Cloning is an artificial method of creating a genetically identical duplicate of a human. This involves taking one person’s DNA and making another human with the same DNA. Theologians feel that it is a theological issue and not just science.
Cloning is a controversial issue, and many theologians are opposed to it on the basis that it is like imitating God and the consequences of cloning on human survival may be adverse. Considering the arguments raised by theologians, it is clear that cloning would have negative effects on human society. Despite the limited benefits of allowing for such a practice, the challenges such a practice poses outweigh its anticipated benefits.
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to establish the implications of cloning on society and understand the theologians are saying about cloning. Cloning can have many implications on society; both positive and negative. Theologians feel that cloning is not a purely scientific issue; it is a religious issue as well. In the majority of theologians view, cloning is unacceptable and should be banned completely.
Many theologians feel that cloning is playing with God because He is above all, and He only can create. They further argue that cloning a person, especially against his/her will is an abuse of the individuals’ freedom and identity. A relatively small number of theologians, however, view cloning differently. They argue that cloning is God continuing His work of creation through people (Turner 13).
Cloning and Implications on society
The prospect of being able to recreate say Napoleon Bonaparte by use of his DNA is an alluring prospect for some scientists. However, these prospects are approached with great care due to the implications they can have on society. At this moment in history, cloning is possible; however, should this practice be entertained in society. The basic worry of theologians and other concerned individuals are the wide ramifications of cloning.
The first concern is how to treat the cloned individual. Given he or she is likely to be treated as a human creation, the cloned person may not be treated as a normal human being. The way clones are treated likely to change the perception of human life. Human life will be devalued and turned into a commodity of sorts that scientists can accord one at will. Society treats life sacredly, and cloning turns it into a sort of manufactured commodity.
The second concern is how society would react to cloned individuals. Clones may not be accepted fully by the society, which might treat them as less than ‘real’ human beings; who was born naturally. Society may not fully accept the dignity and humanity of cloned humans. Even if they have the same legal rights and protect the others have, society may fear and not associate with them because they don’t see them as real humans (Chapman 99).
This may lead the society to split into cloned human beings and naturally born human beings. Women may especially feel opposed cloning because it denies women the right and choice to give birth to children; women are the ones who bear children when it comes to human procreation.
Cloning might lead to many people in the society wanting to clone themselves, their loved ones, children, and other people of a special character such as Mother Theresa, or President Obama. Those who choose to clone a person with special characters or a celebrity will do so, with the aim that they may gain the character traits of that respected person. Such like moves adversely affect individuation in society.
Further, it is considered that cloning offers homosexuals in society a chance to have children of their own. They see human cloning as an important way of making a reproduction of same-sex legal. Apart from homosexuals, there are also many reasons why other members of society might take to cloning.
Some individuals may choose to clone themselves because they want to have an identical other. Others may clone themselves so that they can leave an heir or one who will be able to control their businesses as they did. There are parents who may have a dying child and because they don’t want to lose him/her they choose to clone the child. This is especially for couples who are unable to have more children. All these and more may make cloning acceptable by some individuals in a society (Shannon 125).
What theologians say
Cloning is considered unethical by many moralists and theologians in society because it is perceived to violate the sacredness of human life. Secondly, cloning is unethical because it reduces the genetic diversity of humans. Human clones are a genetically identical copy of another human being. Inbreeding of genetically identical individuals leads to higher chances of birth defects.
Also, cloning is considered unethical because it can unnaturally increase the population of the world in a boom, which will lead to an increase in poverty. While a mother has the only capacity to carry one pregnancy, one cloning lab can churn out millions of clones in a year. If accepted, for other ulterior reasons, e.g. military expediency, cloning can be accelerated. The increased population will have insurmountable pressure on food resources.
Theologians say that human life is sacred. They feel that manufacturing children through somatic cell transfer will be experimenting on human beings (Himes 29). Human cloning cannot succeed unless scientist experiment on the human matter. Human life is more important than technology and the creation of human beings can only be done by God as the theologians put it (Chapman 99). Therefore, theologians oppose cloning because they believe that to protect the sanctity of life, human reproduction should not be tampered with.
According to the anti-cloning theologians, cloning affects or tempers the dignity of human life and reproduction because children ought to be a product of love shared in a matrimonial union. Human life is viewed by most theologians as a mystery; life is the breath of God that enlivens matter. God is the creator of human beings and He creates all in his image and likeness. Therefore, theologians as disturbed and wonder if cloned human beings would still be God’s own image.
In addition, it is true that a human clone would be distinct from its DNA donor. This creates a theological dilemma because the clone and the donor cannot share their bodies, minds, and souls no matter how identical they are made to be (Rantala & Milgram 21-22). The clone as a distinct ‘human being’ is a theological dilemma because he or she will not be God’s creation in the strict sense. However, by his or her individuality, the clone deserves or demands human dignity and respect.
Conclusively, theologians feel that cloning is crossing the line and going into the area that is only meant for God. They say that God is powerful, and human beings are smaller than Him because he created them. Because of this, human beings should accept that there are things that they cannot do. Cloning is playing God and wanting to be like Him. Theologically, it is related to the falling into the temptation of eating of the tree of knowledge, which God had sternly warned humans against (Jones & Byrne 77).
Some theologians, very few in numbers, are not fully opposed to the cloning business. This group of theologians supports any technological innovation which improves on nature. Although acknowledging that cloning is one area that is very sensitive, they feel that cloning may be acceptable in given circumstances. They urge that the theological dilemmas can be diffused. The diffusion is possible if it is understood that cloning is God doing his work of creation through people (Lauritzen 189).
Conclusion
Cloning is romantically exciting in some circles. However, after taking into account the implications of cloning on society and what the theologians say about cloning, this issue has to be approached with as much sobriety as may be mastered. The big question would be why people may be interested in cloning. The second big question is in line with what happens once human clones become a reality.
Considering the dilemma of how to regard clones in comparison to naturally born human beings, cloning has to be avoided. In terms of implications on society, the bad implications outweigh the good implications. As theologians point out, cloning devalues human dignity. Secondly, it leads to problems in terms of how to treat clones. Therefore; it would only be fair if cloning were not done.
Works Cited
Chapman, Audrey R. Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the Frontiers of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999
Himes, Kenneth R. Responses to 101 Questions on Catholic Social Teaching. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001
Jones, Gareth, & Mary Byrne. Stem Cell Research and Cloning: Contemporary Challenges to Our Humanity. Australia: ATF Press, 2005
Lauritzen, Paul. Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001
Rantala, M. L., and Arthur, Milgram, J. Cloning: For and Against. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1999
Shannon, Thomas A. Reproductive Technologies: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004
Turner, Ronald C. Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997
Appearing at the merge of ethical and biological, cloning issues have been regarded as controversial since the very concept was born. After numerous cautionary tales about the consequences of plating God, humankind has been treating cloning rather carefully for understandable reasons. However, with the opportunities that cloning opens for patients, the time to reconsider the principles that should regulate cloning.
The Ethical Issues
Before going any further, it is necessary to stress that there are several types of cloning (Hochedlinger & Jaenisch, 2003), the specifics of which define the related ethical issues.
DNA cloning
Also known as recombinant DNA technology, DNA cloning presupposes that a specific fragment of the DNA of one organism is transported to a self-replicating genetic element. The greatest concerns in the specified field are entering God’s domain and the results of the possible programming errors.
Reproductive cloning
Also being the most famous kind of cloning, reproductive cloning means creating a reduplicate of a certain organism. The obvious ethical concerns touch upon religion (playing God) and the consciousness of the clone. It is essential to mention that reproductive cloning is banned all over the world (Katayama, 2001).
Therapeutic cloning
When it comes to providing patients with donor cells to replace tissues, which therapeutic cloning is usually defined as the obvious moral concern is the moral status of the IVF embryos.
The Current Principles
As it has been stated above, it seems that at present, the approach towards cloning has not been defined yet. While cloning is generally considered controversial, it has been accepted as an acceptable practice in several states. It should be mentioned, though, that cloning has been prohibited in many states, including Arkansas, California, Michigan, and some others, as well as such countries as Canada, Romania, and Australia (Denker, 2009). In the rest of the world, cloning is looked with suspicion at, yet generally allowed.
What Should Be Changed
Since the research of the possibilities of cloning, as well as the opportunities that it opens for humankind, is still in process, it is worth stressing that the existing ethical principles have not been shaped well yet. In addition, it is necessary to stress that cloning can be approached from various ethical positions.
Ethical relativism
Whenever considering ethics as a part of a medical-related issue, it is important to keep in mind that ethics is relative. What is moral in one culture is immoral in another one; known as ethical relativism, the given concept shows the world diversity and the plurality of opinions. When such a concept as cloning is viewed through an ethical relativism lens, it becomes obvious that medical researches should be a no man’s land in terms of ethics. While basic moral concepts that cross legal issues must be followed, the principles must apply should not hinder the development of the new strategies and methods. With that being said, one must admit that the principles of ethical relativism, i.e., a sacrifice for the sake of having a compromise between two cultures, is unacceptable in such an issue as cloning, which requires experimenting and, therefore, triggers both success and failures.
