapid deterioration/depletion of natural resources and the accompanied and subsequent decline of plant and animal species. With various conservation groups all around the world aiming to help protect and reverse the detrimental actions of man, the big question remains, would cloning be the solution to species endangerment and extinction? (Blomquist, 1998; Jabr, 2013)

The current rate of mammalian extinction has been growing at an exponential rate over the last couple of years, with such a rapid decline in the population of not only mammals but also reptiles, birds, amphibians, etc., experts have been quick to assert that at this current rate, we could experience the Holocene extinction within our lifetime, and some even say that we are currently in the middle of it. This has prompted much discussion on the usage of cloning as the tool to alleviate not only mammalian extinction but also the extinction of the ecosystem as a whole, be it plant or animal (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997; Lee, 2001; Ryder, 2002). Cloning can have long-lasting and far-reaching effects if such is applied to endangered species, and could change the course of conservation, for better or worse (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).

Almost any optimistic and technocentric person one may meet on the street, more often than not, he/she may think that science and technology would one day hold the key to saving those plants or animals in need and bring back those that have vanished from nature. With today’s current technology though, the prospect of de-extinction and the revival of endangered species is few and far between, as the time and resources needed to resurrect and revitalize their species is far more expensive and too much of a risk than to spend the assets on saving existing plants and animals whose natural habitats are fast disappearing (Lee, 2001). Essentially, it is not pragmatic to clone all endangered species for the sake of reviving their population if the resources needed are just not there and if the world or habitat they used to live in is already a thing of the distant past, and they may never recover without humanity shifting away from man’s self-interested passions (Jabr, 2003).

Cloning often introduces various harms to society, biology, and possibly to the environment. Utilitarian considerations on cloning help us understand the viability of such technology in today’s world wherein the world’s limited supply of natural resources, as well as the financial capacity of various research groups to undertake such marvel in genetics and engineering, may undermine the very framework such work stands on (Moss & Scheer, 2016). One thing to take note of, and it may not come as a surprise to anybody, is that cloning is taxing to the environment, especially given the tedious and intensive work with endangered species, the cost (i.e. economic and environmental costs) of individual endangered species is expensive given that they are under legal protection (Jabr, 2013). While some may say cloning is paramount to bringing back the population of endangered species, it would be counter-productive to use the very same species as donors/surrogates especially as it often takes hundreds of trials to make a successful clone. This poses a major risk to the surrogate mother/s, with the death of such an unacceptable biological and conservation cost (Ehrenfeld, 2006; Poland & Bishop, 2002).

Research involving cloning always comes at a high price, drilling a major hole in the pockets of those who dare to take the leap of faith. Such costs include vast resource allocation and reallocation wherein the costs of cloning can siphon out funds that would otherwise have helped various habitat preservation and conservation efforts (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). The Cheetah Conservation Fund, one of the many organizations with a primary goal in the preservation of cheetah special operates on an annual budget of $1.8 million, and to reallocate most, if not all of its budget to cloning would seriously hamper its ability to attain its goal in preservation. Thus, more often than not, most organizations like the Cheetah Conservation Fund would rather prefer assisted reproduction and other efforts (e.g. habitat restoration and protection) as a more effective conservation strategy than cloning (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009; Ryder & Benirschke, 1997). Therefore, investing in cloning is greatly frowned upon by conservationists and nature advocates alike, and it’s not wrong to assume that the funds could have otherwise gone to the conservation of wildlife habitats worldwide (Lee, 2001).

Moreover, the deontological implications of cloning question whether or not humans must revive or bring back those plants and animals whose species have suffered at the hands of man. Such thinking has pushed researchers to often forget that focusing on a limited number of species, especially those that are valuable in the field of research, with the hopes of rebounding its population with a technology that is not yet fully realized, typically blurs the very definition of what it means for humanity to have a sense of duty to our planet and all of its inhabitants (Pina-Aguilar et al., 2009).

Cloning is not a viable conservation strategy as the biggest threats to biodiversity loss today cannot be solved by such, but rather it is a distraction that deters the public mindset from the main job of the preservation and conservation of nature. Essentially, given a utilitarian and deontological viewpoint of cloning endangered species, the inherent costs of such and the prevailing debates regarding the job of humanity as saviors of natural wildlife come into play and question cloning as the future of environmental conservation. (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014).