Kantian theory
According to Kant, goodwill justifies the result. As a field that has not been researched well and, therefore, can return negative results, cloning needs the elements of Kantian theory especially badly. Since the field has not been researched yet, the negative outcome is possible. Justified by goodwill, these experiments will lead to an even greater breakthrough and further improvements. Therefore, goodwill must be among the key principles of cloning (Coors, 2002).
Utilitarianism
Since the outcomes of cloning are rather unpredictable due to the lack of conducted researches, cloning as a concept might conflict with the key Utilitarianism principle, i.e., the idea that the right action should produce a positive outcome. On the one hand, it can be considered that Utilitarianism flashes a green signal to cloning, since, with every positive outcome, cloning is proven ethically appropriate. On the other hand, several experiments in cloning end in rather a deplorable way, which comes into conflict with the Utilitarianism principle. Therefore, Utilitarianism ethics should be avoided when considering cloning issues (Easterbrook, 2009).
Bioethics
A relatively new approach, the given system of moral values incorporates the principles of human dignity, non-maleficence, and the sanctity of human life. The latter, however, should not be interpreted in the religious context; i.e., it should not prevent reproductive cloning from being carried out (Pulman, 2007).
The Possible Threats
One of the greatest threats regarding the field of cloning nowadays is that stringent rules and ethical restrictions will prevent cloning from being developed to the point when cloning as the means to save a person’s life will be banned.
Avoiding the Controversies
Cloning is doubtlessly a very controversial issue. However, there are ways to avoid these controversies. By adopting a rational approach, one can avoid several ethical concerns (Shenfield, 2000).
Conclusion
Since science is way ahead of the strategies of solving moral dilemmas in the XXI century, the issue of cloning is bound to remain an open-ended question for several years more. Nevertheless, cloning should be governed by the following principles:
Sanctity of human life;
Goodwill of the participants;
Preservation of human dignity;
Experiments certification;
Avoidance of Utilitarianism approach.
Once the above-mentioned measures are undertaken, it can be assumed that cloning will become a less controversial issue.
Reference List
Coors, M 2002 ‘Therapeutic cloning: from consequences to contradiction,’ The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 27 no. 3, p. 297.
Denker, H-W 2009 ‘Ethical concerns over use of new cloning technique in humans,’ Nature, vol. 461 no. 7262, p. 341.
Easterbrook, G 2009 ‘Cloning and a change in the meaning of life: stem cell research,’ Current, vol. 6 no. 413, p. 19.
Hochedlinger, K & Jaenisch, R 2003 ‘Nuclear transplantation, embryonic stem cells and the potential for cell therapy,’ The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 349, no. 3, pp. 275–286.
Katayama, A 2001 ‘Human reproductive cloning and related techniques: an overview of the legal environment and practitioner attitudes,’ Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 18 no. 8, p. 442.
Pulman, B 2007 ‘The issues involved in cloning: sociology and bioethics,’ Revue Française de Sociologie, no. 48, pp. 129–156.
Shenfield, F 2000 ‘Human cloning by James Humber; Robert Almeder.’ Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 26 no. 3, p. 222.
People have been dreaming of immortality since ancient times. Among futuristic ways to achieve it, one can be possibly implemented these days by means of modern technologies. Cloning can be shortly described as replication of one’s genes to recreate them or a part of their body. Such technology is bound to change humanity once and for all, but it is forbidden to clone humans for a good reason. Unfortunately, the use of cloning on human beings may bring about severe repercussions that are likely to destroy society and put an end to the natural rights.
Main body
First of all, there is a strong possibility a clone would be hard to tell from the owner of the genes. This may lead to misunderstandings considering law issues. If two people have absolutely identical fingerprints, it will be complicated to find out who exactly committed the crime. In this case, the offender is likely to cheat on the police to make the innocent be imprisoned and then continue to break the law. Such a situation appears to be unfair and needs a proper solution.
Indeed, twins are people who can be referred as natural clones because their genes are almost identical. According to recent studies, the cases of sexual assault performed by one of the twins can hardly be investigated and demand the new comprehensive DNA sequencing technology that is not widely spread (1). Unfortunately, it is unlikely to work the same way with actual clones. It will probably take too much time for scientists to shed light on the riddle of how to differentiate between them.
Secondly, there is a problem concerning clones’ social roles. If a person possesses a clone, it is unclear what their relationship would be. Probably, the desire to have a clone may originate from people’s laziness. They are prone to make others perform their duties for them. In this case, one may equate the wish to be cloned to the craving for slaves. In contrast to twins, a clone’s master will be lawfully vested with human rights under international declarations and their national constitution. Still, there is nothing said about equality between humans and clones. Therefore, clones should be primarily recognized as human beings to be protected from violence and exploitation. It may stir a never-ending discussion while the deprived would suffer from infringement against sovereignty and security.
However, clones’ masters cannot be generally expected to exploit clones for the sake of servile labor. There is also organ transplantation that needs cheap material for saving people’s lives. One may imagine doctors growing organs from a patient’s cells in the laboratory. Meanwhile, it seems to be an exemplary image of how these experiments should be done. Unfortunately, there will always be people trying to spare money and start up illegal firms to breed clones, keep them imprisoned, and export for slaughter at low prices. Such cruelty cannot be advocated as the only possibility to give a helping hand to people who cannot afford high-priced medical services. One’ life should not be taken for the sake of other’s life preservation. It is generally agreed that a clone is an intelligent being even if they are not considered to be humans.
In addition, the level of social differentiation may rise to unprecedented figures. There has always been a problem that, being not flawless, the health care system does not lavish poor people with creature comforts. Those, who are prescribed organ transplantation these days, have to wait many years for a perfect match, being on the verge of dying simultaneously. Although, billionaires like David Rockefeller have an opportunity to waste tons of money on new organs to postpone death. There is no proof that he bribed medical officials so far, but it could be inferred.
The lust for eternal life cannot be fully satisfied without resorting to unfair play. If one has lived a very long life and has a chance to save somebody, it would be far more sensible and generous to grant somebody else this chance. Instead of charity, old rich men prefer to prolong their own torment and senility. Unfortunately, in case there are clones to be used, the industry would hardly change for the better. When it comes to money, there are always stakeholders willing to profit rather than save. It may lead to a drastic chasm between the members of different social groups because some people will possess invulnerability, whereas others will be deprived of such things.
Another idea concerns procreation by clones as a means to bring dead people to life. Unfortunately, not only older people die, but also young and full of life, especially children. If there is an opportunity to clone a child, their desperate parents will obviously resort to the tough measure. Being mad because of crushing grief, they will not be able to consider all possible challenges they may face in the future. For instance, according to Rishabh, a cloned child will be prone to have low self-esteem and depressive syndrome (2). There is no sense in trying to bring somebody back using clones because the unique personality cannot be restored. It would be another soul chained in a body that belongs to the dead person. Thus, there is nothing left to do but accept the fact that one has to enter Heaven, not apply genetic engineering.
Nevertheless, cloning experiments may be seen from a different perspective. Scientists name many areas where clones are likely to be helpful. They claim that this technology is advantageous if it is accurately used (3). The point is that society should be mature enough to provide the legal and financial basis for such experiments. After all the necessary preparations will be done, cloning is sure to take place in people’s everyday lives. It is of great importance that experiments on plants and animals are not forbidden. Therefore, by the day cloning will be legal, people will have learned many new things to minimize the risks.
Conclusion
All things considered, humanity is not yet ready for cloning because there are too many breaches of the law to be expected. Implementing a very advanced technology presupposes some measures to foresee the probable impact on society. Admittedly, new laws should be invented to protect both clones and ordinary people. Besides, there is a financial gap that is to be reduced for people to have an opportunity to use the fruit of cloning, regardless of the balance on the bank account. One day cloning will become a part of people’s life that is why it is of paramount importance to prevent its use for immoral purposes. Among them is immortality that can be gained only at somebody’s expense. Such cases are bound to be forbidden in the future.
Works Cited
Krawczak, Michael, et al. “Distinguishing Genetically between the Germlines of Male Monozygotic Twins.” American Politics Research, vol. 14, no 12, 2018, pp 1-3.
Rushab, Jain, et al. “Human Cloning: Ethical Issues & Legal Implications.” Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, vol.2, no 1, 2021, pp 6-7.
Human Cloning is a universal phrase, giving a description of any procedure that creates or manufactures a precise genetic imitation of a biological object, together with a DNA sequence, a cell, or an organism.
However, elementary consistencies like genes and cells have been cloned by Scientists for years. Currently, great quantities of regular biological research and many great significances or value of pharmaceutical submissions rely on this sort of cloning, which engage as a participant a few of the principled quandaries demonstrated by the cloning of human beings and higher animals (Wilson & Kass, 1998).
Consequently, when discussing the debate on human cloning, there are several issues that should be discussed. The maxims and logical consequence of human life should be given priority in discussion as well as questioning. One major thing is to establish whether the product of human cloning will be a person or a just piece of property. Nevertheless, a CNN poll carried out in America shows that 90% of Americans are opposed to human cloning.
This practicable application of science would make it potential to create humans by cloning as well as gradually converting the biological human reproduction into a manufacturing prolongation or projection where genetically designed babies are made in laboratories. As we discuss human cloning, ethics should also be included.
Hansen, B. (2006). “Cloning Debate.” CQ Press 14.37. CQ Researcher. Paul A. Elsner Library, Mesa, AZ.
The overall picture of human cloning is vastly presented by this Author. His opinions are gathered from various scientists and researchers. The absolute majority of them back up with evidence or authority therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, asserting diseases would be cured by using stem cells obtained from cloned embryos.
Nonetheless, the scientists opposed reproductive cloning claiming that the practice undermines the uniqueness of humankind and that it is unethical to put the lives of clones in a condition of being susceptible to harm or injury due to the high failure rate of cloning.
However, advocates of reproductive cloning perceive or think about it as a remedial way of helping infertile couples to have their own children. Hansen also gives an account of the views of some critics, on the other hand who are, denying or questioning the tenets of the viability of stem cell psychoanalysis, as shown by evidence that an immunological response that refuses to accept substances or organisms that are recognized as foreign would still occur even if using genetically identical stem cells for transplantation.
Moreover, it is morally wrong to bring into existence and then destroy human embryos just for scientific experiments. Other critics also argue that therapeutic cloning would inevitably lead to reproductive cloning; therefore, it is crucial that both types of cloning should be banned.
Hayes, R. (2002) “Break the cloning Deadlock.” Retrieved from Christian Science Monitor.
Hayes stated categorically that “people in an intuitive manner appreciates that bringing into existence a child by cloning would be a deliberately offensive act to human dignity and individuality, would dole out no good principle, and should be banned.”
On the other hand, therapeutic cloning enables biomedical scientists to do research on using embryonic stem cells for treatments; he is confident that it would be a better idea to put into consideration tough rules and regulations to scrutinize the practice as an alternative to a ban on such potentially beneficial research. He also suggests that in case of legalization of therapeutic cloning, some requirements should be included in the rules.
Though, Hayes did not in an explicit manner express his personal belief or judgment, but he converged on a point of the importance of striking regulations to control and monitor the practice of therapeutic cloning. In his final paper, this is the main point he enclosed
Scott, T. R., and Ron S. (2006). “Human Cloning.” Truthtree.
The authors of this article advocated for both reproductive and therapeutic cloning, as opposed to the other sources. Scott and Savori took to be true that there should be no laws to ban any kind of human cloning or related research, as human cloning does added well than harm.
They argue that it is flawlessly fine to clone reproductively basically because bringing into existence a human clone is just like bearing an identical twin on purpose. Scott and Savori further asserted that it is not easy to anticipate the gains of new scientific advances unless efforts are made to research into them. The idea that getting despite difficulties or obstacles stem cells from embryos equals killing a becoming human being is deemed wrong or inappropriate by them, since they contend that embryo are not conscious.
The authors of this article are two engineers who lack special knowledge or ability to perform skilfully in the science field. These claims are declared without scientific proof but just based on their own justification.
After examining and contrasting ways of regarding situations or topics from different sources, I have an accurately stated or described picture of the issue, which has made it possible for me to draw a conclusion.
Obviously, the vast majority is in agreement that reproductive cloning, which can only help a small group, is immoral and causes danger or risks and should be outlawed. Therapeutic cloning, however, is more worthy of acceptance or satisfactory as it is a medical breakthrough that can potentially treat a wide range of illnesses that are incapable of being cured currently suffered by millions of people.
In talking about ethics, the essential constituent dignity of the individual should be made of great significance or value since part of human dignity is the distinctiveness of that human.
Human dignity involves also the special treatment to human beings as human beings and humans should not be treated in any other way except to be treated as humans. Cloning live humans have a requirement for the artificial assembly of cloned human embryos that would be investigated on and having succeeded or being marked by a favourable outcome would become the adult human clone.
Consequently, If cloned human embryos will be judged, regarded or looked on as humans then it will be a deep expression of lack of respect for human life to carry on with the human cloning practice has given that this act of conducting a controlled test or investigation of human cloning would engage as a participant the formation and destruction of human embryos on a substantial degree.
However, this manner of dealing with of human embryos as being formed, manufactured and destroyed to progress the human cloning research is an utter refusal to acknowledge human dignity as humans are regarded or considered in a specific way as test subjects and as something that is subject to variation for experiments. Cloning, for whatever reasons that there may be should not be practised for human purposes.
Arguments that are opposed to the human cloning development would connect closely the ethical effects with detail or point to its hazardous practice and of its contravention of human dignity, and the harm that it would encompass on the live clones. The fact or assertion offered as evidence will be restricted to the principled consequences and would not think moodily or anxiously into the spiritual entailment of the situation or event that is thought about.
Animal cloning is the generation of one or more animals from body cells of another animal without involving sexual aspects of reproduction (Fairbanks 27).
The members of each clone have similar genetic patterns to the donor cell from which they are derived. Since the cloning of the first animal, animal cloning has emerged as an important topic in the society and it forms a major discourse in ethical and moral discussions. Studies into animal cloning have diversified and have been extended into various fields, with major breakthroughs being reported in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and agricultural fields (Fairbanks 33).
Through cloning, transgenic animals have been created that have the potential to produce novel human therapeutic molecules, thus helping in treating some diseases that previously were incurable (McLaren 1775). Animal cloning promises to revolutionize food production, with the potential of producing cattle, sheep, pigs, and other animals with superior quality and more resistant to diseases. This is bound to increase food availability (Polejaeva et al. 87).
Animal cloning proponents are of the opinion that cloning of animals will see an increase in food production globally. Moreover, the quality of food produced will increase and novel cures for diseases will result from pursuance of animal cloning. This is meant to prolong human life. Further, animal cloning is considered as significant in enhancing the comprehension of human beings and nature; therefore, it is crucial to the advancement of scientific goals (Hare 271).
In spite of the potential benefits, cloning of animals raises issues that are wide in scope, extending beyond the question of food safety to include ethical and moral qualms (Deane-Drummond 25). This essay seeks to explore the benefits and controversies of animal cloning. The essay will also emphasize on my position that animal cloning should not be allowed due to the fact that it is not natural. Furthermore, it goes against all of my religious beliefs.
No matter what the benefits are, cloning animals will only lead to further experimentation and probably lead to cloning humans someday. I will also propose a new piece of legislation making it mandatory to label all products that come from cloned animals, such as meat and dairy. Furthermore the legislation should dictate rules and regulations for quality control and testing of cloned animal products.
Cloning Technology
The process of cloning involves isolation of a single body cell from a donor organism, and then transferring its nucleus into an unfertilized egg that does not have a nucleus using a special needle.
The “nucleus of the body cell substitutes for the normal combination of egg and spermatozoon, thus allowing the egg cytoplasm containing the transplanted nucleus to develop into the same kind of organism as that from which the donor nucleus was obtained” (Hare 271). Cloning, therefore, enables the mass production of artificial life and liberalizes the field of genetic engineering into huge commercial possibilities.
Success of Animal Cloning
When cloning involves embryonic cells, the success rate of the procedure is relatively high, exceeding 50 percent (Hare 272). However, the use of adult cells is associated with a high failure rate and close to 98 percent of cloning involving adult cells develop abnormally or die at various stages of development (Thompson 199).
This implies that even the success of these experiments when carried out on adult humans will result into many abnormalities or deaths (McLaren 1778). This is has been an area of major concern particularly to the scientists involved because of the related ethical issues.
Available evidence suggests that animal cloning is associated with increased frequencies of miscarriages, stillbirths, genetic disorders and lifelong abnormalities, indicating that the efficiency of this process is very low (Thompson 203). This inefficiency of animal cloning depicts the consequences the animals have to experience, especially the donor and surrogate animals where surgery has to be performed to extract the cells of interest and implant the embryos (Thompson 203).
Motivations for Animal Cloning
The major motive behind the cloning technique is for biomedical benefits. Supporters of this technology argue that it presents prospects of genetically modifying animals so that their cells and organs can be transplanted into humans to replace diseased ones (Hare 272).
Genetic engineering is deemed to bring success in transplantation due to the fact that animal cells can be made to overcome the risk of rejection or reducing the risk thereof. Animal cloning could also make available novel therapies for many genetic diseases that are currently incurable, for example Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases (Scott and Weissman 27).
Another reason that is advanced in support of animal cloning is the improvement of food production; therefore, alleviating hunger, malnutrition and suffering. Animal cloning ensures that the world will contain a rich supply of animals to clone, thus ensuring that there is constant food supply (Thompson 200).
Some proponents of animal cloning cite the high demand for animal food products in comparison to the low supply. It is evident that animal cloning will lead to the realization of animals that can mature earlier and those with qualities that are preferred by farmers. This supplements the traditional sexual reproduction methods that are slower and do not meet the population demands (Scott and Weissman 28).