Given that the low conception rates and high costs of cloning are some of the major factors that deter researchers, and pragmatical thinking, this cannot be taken as an excuse to not use the technology. At the current rate of how technology is progressing, it is pragmatic, but to do so is disingenuous and only serves to hamper technological progress and advancement. Practical considerations also come into play when using cloning technology in wildlife conservation, as the basic physiological knowledge of certain endangered species that humans aim to clone does not exist. With such, the inability of researchers to effectively minimize the risks of such given the lack of knowledge, animal welfare is then sacrificed for the sake of gathering experimental data which may be invalid.

Another major significant drawback is the viability and survivability of the offspring that would be produced are still uncertain. In its current state, it’s almost guaranteed that the resultant offspring would suffer from some kind/degree of abnormality. And this is only taken into account if given sufficient resources and funds which yielded a successful offspring from hundreds of trials. The abnormalities present may range from physiological to mental impediments, and such has been attributed to inefficient programming and imprinting of nuclear DNA as a result of an experimental and non-final procedure and lack or minimal knowledge about the organisms (Young & Fairburn, 2000; Humpherys et al., 2001; Chung et al., 2003). The successful cloning of endangered organisms in the hopes of reviving their populations without any major drawbacks in the financial, environmental, and conservational aspects would be a major feat in the application of such technology, but essentially, the theoretical benefits outweigh the cons are yet to be seen in the reel world (Holt, Pickard, & Prather, 2004).

In certain cases, and with certain species, the use of cloning is a useful tool for the preservation of the genetic material of an endangered species on the verge of extinction or for species whose genetic diversity is limited or dwindling. The usage of cloning in such circumstances is only beneficial once the technology is there wherein the pros outweigh the cons and that the world, we have in the future would still viably support such cloned species who have once got used to a world that is long gone. But in reality, no one knows whether cloning is the solution to curbing the 6th mass extinction that would take place or is currently taking place (Jabr, 2013).

The bottom line is that it all comes down to the costs of cloning, the sacrifices it takes, the funds it will need, and the resources it will drain, along with the vital question of whether a man should be the one responsible for solving its actions by reversing the process which would lead to natural disruptions (i.e. a solution in search of a problem) or continue solving the root problems and/or causes of species endangerment via conservation and preservation. The bottom line here is that for the cloning of endangered plants and animals to at least retain its ethical value and be environmentally, financially, and economically viable, it must not diverge from the overall goals of conservation and the sacrifices needed to get there must be outweighed with the benefits that nature would reap later (Cottrell, Jensen, & Peck, 2014). Lastly, the ends of cloning do not yet justify the means, and such is a haphazard and unstable technology that in its current state, only serves as a proof-of-concept product for a world that is yet to be seen, a remarkable first-generation technology that would eventually become better, but given everything we have today, it’s still just a solution in search of a problem.

Dear friend from 2012, today, living in 2062 year, I want to share with you the facts of our life. 50 years ago the civilization had a number of ideas, hopes and believes which nowadays became our reality and cloning is one of them. Today, we are able not only to grow human tissues and organs, but the real human beings. Thousands of cloning people live among us. No, we don’t have the whole teams of Jordans, but if someone would want to make it true, it would be absolutely possible.

Although the benefits of cloning are obvious, there is no consensus or common opinion in the society. Cloning helped many people to recover. Hundreds of parents are able to grow the replica of their child who died due to the diseases. If someone ask those parents what they think about cloning, it is so easy to predict their answer: cloning is positive, it is the next level of development of our civilization. In 2062, the scientists successfully use the cell nuclear replacement, removing DNA from one person or embryo to another.

Today, when we talk about cloning, we don’t remember the example of the sheep Dolly, there is more bright and outstanding example – the first human child, a boy who was created by doctors with use of DNA of a boy who died in the result of accident. This boy was staying in coma for about 5 months and there was no hope to bring him back to life. The doctors offered the parents to use the boy’s DNA in a brand-new and untested before experiment.