Arguments against Animal Cloning
Given the diverse rationales for animal cloning, the ethical issues raised are complex in scope and involves ethical issues touching on religion, animal welfare, safety, and environmental aspects. From the religious perspective, cloning is considered as playing God.
Changing the factors that define life and death is usurping the divine prerogative as it is only God who has the power to create a living creature (Deane-Drummond 63). Cloning is, therefore, tantamount to blasphemy from the Catholic and other churches’ perspective and the work of creation as originally intended should not be interfered with.
I support this suggestion and strongly agree that animal cloning is challenging the authority of the supreme God by presuming to exercise the rights that belong to the creator. Therefore, regardless of the consequences associated with cloning, the most important concern is that it violates a significant moral duty. It cannot be argued that animal cloning is one way of facilitating the creation of life, but instead it is designing life.
Pursuing animal cloning as a way of improving food production and quality carries a high risk of contaminating the food supply with potentially harmful products. There is also a greater risk that this type of technology cannot be adequately regulated and it may spurn out of control, resulting into devastating environmental consequences on biodiversity and human life (Deane-Drummond 104).
Animal cloning has rapidly increased in the country, and large corporations have adopted a worrying trend of employing cloning in food supply production with little government regulation. Cloned foods have gained entry into the food supply when little studies have been performed to examine possible hazards and risks and the public possess little information concerning cloned foods (Thompson 212).
Advancing animal cloning in the context of biomedical research is also a dangerous approach. There is a likelihood of emergence of new zoonotic diseases due to cloning of animals with the intention of using their organs for transplant purposes (Polejaeva et al. 88). Further, animal cloning is likely to shift biomedical research from promotion of preventive medicine and finding means to encourage more organ donation to xenotransplantation by the use of animal organs (Fiester 334).
This presents a very dangerous alternative because of the possibility of animal pathogens crossing into the human population, resulting into emergence of new plagues and diseases. Another area of concern in using animal cloning technology in biomedical research is the complexity and high rate it has impacted the field of genetics.
At this rate, science is moving towards setting a precedence of creating new transgenic species and rushing toward a posthuman culture (Fairbanks 112). There will be a new breed of humans resulting from biological manipulations using technology. This will lead to genes being crossed between various species. This technology can be subject to exploitation, leading to breeding of new eugenics with unknown consequences.
Cloning of animals is contrary to natural evolution and traditional methods of animal breeding. This biotechnology method manipulates genes instead of the whole organism. The technology advances at unprecedented rates, indicating the drastic rate that this technology could redesign the human body and genome.
It is now possible to carry out studies and make money out of the knowledge on gene manipulation in animals. This technology turns animals into objects that carry genetic information to be manipulated through editing, transposing and copying. The animals are reduced to fragments of genetic information instead of whole organisms in order to conform to the market values. Furthermore, animal cloning turns them into instruments at human disposal for use for his/her own benefits (Deane-Drummond 109).
Animal cloning is a cruel method of curing diseases, in spite of the prospective benefits that may be made possible through this technology. Behind these benefits, animal cloning is advanced for commercial conveniences and only acts as a mechanism for commodification of animals (Thompson 208). This is an indicator of how much animal life has been trivialized and its dignity trashed upon.
Animal cloning is an unnatural process since it is generally more involving and interferes with the animals’ reproductive performance compared to the conventional means of production. Culturing of cloned embryos in vitro has been shown to stress the normal cell development process, resulting into physiological abnormalities. These are mostly manifested as over-sized animals and are associated with an increased fetal death rate (Fairbanks 126).
In some cases, these physiological abnormalities of cloned animals persist into adulthood, further perpetuating animal welfare concerns as these animals are more susceptible to diseases than non-cloned animals (Fairbanks 126). Cloning animals, especially using somatic cells, increases the likelihood of mutations whose consequences are not predictable, thus raising welfare issues as a result of genetic differences between cloned and non-cloned animals.
Furthermore, animal cloning may likely result into deleterious effects in the animal population and impact the environment negatively. This is because of the possibility of the cloned animals breeding with non-clones or as a result of an unanticipated production of some proteins that may have ramifications to the entire ecosystem (Riddle 113).
There is a potential of turning animals into objects and commodities through animal cloning (Thompson 123). This is because this technology subjects living animals into machine status that can be manufactured by human. This manipulation of animals also tends to exacerbate animal welfare issues since this procedure predisposes them into suffering due to diseases and abnormalities. Animal cloning turns human beings into insensitive creatures that are alienated to the suffering of other creatures.
Cloning of animals has reduced life to a status where it can be created and redesigned in a petri dish and genetic patterns can be modified like machines, making it difficult to differentiate between natural and artificial. The techniques that are employed in this process challenge the existing conceptualization of life and death, subsequently demanding a rethinking of the basic perceptions of ethics and moral principles (Fiester 335).
Animal cloning also does not arguer well environmentally since it presents a threat to the diversity of life (Fairbanks 138). Life diversity can only exist if natural selection is allowed to take place and man does not interfere with breeding by introducing artificial ways of producing organisms. Animal cloning essentially prevents natural selection and will ultimately alter evolution, leading to permanent loss of genetic diversity.
Fiester (337) hypothesizes that animal cloning poses negative consequences to the environment and may equally affect human beings negatively. In particular, cloning of extinct and endangered species and cloning of livestock may have impacts on the ecosystem as the clones interact in the environment. This is because disruption of the ecosystem is known to cause havoc on the life existing in a particular ecosystem (Fiester 337).
Another major ethical issue is that the animal cloning technology is the same one that can be employed in cloning human beings or generating transgenic organisms, whose implication may have devastating consequences as it will represent a dangerous transgression of technology. Adopting this technology threatens the society as it is bound to create a slippery slope of reproduction (Scott and Weissman 27).
Once animal cloning experiments are perfected, it will be only a matter of a short period before the same technology is transferred into human. It has already been suggested that scientists are exploring human reproductive cloning, thus demonstrating that animal cloning just provides a blueprint for transferring the technology into human studies (Riddle 115). It is clear that animal cloning forms the basis upon which cloning will be extended to humans.
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that genetic engineering and cloning technologies were developed for commercial purposes and the potential of the biotechnology companies reaping huge profits only means that all natural life forms, such as microorganisms, animals and human beings are liable to be turned into objects through genetic reconstruction (Scott and Weissman 27).
Since scientific processes usually first target objects of nature and animals, the use of animals for cloning is only an analytic gaze before focus shifts into cloning human beings. The cloning procedure has been successful in most animals to which it has been employed and is widely acknowledged that it can be replicated in humans successfully (Thompson 213).
Human cloning would in turn have implications on the philosophical perceptions of man, whose life begins at conception resulting into formation of an embryo regardless of whether it is in a petri dish. The essence of life must involve sexual reproduction. Animal cloning contravenes this as it involves mixing of genetic information from two individuals to create variation.
Suggestions
It should be acknowledged that technology is not self-sufficient since it is strongly embedded in social practices, identities, culture, and institutions. This calls for the authorities to consider the different perspectives of all the stakeholders regarding the risks and the manner in which they should be regulated, besides addressing all relevant factors (Simini 1366).
In the midst of the novel advances that are currently transforming the world, it is of great importance to recognize human value, appreciate and safeguard them in light of man’s ever anxious nature to set aside the moral fabrics for the opportunity of scientific advancement.
I am of the opinion that all consumers ought to be empowered with information that would help them make informed choices of products that are realized through cloning. This is because animal cloning has advanced immensely and stores and shelves are filled with foods whose origin, whether organic or cloned, cannot be established.
Given the conflicting attitudes towards cloning of animals, the government needs to enforce regulations that require cloned food products to be clearly labeled as such. Failure to describe that a food comes from a cloned animal or its progeny arguably creates a mislabeling of the food due to its mis-description (Scott and Weissman 29). It is also important that the government shifts its focus from economic considerations only to include a precautionary approach.
This will ensure that scientific data is moderated in situations where scientific uncertainty exists by evaluating non-scientific conceptions of risk. An approach that replicates the one in place for genetically modified organisms requiring pre-market authorization and compulsory labeling is required in the regulation of cloned foods in order to address the safety concerns, long-term issues, consumer worries, and animal health and welfare issues.
Conclusion
Advances in biotechnology can have different implications, some of which are beneficial while others are destructive. Animal cloning is one such field of biotechnology that continues to elicit mixed perspectives that pose significant challenges. While animal cloning presents many opportunities, the process is still not efficient since very few of the embryos live to maturity while most suffer from many physiological abnormalities.
This raises issues involving human welfare and ethics. Animal cloning also presents some consequential effects on food safety, thereby implying the need for regulatory policies. It is argued that the issues that are raised concerning cloning ought to be recognized and attended to by the government.
Animal cloning will, therefore, continue to be contested because of the scientific uncertainties surrounding them, the potential risks they raise and the ethical issues thereof. The appropriate approach at present is the formulation of regulatory policies that will make it mandatory to label all products that come from cloned animals, such as meat and dairy.