All information was absolutely confidential until the world was blown up by the phenomenal news: the experiment of cloning of a human being from the DNA of another boy was successful. I think you can imagine the consequences of that news. Today this cloned boy is 14-years old guy who has the normal life. He lives with parents, goes to school, plays sports and so on. However, it is still unclear if he is able to procreate. The scientists need more time to investigate this aspect.

Well, this issue is the most sharp. One of the concerns of those who are against cloning is that it is inhuman to collect, store and freeze the surplus embryos in order to use them later. Moreover, people argue is it possible to consider the cloned people as the normal human beings? Do they have a soul? And especially such question is important for the religious people.

Christian and Muslims claim for necessity to ban the human cloning. But how actually the soul can be identified or detected? How can we be sure that the cloned people do not have the souls? This is a philosophical and sophistical question. On the other hand, we can notice that the human organs grown in the laboratories already helped millions of people.

The level of mortality reduces. Disabled people now can live more and to have a full life. My grandfather is still alive, although the liver that had been transplanted to his body is made from the stem cells. 50 years ago, people who were born with the genetic problems did not have any chances to recover. Today, it is the smallest problem that may occur. The doctors can cure it immediately, using the stem cells of a healthy organ. Our civilization forgot about a number of diseases such as cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, arthritis, etc.

The government provided the special laws in order to control cloning. Today, the use of the stem cells for medical purposes is legal and valid. However, it is difficult to satisfy all people, and especially the religious ones.

Due to the complicated ethical background, the United Nations created the commission which controls the process of cloning in the different countries. There is a common fear in the society that cloning may be used as new weapon. Who knows how far this may lead? I can tell you that 50 years after your time we still don’t know how to consider this problem.

Perhaps, it is a beginning of the new race of people with the special abilities. However, on the other hand, today, it is impossible to state that the cloned people have some differences. Surely, no one blames them or treat as a defective person or the one who is not possessing full rights. The cloned people are equal ad have the same rights as well as the same needs as other citizens.

Therefore, my friend from 2012, you can see that that process of cloning is still a cause of the sharp discussions. Although we got the success in the human cloning and the use of the stem cells for medical purpose is an absolutely normal today, people still argue about its moral aspect. But for parents who are able to grow the reply of their lost children and people with disabilities who get the chance to have a full life, cloning is absolutely normal and positive process. Moreover, it is a new step of the development of our civilization.

Introduction

When the news about a genetically cloned sheep named “Dolly” was reported, various reactions were generated from different groups of people. Many were shocked and had strongly disagreed with the idea – these are mostly the religious groups and the most conservative ones in the society. There are some who became genuinely interested and have found themselves excitedly waiting for more results and further researches on the topic – these people are mostly those who are inclined to sciences and are much willing to defy the church.

But why do these people have these reactions towards this thing called cloning? What really is cloning? How come it has taken the attention of many? Is it really scientifically challenging? Or does it offer a possible advantage to humans, like us?

Cloning: Defined

Technically speaking, cloning is a means of isolating particular parts of the genome in small fragments of DNA and making copies of and studying the sequence in another organism. It can also mean the process of producing by nonsexual means an identical copy of organisms. There are actually three types of approaches to cloning. First is cloning using a specialized DNA technology producing multiple, exact copies of a single gene or another segment of DNA that will help obtain enough material for future studies.

This is referred to as “DNA cloning” and has been used in the Human Genome Project. The second type of cloning exploits the natural process of cell division to make many copies of an entire cell. The genetic makeup of these cloned cells, called a cell line, is identical to the original cell. And lastly, the third type of cloning produces complete, genetically identical animals such as the famous Scottish sheep, Dolly¹.

In a more laymen’s term, cloning is like having a clearer “carbon copy” of one person, animal, or any organism for that matter. What’s more interesting on this, though it can be scary also, is the possibility that one could create a much better replica of himself. If researches could be successful, one can easily make several copies of him… acquiring his traits and personalities, his talents, his skills, his intelligence and even his interests. But as I’ve said, one could even make a better imitation of himself… hence a cloned person could be made “perfect” in a sense that the characteristics that are lacking on the “original” entity could be added and enhanced so that the “cloned” body could have that characteristics.