Labeling will help consumers make informed choices of the foods they buy since it is evident that cloned food products have already permeated the market. Food safety is only one of the many concerns that consumers have regarding animal cloning, and labels are necessary to give the consumers the information they require to make decisions that are appropriate for them.
Works Cited
Deane-Drummond, Celia. The Ethics of Nature. Malden, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Print.
Fairbanks, Stephen. Cloning: Chronology, Abstracts, and Guide to Books. New York, NY: Nova Publishers, 2004. Print.
Fiester, Autmin. “Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning.” Perspect Biol Med 48.3 (2005): 328-43. Print.
Hare, Doug. “What of Animal Cloning.” Can Vet J. 44.4 (2003): 271-272. Print.
McLaren, Anne. “Cloning: Pathways To A Pluripotent Future.” Science 288.5472 (2000): 1775-1780. Print.
Polejaeva, Irina A. Chen, Shu-Hung Vaught, Todd D. Page, Raymond L. Mullins, June Ball, Suyapa Dai, Yifan Boone, Jeremy Walker, Shawn Ayares, David L. Colman, Alan Campbell, and Keith H.S. “Cloned Pigs Produced By Nuclear Transfer From Adult Somatic Cells.” Nature 407.6800 (2000): 86-90. Print.
Riddle, Brown. “Brave New Beef: Animal Cloning and its Impacts.” Brown Journal of World Affairs 14.1 (2007): 111-119. Print.
Scott, Christopher, and Weissman, Irving. Cloning, in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns. Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center (2008): 25-30. Print.
Medical breakthroughs often elicit ambivalent reactions from all quarters of society. Cloning is one such medical technology that has elicited numerous ambivalent reactions. This research paper thus seeks to examine the concept of human and animal reproductive cloning with an aim of investigating the tenets of this concept and the perspective of society on the issue from ethical, scientific, and biological points of view.
In the cloning debate, the following groups have interests on the same.
Scientists
Legislators
Religious Leaders
Philosophers
International
Organizations
Main issues in the cloning debate revolve around its fitness for use on humans. Existing literature shows that already cloning has been successfully carried out in animals. The first successful “mammal clone was by Scottish scientists and the clone was a sheep they named Dolly” (UNESCO 16).
Existing literature indicates that clones exhibit numerous defects and malformations that pose serious health risks in the case of humans. Ethical, biological, and scientific concerns also add to the factors that have slowed down research on human and animal cloning. Human cloning remains a farfetched idea due to the documented miniature success rates.
Introduction
The main issues of concern relating to advancements in medical research often revolve around the safety of the technologies and their moral fitness in society. A typical example of a medical research development that continues to elicit acute criticism is cloning. Since its discovery in the 20th century, cloning has taken center stage as one of the most controversial medical developments of all time.
This research paper thus seeks to examine the concept of human and animal reproductive cloning with an aim of investigating the tenets of this concept and the perspective of society on the issue from ethical, scientific, and biological points of view. Human cloning remains a farfetched idea due to the documented miniature success rates.
Human and Animal Reproductive Cloning in Perspective
Historical Overview
Cloning is considered relatively new in the public domain. According to UNESCO, the term ‘clone’ was initially used in early 20th century botanical endeavors that aimed at developing plant grafts (7). Over the years, the term’s use evolved to involve the development of animals from a single parent organism.
Animal cloning started taking shape noticeably in 1952 when scientists, Robert Briggs and Thomas King, decided to experiment with frogs (UNESCO 8). Their experiments were inspired by the work of a German embryologist, Hans Spemann, who had earlier on done some laboratory work on the possibility of somatic cell nuclear transfer using salamanders (UNESCO 8).
Applying the same technology to mammals proved tricky for scientists until 1997 when Dolly, the world’s first cloned mammal, was successfully delivered (Nordgren 279). Since then, several animal species have been successfully clowned (Nordgren 279).
Research on animal cloning is still ongoing because previous attempts have yielded clones that are plagued with defects and malformations. Dolly, the sheep that was cloned by Scottish scientists under the guidance of Ian Wilmut, only survived for six years and it was then euthanized due to lung-related complications associated with older sheep and premature arthritis (UNESCO 11).
The latest development in cloning was when Snuppy, the first cloned dog, was successfully delivered after over one thousand attempts (Nordgren 279). Dogs and primates have been a subject of attention for scientists for quite a long time since their successful cloning has been elusive.
Cloning processes and techniques
According to the German Ethics Council, “several techniques can be used to produce blastocysts artificially, but only two are applicable for animal and human cloning” (17). The two possible techniques are embryo splitting and nuclear transfer. In embryo splitting, the scientists “imitate the natural process through which monozygotic twins are formed and the technique can yield up to several from a single embryo” (German Ethics Council 17).
On the other hand, cell nuclear transfer involves the use of two cells so that one of them, an egg cell or oocyte, acts as the receptor and the other cell, the donor cell, provides the nucleus (German Ethics Council 18). The nucleus of the oocyte is removed to give room for the nucleus from the donor cell, but the oocyte provides the components necessary for embryo development.
Once the nucleus from the donor cell “has been implanted into the oocyte, the egg cell has been ‘fertilized’ and is thus technically an embryo ready for development” (German Ethics Council 18). It is then implanted into a surrogate parent who bears it through the gestation period to delivery.
Possibilities of Cloning a Human Being
The possibility of cloning human beings still seems remote. The only scientists who have claimed to clone human embryos successfully, “are from Advanced Cell Technologies, an American organization, published a scientific paper in 2001 to show that they had carried out research to that effect” (Human Genetics Alert 2). Out of the embryos that were cloned, the most well developed only reached six cells.
Claims of successful human cloning include South Korean scientists’ claim that they had successfully created human embryo clones only for their laboratory to be closed by their government among others. The Raelians, a Canadian religious sect, also made unsubstantiated claims of successfully cloning several children.
Though documentation on human cloning is scarce, it is possible to deduce from the successful attempts of cloning other animals that it is not easy to come up with a normal clone, let alone a human clone. Dolly, the most famous clone was successfully delivered after 227 attempts, 29 of which were successfully implanted into surrogate parents, but Dolly was the only survivor (Nordgren 279).
Snuppy came to be after 1095 attempts of which 123 implantations were made, but they yielded only two live births of which Snuppy was the only survivor (Nordgren 279). From the existing statistics, although the few attempts that have been successful seem to show that cloning is possible, it has been reported that the success rates stand at about 5% for some species, but a slow as 1% for others (Lane 126).
The German Ethics Council notes that the failure rates of cloning are about 96% implying a success rate of only 4% (21). It is important to note that what has been documented refers only to the animal species that have so far been successfully cloned. Those that have not been successfully cloned, especially monkeys, are primates like humans.
Consequently, if a monkey or any other primate has not yet been successfully cloned, it can only mean that humans are even more difficult to clone. A breakthrough was recently reported on dog cloning, which had proved elusive alongside primates and this aspect indicates that there is development and in future, primates may successfully be cloned.
The German Ethics Council notes that currently, the primary obstacle in primate cloning lies in the fact that a primate egg cell has some essential protein structures located so proximately to the cell nuclear (20). The removal of the nuclear to give room for a transplant interferes with their ability to catalyze cell division thus eliminating the cell’s ability to replicate and grow.
This aspect has impaired the researchers’ ability to produce successful primate clones, but research is ongoing. However, human cloning may take longer to be achieved because the scientific community generally perceives it as unacceptable so that those who do any research in this area do so amid protests from many quarters, which can impede research in the line of human cloning.
Ethical Issues surrounding Reproductive Cloning
From an ethical perspective, opponents of cloning argue that cloning is an attempt at playing God and controlling nature, which is not acceptable. It is considered a violation of human rights and serious undermining of human dignity to experiment with humans as has been the case with other animals.
For instance, as noted earlier Snuppy was obtained after over one thousand attempts, which only gave two live births, but only one survived. The same was the case with Dolly because over two hundred attempts resulted into only one sheep. This magnitude of experimentation cannot be applied to humans because it is not morally correct.
Biological concerns for reproductive cloning
From a biological perspective, the clone that is obtained is not an offspring of the donor or the animal from which it is cloned, but a sibling (UNESCO 10). Therefore, claims that cloning could be employed in sourcing offspring for barren couples are misconceived.
Even though the couples are the source of the cells used for cloning, the clone is almost genetically identical to the donor save for a few differences, which implies that they could technically be considered as ‘delayed twins’ of the donors’ siblings rather than offspring (Caulfield 3). This element means that the clone lacks a sense of identity and may have problems relating to the ‘parents’.
Scientific Concerns on Reproductive Cloning
Scientists who have carried out research in the line of cloning acknowledge that there are numerous errors inherent in the cloning process especially during genetic reprogramming hence the numerous deformities and abnormalities that have been reported in cloned animals (McMahan 79). This element has largely slowed down research towards human cloning because most of the errors are still beyond scientists’ control. Therefore, any attempt at cloning humans for reproductive purposes can pose serious health risks and challenges for those involved (McMahan 82).