Yes, this is how science and technology go now. And this is also why many are putting their best foot to go against the idea of cloning. Religious sectors and the “conservative” ones fear that bad things are bound to happen if this process will push through. They are thinking and debating that this is not written in the Holy Bible. Hence this is not right and proper. On the other hand, people who are supporting this process believe that this could offer great help to all humanity. They are providing ample proof that through cloning, various deadly diseases nowadays could be cured. They are going around the idea that cloning could help ease the entire people from suffering from detrimental diseases and have a longer life span. They are also arguing that cloning could help man to live a better life.

Taking a Stand

It is strongly believed that this study on human embryonic stem lines, where cloning has become an integral aspect, should be continued, and no one should hinder it from pushing through. This endeavor is truly a big leap forward in the advancement of science and technology, and medical and human aspects are some of the few factors that will be greatly benefited.

Specifically, this study of human embryonic stem cells offers some benefits. One of the first benefits is that the study of human embryonic stem cells will lead to major advances in human biology. Embryonic stem cell research will provide critical insights into mechanisms of cell differentiation, growth, and death. More so, understanding stem cells may provide keys to why people age². It should be noted that scientists are interested in stem cells because they have the potential to become virtually any other kind of cell in the body and so might be used to replace tissues that have failed³. And lastly, scientists believed that if we have successful cured lymphoma and leukemia with this study, therefore there is a great possibility that we can also cure diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, among others, in the near future⁴.

Another big benefit that can be contributed by the study of human embryonic stem cell therapies is that there is a possibility that it can save lives and restore the function of people. Human embryonic stem cells can replace damaged or lost cells which include diabetes, degenerative neurological diseases, demyelinating diseases, brain & spinal cord injury⁵

Various arguments were said and done, various comments were heard and argued upon, but there is really one thing common to this all… and that is the purpose of having a better life for humanity. I, myself, am thinking that if cloning could really help us solve our problems on the numerous diseases that until now have not yet found any cure for, then, by all means, I will be supporting the process of cloning. But they, the scientists, should provide good evidence on this matter. And they should be open to the people as to the possibility of danger that this cloning may cause us. Researching and testing of cloning should be an open book to all of us so that we may know what to expect, and we may immediately react to it.

References

Cloning. (2004) Google.com. Web.

Dimeo FC, Tilmann MH, Bertz H, et al. Aerobic exercise in the rehabilitation of cancer patients after high dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation. Cancer, 79:1717-1722. 1997.

Eggertson, Laura. (2001). Cloning in Canada? Don’t hold your breath. CMAJ Canadian leading medical journal. Web.

Embryonic Stem Cells: An Introduction to Science ethics and Legislation. 2004. Web.

Health Canada. (2005). Human Cloning. Health Canada, Canada. Web.

Mining Stem Cells. 2004. Web.

Mitalipova, Maisam et. al. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Discarded Embryos AlphaMed Press. 2003. Web.

UK Human Embryonic Stem Cells First. BBC News. 2003. Web.

Young, Wise. Morality of Stem Cells. 2004. Web.

Introduction

Despite the promising future that cloning purports to forecast for the human race, the research projects have been met with fierce opposition from lawmakers to clergy men. Most of the opposition is on ethical grounds and while there is nothing unethical about using technology to save lives, opposition groups are far from being appeased.

Considering the fact that most of the controversy about cloning arises from misinformation or ignorance about the matter, this study shall set out to conclusively research on cloning and its merits so as to attest whether the lack of unanimous support for therapeutic cloning and explicit ban of human cloning is justifiable.

Cloning is described as the creation of genetically identical organisms by use of artificial means (Kfoury 112). Cloning is deemed as a form of asexual reproduction whereby a gene from one animal/human is transferred to another organism. The process by which this is carried out is often complicated and requires cutting edge technology.

The two major forms of cloning are the Reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Reproductive cloning involves the generation of animals that have identical DNA with previously existing animals (Mollard 1). Cloning of human beings would fall under this category. This procedure is carried out by copying the DNA information from the donor’s nucleus into a cell with the nucleus previously removed (Mollard 2). The cell grows into a replica of the animal which provided the gene once it is fully developed.