Conclusion
The concept of cloning continues to be researched and advances are bound to be made to the effect of making the technology better. However, the successful attempts have clearly pointed to the fact that the technology is not yet adequately mature for application to humans. Although several scientists claim to have successfully cloned humans, lack of evidence to this effect suggests otherwise.
The many concerns from ethical, biological, and scientific points of views also seem to slow down the pace of research towards human cloning. However, like any other issues in the public domain, it has its proponents and opponents and whether technology matures enough to accommodate human cloning successfully, debates will always rage on about its appropriateness. However, human cloning remains a farfetched idea due to the documented miniature success rates.
Works Cited
Caulfield, Timothy. “Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue.” BMC Medical Ethics 4.1 (2003): Print.
German Ethics Council. Cloning for reproductive purposes and cloning for the purposes of biomedical research, Berlin: GNEC, 2004. Print.
Lane, Robert. “Safety, identity and consent: A limited defense of reproductive human cloning.” Bioethics 20.3 (2006): 125-135. Print.
McMahan, Jeff. “Cloning, Killing, and Identity.” Journal of Medical Ethics 25.2 (1999): 77-86. Print.
Nordgren, Anders. “Analysis of an epigenetic argument against human reproductive cloning.” Reproductive BioMedicine 13.2 (2006): 278-283. Print.
UNESCO. Human cloning: ethical issues, Paris: UNESCO, 2004. Print.
Cloning is the process of creating a physical entity that is a precise copy of another organism or cell. The origin of the word “clone” is no linked to genetics. This term was created in 1903 by Herbert J. Webber, a plant physiologist, who used a Greek word klon to identify the plants received by gardeners after budding, bulbing, or cutting.
Cloning can be either natural or artificial. Natural cloning can be seen in the process of cell replication. Organisms with no cell nucleus (prokaryotic organisms) demonstrate cloning processes as well; for instance, yeasts and bacteria use budding or binary function to create identical versions of themselves. Eukaryotes (organisms will a present cell nucleus) have cells that reproduce by the means of mitosis, which is dividing itself to produce a clone. Multicellular organisms can undergo a natural cloning as well. It can occur in different ways. For example, asexual reproduction is a natural way of cloning, which lies in reproduction without fertilization.
It is a way of reproduction for many plans: a separated part of a plant grows into a new plant. In agriculture, people use this opportunity to expand the quantity of crops by increasing the number of necessary plants; it is not considered artificial cloning since they use the natural faculties of these plants and do not make any genetic changes. Some insects also reproduce in such away. In the natural world, such a phenomenon as parthenogenesis exists. Parthenogenesis is a self-reproduction of a multicellular organism without a mate and, hence, without fertilization. The examples of species, who commonly use parthenogenesis, can be found among insects, nematodes, crustaceans, and even fish.
Aside from natural cloning, artificial ways of cloning exist. In biology, cloning is understood as a duplication of biological material – DNA, a cell, or a whole organism. For these three types of material, different techniques were developed by scientists. Artificial cloning faces a strong ethical controversy in the society. Many people consider that artificial cloning is a breach of natural laws, even though cloning exists in a natural version. Artificial cloning is used for research, as well as for medical and reproductive purposes (Rugnetta, 2015).
The Technique of Cloning
Molecular Cloning
Molecular cloning, also known as gene cloning, is the copying of a DNA fragment or sequence. It is used for experimental purposes, as well as for practical tasks, such as DNA profiling, which allows finding a person with the use of their fingertips. The necessary conditions to enable an act of molecular cloning are the following:
for the supplementation of a DNA sequence to an organism, it is needed to have that sequence connected to the origin of replication, i.e. that very point in DNA, where the process of replication is started;
the performers of cloning should have special cloning, which are fragments of any organism’s DNA that can be successfully amplified in another organism.
DNA cloning commonly involves four main steps: breaking one DNA strand into pieces, constructing a needed sequence out of those pieces, injecting this sequence into a cell, and, finally, selecting the cells that have successfully undergone this process. To make the cell accept the inserted DNA fragment, the influence of a DNA enzyme, light, chemicals, gene gun, and electrical fields can be used. A typical DNA cloning process is done through the following stages: selecting a host organism and the source of a cloning vector, preparing the DNA of the mentioned source, preparing the DNA for the cloning process, generating a laboratory DNA, inserting the latter DNA into the host organism, choosing organisms that contain generated DNA, and selecting the clones that have successfully acquired the needed properties (Green & Sambrook, 2012; Brown, 2010).
Cell Cloning
Cell cloning can be defined as the cloning of a unicellular organism, for instance, a bacteria. In such case, three cloning techniques exist dilution, which needs a suspension of cells with certain concentration to be prepared; cloning ring technique, when cells are planted into special cell culture dishes; robotic transfer system, when the whole process is conducted by a special computer platform, which performs the transition of cells from a dish to a plate with growth medium (McFarland, 2000).
More often, the term “cell cloning” is used to define the cloning of stem cells, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT is used for medical and research purposes. The cloning of stem cells allows to cure human diseases more effectively, but there is still a need for further research, which will discover more opportunities for the medical use of cell cloning. The technique of SCNT lies in the following. The oocyte of the host organism is caught at metaphase II and stopped by the means of light distributed through a pipette.
Then, a small fragment of the zona pellucida is removed with a glass needle and inserted through this piercing to take out the nuclei of the oocyte and the polar body. Next, the somatic nuclei need to be introduced into the enucleated oocyte. This can be done through electrofusion or by placing the somatic nucleus to the perivitelline space. After that, growth hormones and specific markers are added to enable the introduction of the cloned cells to an organism (Kfoury, 2007).
Cloning an Organism
Cloning a living multicellular organism is usually defined as reproductive cloning. During this process, an identical copy of an existing organism is received. In theory, humans can successfully undergo cloning, but a lot of contradiction, primarily ethical and social, arising from such a possibility, which hinders the research process, sometimes in a legal way. For that reason, reproductive cloning is tried only on animals. An animal, which appears as a result of reproductive cloning, has DNA identical to the initial animal. One of the most famous examples is Dolly the sheep.
The most widely known technique for reproductive cloning is the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer when the genetic material of a nucleus from a donor’s body cell is transported to the “empty” egg, whose genetic material was removed with its whole nucleus. After that, the egg with the new DNA is exposed to the influence of electric currents or chemicals to trigger the division of cells. Then, the embryo inside the cell develops, and once it reaches a certain stage, it should be put into the uterus of a female specimen to provide it with favorable conditions until the fetus is fully developed. The born organism will be the clone.
However, it is not an identical copy of the donor in a full sense; Dolly is no exception. Such clones indeed receive the nuclear or chromosomal DNA of the donor, but some of the genetic materials of the clone originate from the mitochondria, the power sources of the cell, which is located in the cytoplasm of the egg that was enucleated. Mitochondria possess their DNA. The mutations that occur in mitochondrial DNA must have a serious impact on the aging process (Biological and Environmental Research Information System, 2009).
The example of Dolly proved that it is possible to reprogram the genetic material taken from an adult cell to produce only such genes as are necessary for udder cells, which enables to create a whole new organism. This example is important because before Dolly scientists considered that there was no way to make a cell of one type out of a cell of another type; in other words, they believed that a liver cell could not be transformed into a heart cell, and vice versa. Now science knows that such transformations are possible. However, the tools of humanity are still imperfect. The reprogramming process is far from ideal, which leads to errors that cause early death and diseases in animal clones (Biological and Environmental Research Information System, 2009).
The use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) by the means of reprogramming is a rather new technology employed for reproductive cloning.
An unusual method of artificial organism cloning is the twinning, or splitting, of an embryo. In this process, an initial embryo is divided into two separate embryos. Then, these two embryos are placed into the uterus of a female specimen (or a female human). Splitting is done by expanding an external fertilization of an egg on the 6-cell to 8-cell stages. In the case of success, the female gives birth to monozygotic twins, who are basically clones (Illmensee, Levanduski, Vidali, Husami & Goudas, 2010).
Except for the twinning method, it is not possible to speak about human cloning yet. Some scientists are opposed to cloning humans, and not only for ethical reasons: only 1-2 cases out of 100 are successful in animal cloning, and many scientists are not ready to put human lives at risk. Additionally, around 30% of animal clones suffer from “large-offspring” syndrome and other problematic conditions. Some animal clones die young due to the complications after cloning and infections.
Human clones will probably have the same problems. Moreover, the impact of cloning on mental development is unknown; animals do not have self-reflection and self-esteem, but humans do, and being a clone can have a dramatic negative effect on mental health. Thus, a double problem arises: on the one hand, more experiments are needed to advance the technology of cloning, but, on the other hand, further experimentations are hindered by ethical, social, and psychological concerns (Biological and Environmental Research Information System, 2009).
Conclusion
The term “cloning” means creating an alive object that is a replication of another alive object. Cloning exists as a natural phenomenon. It can be found in the process of cell reproduction. Both prokaryotes and eukaryotes can undergo cloning as a means of reproduction. Plants can reproduce by division. Multicellular organisms also reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Artificial cloning includes molecular and cell cloning and cloning an organism. Molecular cloning, also gene or DNA cloning, involves copying a fragment of DNA of one cell and introducing it into another cell. Cell cloning include the cloning of unicellular organisms, as well as somatic-cell nuclear transfer. Cloning an organism is quite similar to cell cloning, but genes are introduced into an egg, which needs a female specimen to bear it.