Therapeutic cloning follows the same steps as reproductive cloning only that the embryos development is not let to run to completion. Therapeutic cloning is mainly used to extract stem cells from embryos. After the successful retrieval of the cells, the embryos are inevitably destroyed (Kfoury 112). Research on stem cells has it that these unspecialized cells have the ability to transform themselves into any type of cell found in the body.

Argument against cloning

There has been agreement by consensus that human cloning should be banned though the prospects of the same are at best distant. The major arguments in support of this assertion is the concern that cloning could lead to physically deformed children and furthermore pose a danger to the women who act as surrogate mothers to the clones (Pearson 658). It is noteworthy to point out that these fears are not unfounded since cloning of animals has resulted to some undesirable characteristics being exhibited in the clone.

Research shows that cloned animals that survive end up being bigger at birth than natural animals. This condition is not only hazardous to the mother but also can lead to breathing problems and a myriad of other complications (Pearson 658). The mortality rate of cloned animals is also observed to be very high with most of them hardly lasting through a few months (Mollard 2).

New cloning techniques open up the possibility of reproductive cloning hereby human beings could be created! Kfoury paints quite a bleak image on the outcome of cloning by alluding to a possibility that people could have clones and then use these clones to “harvest” organs needed to be transplanted into them when their own organs have failed or are sickly (113).

This scary possibility is further made real by the critical shortage of organs for such surgeries and the very questionable moral ethics of some governments which could assent with such outrageous practices.

Cloning technology as it presently stands is haunted by huge failure rates (Mollard 2). This is one of the facts that detractors to cloning are quick to point out in their arguments against the justification of cloning. In the first successful cloning of the sheep, it is recorded that 277 enucleated eggs were obtained and received nuclei from an adult mammary gland cell.

Of these, only 29 cells made it to the next blastocyst stage. The new cells were placed in the uteruses of 13 ewes but only one sheep was eventually born. This success rate of a mere 0.36% is seen as unjustifiable considering the efforts that go into the cloning process.

Another venue from which opposition to the cloning process is brought into light is by a woman’s study by Mollard (2). He asserts that while the debate rages on about reproductive cloning and step cell research efforts, women who supply the eggs for the cloning efforts are given no merit or credit at that.

The health risks associated with the egg extraction process are seen to be great and in light of the high rate of failure currently associated with the cloning process, Mollard contests that serious ethical implications are raised regarding the process (2).

Argument for cloning

From a medical point of view, cloning also presents a new way in which research into diseases can be undertaken. It is articulated that animals that carry genetic defect that mimic human diseases can be generated through cloning (North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research 2). These “sickly” animals could then be used for the study of the diseases and the findings obtained from this would be of immense value in finding of effective therapies for treating the disease in humans (Wolfe 3).

Sadly, majority of the people awaiting organs for transplant will end up not receiving the much needed organs. Therapeutic cloning presents a long term solution to this problem which is only set to escalate.

Cloning of individual human organs e.g. the kidney, heart, etc. presents a novel way of coming up with organs for transplant as patients will no longer have to rely on the altruist tendencies of fellow men, which cannot always be guaranteed (Lanza 283). In addition, this cloning will ensure that organ rejection is a thing of the past (Kfoury 113).

In addition to these prospects of creating high quality breeds in industrial scale numbers, there is also the possibility of modifying the DNA of the clones such that they posses some key proteins that are not normally present in the animal but are of huge benefit to human beings (Lanza 283). This can lead to the increasing in the nutritional worth of the animals and the presentation of healthier food products for people since the nutritional composition of the product can be “tweaked” to best suit the consumer. This will lead to a healthier nation.

While antagonism over the safety of cloned animal products has incessantly been questioned, majority of the people have began viewing cloning as one of the feasible ways of creating means of feeding a world whose population is constantly on the rise (North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research 2).

Cloning presents a way of ensuring that the precise quality of food can be harvested over and over. In light of the recent financial crises and the increased food insecurity issues especially in developing counties, such moves that promise adequate food supplies are welcome.

Conclusion

This study set out on a quest to state if the banning of cloning research efforts was justifiable. Considering the numerous benefits that further research would have presented, I would view this ban as grossly unjustifiable. Should the ban on funding of cloning projects not have been made, one can only guess at the numerous groundbreaking achievements that could have been made by now.

The novel ideal of individual organ cloning would have alleviated the present problem that is so prevalent in the health care system. In addition, the global food crisis would be significantly averted among other benefits.

Works Cited

Kfoury, Charlotte. “Therapeutic cloning: promises and issues.” MJM, 10.2 2007:112-120. Print.

Lanza, Robert. “After Dolly: the use and misuse of human cloning (BOOK REVIEW).” The journal of clinical investigation, 117.2 2007: 283. Print.

Mollard, Richard. Reproductive cloning. 2005. Web.

North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research. Cloning. 2006. Web.

Pearson, Yvette. “Never Let Me Clone? Countering an Ethical Argument against the Reproductive Cloning of Humans.” European Molecular Biology Organization, 7.7 2006: 657-59. Print.

Wolfe, John. “Gene Therapy in Large Animal Models of Human Genetic Diseases.” ILAR J, 50.2 2009: 107-111. Print.

Scientists have been able to clone cells, tissues, and entire mammals like sheep, thanks to advancements in cloning technology. Cloning is a naturally occurring phenomenon in which organisms such as bacteria reproduce asexually by dividing their cells. We recognize that human cloning is a hotly debated and contentious topic that, in most cases, receives a lot of attention. Many of these debates ignore the potential of human cloning as scientific advancement and the importance of human safety and well-being.

Cloning’s main advantage is that it allows for faster reproduction. According to Robertson (1998), cloning results in creating genes that are superior to what nature would otherwise dictate. When farmers practice cloning, for example, they may produce a large number of offspring. These animals are among the healthiest on the planet and thus provide the safest and most nutritious food for humans. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as artificial insemination, in embryo transfer and vitro fertilization, used by modern farmers, have greatly accelerated the process of animal cloning for human benefit. Thus, regulating cloning will only hamper scientific advancements.

Cloning is, therefore, a highly beneficial process from a scientific standpoint, and it has the potential to usher in a new era of technological progress. However, the consumer’s attitude includes personality considerations, which are unrelated to genetics. To summarize, people should be aware of the impact of genetics on behavior and the limited role that cloning could play in bringing a dead animal back to life.

Conclusively, there should also be regulations placed on cloning only when the doctors and scientists don’t conform to the rules and regulations aligned with the practice.

References

Robertson, J. A. (1998). Human cloning and the challenge of regulation.

Cloning, 3D printing, and artificial parts are on the list of the most promising but ethically ambiguous replacement strategies. Notably, many believe them to promote eugenics, the philosophy of improving humanity through artificial selection. This is relatively reasonable when applied to cloning because it presupposes picking the highest quality stem cells from duplicated embryos. The possibility to turn such cells into any other is the main advantage of the method (Rugnetta, n.d.). However, the lack of the guarantee that an embryo will survive doubtlessly outweighs it.

Medical 3D printing is hypothetically possible to use for artificial selection as well. Specifically, the question is whether it can allow for intentionally mutated organs that, in turn, enable “a better lifestyle” (Hooper, 2020, para. 13). Poor predictability, in fact, is the main disadvantage of this technology, not only from the ethical viewpoint, but also from the practical one. However, further studies can make this concern less serious; in addition, the availability of 3D keeps growing together with its popularity in many spheres, including healthcare.

Finally, the link between eugenics and artificial organs or body parts is apparent, as they are specially designed for improving human beings. In utilitarian terms, such devices have several drawbacks as well; they are expensive, not necessarily comfortable, and less functional in comparison with the previous technologies due to their lower mobility (Siryj, 2017). Meanwhile, their advantages, such as the possibility to outperform natural bodies in strength, speed, and other, currently are hypothetical rather than real.

Considering that all of the above replacement strategies are ethically concerning, it would be reasonable to recommend the one whose advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This is 3D printing, apparently; as mentioned, it continues to grow more popular in medicine, which calls for studying it to minimize the existing drawbacks. In addition, the further spread of the

technology improves its affordability for the wide public and, therefore, ethicality.

References

Hooper, O. (2020). Five ethical concerns with 3D printing in medicine. Law Technology Today.

Rugnetta, M. (n.d.).Cloning. Britannica.

Siryj, E. (2017). The ethics of artificial organs.Viterbi Conversations in Ethics, 1(1).