References
Biological and Environmental Research Information System. (2009). Cloning fact sheet. Web.
Brown, T.A. (2010). Gene cloning and DNA analysis (6th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Green, M.R. & Sambrook, J. (2012). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (4th ed.). Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Illmensee, K., Levanduski, M., Vidali, A., Husami, N.& Goudas, V.T. (2010) Human embryo twinning with applications in reproductive medicine. Fertility and Sterility, 93(2), 423-427.
Kfoury, C. (2007). Therapeutic cloning: Promises and issues. McGill Journal of Medicine , 10(2), 112-120.
McFarland, D. (2000). Preparation of pure cell cultures by cloning. Methods in Cell Science, 22(1), 63-66.
Rugnetta, M. (2015). Cloning (Genetics). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Web.
The contemporary world has been associated with an advanced technology which has greatly boosted efficiency and effectiveness across all sectors ranging from business, engineering to the medical field.
The concept of cloning is among the most recent human discoveries that have greatly transformed societies. The invention has been associated with many benefits such as the ability to supplement natural organs with those generated those cloning.
For instance, cloning has enabled generation of organs which has created an alternative organs supply which those organs that are delivered from donors during the organ transplant instances. Organs generated through cloning have been noted to be very effective as they are not known to experience any rejections since they share the same gene with the body system.
Background Study
Animal cloning has experienced a considerable success in the past few years. The first successful animal cloning was realized in 1997 when the Dolly sheep was successfully cloned.
Since then, animal cloning has greatly improved as noted by the ability of scientists to regenerate pigs, rabbits, goats among other animals. Despite, the great success in animal cloning, human cloning has remained a great problem to many scientists. The recent success of a Korean scientist to generate stem cells from cloned human embryos is a great step for the success of human cloning.
In spite of the presence of a very advanced technology in animal cloning, the process has been associated with many failures with a success rate of one or three in a hundred experiments. Human cloning on the other hand refers to the process of creation of genetically copy of a human.
There are generally three diverse processes of cloning which include Embryonic cloning, adult DNA cloning and the therapeutic cloning. Embryo cloning is also regarded as artificial twinning. This process involves removing one or more cells from an embryo and enabling the cell to develop on separately having the same DNA as the original embryo.
This type of cloning has recorded a significant success and especially in animal cloning. It has being tested minimally on humans. The Adult DNA cloning is the process that entails removing the DNA from the embryo and replacing it with another one from an adult animal.
The method is employed to give an exact duplicate of an existing animal. The process has been successfully carried out on sheep and goats, but not tried on human beings. Therapeutic cloning is the process that is used to clone human tissues or a human organ for transplant.
Various scholars and individuals perceive the issue of human cloning differently depending on one’s ethnicity, age, religion and gender. The researcher used the family members who included his parents, his younger brother and sister to find out how the aforementioned variables influence people’s perception about human cloning.
Methodology Used
The research entailed a survey where the researcher prepared a questionnaire that the participants were required to fill accordingly and return them. The researcher in addition, organized a face –to-face interview with respective participants in order for him to clarify some issues and gather sufficient and relevant data for analysis.
The researcher used the questioner as his instrumental tool for collecting relevant data that was required to determine how age, ethnicity, religion and gender influenced an individual’s perception about human cloning. The questions that were contained in the questioner included both open and closed questions.
The closed questions were tailored in manner so that the interviewee could identify an answer from the range of alternatives provided. This was important since it enabled quantification of the variables. On the other hand, the use of open questions helped the participants to give their personal views pertaining to specific issues.
This helped in the qualitative study. The study used the researcher family members as the participants who included his, mother, father, younger brother and sister. After collecting relevant data, the questionnaires were coded, filtered and the data analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The study was subjected to a number of limitations. One of the limitations that was observed was lack of a larger number of participants who participated in this survey; the failure meant that the researcher did not get sufficient data to facilitate proper inferences from the results presented.
Lack of larger number of participants meant that the researcher did not have an opportunity to study some important variables. For instance, all my participants being Christian denied me an opportunity to learn how other religions perceive the issue of human cloning.
The lack of large number of participants was necessitated by lack of enough resources that is, money and time to conduct the survey on a larger context. All my participants participated actively while responding to the questions posed to them, apart from my dad who was noted to shy away while addressing some issues.
Results and Analysis
All my family members embraced the concept of therapeutic cloning as an appropriate medical strategy to address the shortage of organs for transplant. All the four members agreed that the use of therapeutic cloning will greatly enhance the living of many people and especially those that require organs transplants such as the kidney and liver.
Although all of them were aware that these organs can alternatively be received from compatible donors, they were of the opinion that therapeutic cloning should be used to produce necessary organs for cloning since organs produced through this process are the best and cannot be subjected to rejection by the recipients system since they have the DNA of the recipient.
They also embraced the therapeutic cloning as they viewed it as a very appropriate technique to address the prevalent shortages for organs for transplant and especially in this era when peoples are opting for the sale of their organs rather than offer them for free.
My younger brother and sister accepted the human cloning as being the best strategy for procreation, since it gives individuals a great opportunity to determine whether he/she opts for twins or triplets.
They also supported human cloning as the best strategy for procreation since it’s more flexible than the natural method. Through this process one is given the opportunity to select offspring with the desired traits. Human cloning is very flexible and thus, the concerned party is more privileged in selecting the most perfect donor for one’s offspring.
This opportunity offers relevant individuals chances to select the donor of one’s offspring depending on one’s desired traits. On the other hand, my father and mother disagreed with human cloning as being the best strategy to foster twin offspring. They advocated for the natural twinning method which they argued was very effective and not prone to uncertainty of failure.
They equally contested the use of human cloning in establishing a pedigree child. My parents rejected the use of cloning technology to bring up a superb generation, since the offspring generated will lack varieties which brings beauty in life. My mother argued that although cloning may be employed to bring forth a race of people with super strengths such as Michal Jordan, the generation generated may unfortunately suffer from low intelligence which can make it being exploited as slaves.
Thus, cloning of humans should only guarantee emergence of a super human being who are both physically and intelligently dominate than the present humans we have today.
My sister and mother showed some inclination towards greatly accepting the idea of cloning as a solution to instances of infertility or genetically inherited illness. They argued that instead of someone engaging into extra marital affairs in the process of looking for a child, the use of cloning is an effective method of one getting one’s offspring.
In addition they argued those people that suffer from genetically inheritable diseases should consider opting for cloning method as their process of procreation to eradicate chances of passing these genes to their offspring.
My dad was of the opinion that instead of the use of cloning method as the process to foster children, the couple in question should consider adapting children. With adaption of the children, the family will have an opportunity to raise their own children and save the society and government the burden of looking after the adapted children.
When it came to the issue that cloning is the best strategy to guarantee the sex of a child, my dad greatly appreciated this concept by dad arguing that cloning was a better strategy to adapt for fostering children as it gives one a guarantee of a 100% about the sex of the child.
He argued that with the great medical technology, one is given an opportunity to get a baby of one’s preferred sex, without undergoing the natural method of try and error.
Similarly, my younger sister equally accepted the use of cloning as a technique of fostering siblings of desired sex. She argued that the ability to choose the sex of the child will greatly help in addressing the great gender imbalances that exist between men and women.
My mother and younger brother did not support the use of cloning in procreating siblings of one desired sex. My mother argued that the sex of a child does not matter and emphasized that God has His own unique way of ensuring harmony in the society between men and women. From this discussion, it was evident about how one’s ethnicity background is influential in one’s perception towards certain issues.
My dad being raised in a society where the boy child was greatly honored than the girl child was noted to emphasize more on the importance of determining the sex of a child. My mother being a bit younger and having been raised through more modernized setting shared similar opinions with my younger brother.
Therefore the issue of one’s background upbringing should not be underrated when addressing certain issues and in particular gender issues, since those people that share similar views with my dad are be termed as being greatly affected by gender stratification, where boys are regarded as being more superior to girls.
All the four considered human cloning as an unethical issue that tries to rob God his procreation powers which was only vested on humans upon their coming together through sexual intercourse.
My mother and dad greatly objected cloning since they complained that it will foster homosexuality since this is the only method that can guarantee the gay an opportunity to get children a situation that has greatly been used by many Christian to question the practicability of the gay marriages.
Similarly, all my family members rejected the idea of human cloning as a means of body replacement. They considered this cloning aspect as only a myth that is only founded in the scientist dreams.
The cloning idea that predicts the chances of replacement of human body is like giving humans the power to resurrect which is out of context and contradicts the Christian teachings that believes that it is only God the ‘Yahweh’ who has the power to resurrect people.
My family members all being Christians felt very offended by this proposition. This explained how one’s religion belief is very influential in determining one perception of the things or action that one interacts with.
From the proceeding discussion, it is apparent that different age groups possess diverse views concerning some of the issues that we face in our dairy activities. The research indicated that ethnicity, gender, religion and education featured as very important factors that determine how people perceive issues.
The older generation that is here represented by my dad is known to be more affected by gender stratification where they assign more importance to boys than to girls. My mother who belongs to the middle group does not suffer from gender stratification and appears to reason in similar manner to the youthful generation which is represented by my younger brother and sister.
Religion is noted as a strong factor that influences how people attach values to those things that they interact with which intern influences how they interpret situations. Religion beliefs are known as very strong forces that have resulted to very distinct decisions.
Education was also noted as an important ingredient factor that determines how we interpret situations. Education helps individuals become is noted in the discussion as bringing forth the enlightenment in society by equipping them with appropriate information and skills that help them make informed choices. My family members being all learned enabled them to address the posed questions appropriately.
Since they were all well knowledgeable and conversant with the topic about human cloning, they made their contributions and adequately defended their points with relevant backing. Therefore, education is an important factor in any society as it determines how individuals in that society perceives, expresses or reacts to diverse situations.
A society that is not well educated is associated with being ignorant and takes many things for granted, while an educated society is characterized with being well informed and employs very strategic approaches while dealing with its problems, without taking anything for granted.
Cloning can be defined as the process of producing an embryo which has similar genes to its parents and implanting it to a surrogate mother. A number of organizations have also given slightly different definitions for cloning. One such definition is that cloning is the preservation of cells in cultures to produce tissues, organs and even embryos (Head, 2010, p. 1).
It is a method of reproduction that is viewed as a prospective haven for people with reproduction problems. Cloning has attracted substantial ethics-related questions since its discovery. The first clone was a lamb named Dolly and since its birth, the possibilities and speculations of human cloning has attracted a lot of ethical questions concerning the same.
Up to date, the acceptability of human cloning is depended on personal opinion and its applicability is largely based on theory (Head, 2010, p. 1). This is despite the fact that cloning of cells to form tissues has been widely used in therapeutic procedures to treat people in hospital. Let us have a look at the benefits and the disadvantages of cloning.
Disadvantages of cloning humans
Human cloning has more disadvantages than its benefits. Firstly, it is true that cloning is not in accordance with the Christian faith. Thus Christians, who make the world’s most popular religion, will feel as if they are playing God if they get involved in cloning activities. Among the weightiest arguments against cloning is the fact that the cloning of embryos makes them vulnerable and therefore the resultant child may develop serious problems for the rest of his/her life.
However, scientists argue that cloning may be developed to be more safe that the normal delivery as more advancements are made. Another disadvantage associated with human cloning is the fact that while cloning a human being, a number of embryos may be killed during testing (Farnsworth, 2000, p. 1). This is, arguably, killing of a human being and thus it taints the ethics behind the practice of human cloning.
There is also the issue about the expectations that people are bound to have on their clones. The original person will have very high expectations on the clone and this could lead to considerable pressure on the clone and disappointments on the part of the original person. This can be explained by the fact that with the identity that identical twins have and their differences in personality, nothing better is expected from clones.
Another worry is that since clones will be known to be copies of people, they may be discriminated against and thus their lives would be difficult. However baseless this claim appears to be, it has a point and its applicability would depend on how human clones would look. If they will be such that a person can identify a clone just by looking at him/her, then the argument is justified.
As mentioned above the technology of cloning is still inferior. During the development of the first clone, Dolly, more than 250 eggs were used and only one survived. It is thus apparent that application of this technology would have major drawbacks in terms of taking chances on life. It is possible that during testing, a number of embryos would be formed before the desirable embryo is formed.
This means that these embryos may be frozen for future use (Head, 2010, p. 1) or even destroyed, if their standards are unacceptable. This may be taken as the treating of a human being as an animal and it could attract considerable action by human rights activists. Besides the possible protests by human rights activists, the cloning process may prove to be haunting to the doctors in case they realize that they have been terminating lives by experimentation.
Benefits of cloning
Cloning is associated with a number of benefits that make pro-cloning activists believe strongly in their convictions. For instance, cloning of human cells has been constructively applied in therapeutic cloning to which is used largely during organ transplant mts. It is used to ensure that the donated organ fits the patient and saves the patient from taking lots o drugs normally meant to suppress immunity.
However, most of these benefits are beaten by logic and a closer examination reveals the fact that we should not encourage cloning of human beings. One of the benefits of cloning is the fact that it is able to provide children to people with fertility problems.
However, it will be more reasonable to adopt homeless kids and offer them a home instead of undergoing the risky cloning procedure. Another benefit of cloning that is frequently cited by pro-cloning activists is the fact that people with genetic illnesses who do not wish to pass their sicknesses to their kids have an option with cloning. However, it is arguable that such people will do better with adoption of the numerous homeless children in orphanages.
It has been widely argued that adoption of cloning as a legal medical exercise would lead to creation of people with perfected characteristics since the genes that are used are often chosen and it is logical that a person wishing to get a child will go for a donor with good characteristics. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. This is because such people will not have a lot of heath and other problems but it will lead to a set-up that could bring problems.
These problems will most probably be experienced in social life. Among the evidently controversial benefits of cloning is the idea of body replacements which is so far theoretical. It suggests that a person having a given problem can be reconstructed to live as another person who does not have the problems he/she has. This is among the suggestions associated with cloning that has made people question the ethical appropriateness of cloning (McKay, 2010, p. 1).
My recommendation
As evidenced in the discussion above, my opinion about the cloning controversy is that, in as much as cloning is a highly admirable technological advancement, it is wrong to pursue human cloning. This statement is made with reference to the cloning of cells to form an embryo.
It is wrong to try to pursue ways of making life other than the way that God created us to use. It is no wonder that the process of cloning cells to form embryos is associated with a myriad of problems. Even for people who do not believe that God exists, should be discouraged by the killing of tens or hundreds of embryos in the lab during the testing period.
Additionally, the uncertainties that face human clones in terms of health, similarity to the original person and the like should also discourage people from taking such kinds of people (Farnsworth, 2000, p. 1). It is clear that anyone supporting embryo-forming cloning has not given the subject a keener thought since so many possible problems that could come with child-formation cloning can easily be acquired.
Despite the fact that cell-physiology is a complex process and it is normally cheaper to engage in tissue growth cloning. This kind of cloning is simpler and it has better objectives. This is because most clone-generated tissues are used by doctors to save lives in hospitals by helping them to treat major health complications (McKay, 2010, p. 1).
Conclusion
Humans have repeatedly got themselves into problems after doing things just because they could do them. We should thus be very careful before we start using any discovery in a bid to benefit from it. It is specifically necessary for a re-examination of the intricacies of cloning in order to make informed decisions on whether to legalize it or not.
Cloning should be studied deeply to establish the dangers it poses to a child it bears. At the same time, we should ensure that we fully understand the ethical issues posed by cloning before we claim to be pro-cloning. It is only in the case of commendable technological advancement that embryonic cloning should be allowed.
This is because some measures will have been put in place to ensure that we do not get disappointed after paying for cloning services. It can be clearly seen that the disadvantages of cloning outweigh its benefits and thus cloning should be discouraged at all cost.
It was learnt in simple terms at the botanical garden that plants can be cloned in several ways. Cloning is now considered to be an efficient means to grow plants in being the result of vegetative propagation while seeds are the result of the natural reproductive phenomenon of plants. Basically, cloning entails taking a small branch cutting of a plant and putting it into a specific medium so that it forms its own roots by the process of rooting hormones.
Nature has been cloning plants for billions of years and in the modern world scientists have started to clone plants by using parts of specialized roots, breaking them into root cells and then growing them in a specific culture that is nutrient rich. In such cultures the cells which were initially specialized, become unspecialized by converting into calluses. These calluses are subsequently stimulated with the relevant hormones of plants to develop into fresh new plants which prove to be identical to the plant from which the pieces of roots were taken for such cloning. Such tissue culture is initiated from a very small section of the plant tissue and this process produces plants which are exact copies or clones of each other.
Although cloning is important in producing hundreds and thousands of clones of a single plant, tissue culture enables other options in propagating plants. In effect the tissue culture laboratories in the botanical garden facilitates the research of new procedures of reproducing plants that may prove to be rare and such information can be further used to conserve plants.
When seeds are planted, the outcome of the plant is more of guess work but clones can be taken from the best suited plants and their replica produced thus turning them into being genetically the same as their parent plants. This way the garden can comprise of the healthiest plants that are pest resistant, disease resistant and most productive. In fact the desired qualities in a plant can be brought about with cloning.
Plants which are grown by planting seeds can often prove to be unproductive since between thirty and sixty percent of seeds do not represent the best characteristics of their breed. Seeds also take time to grow while cloning starts with a plant that already exists, and all that is required is to add the hormones to the roots and to maintain the plant. Once the healthy plants are cloned and new branches begin to appear, they too can be further cloned and one can go on with this process of producing plants until the desired numbers are achieved.
It is known that many species of plants are now threatened with extinction because of their widespread selling for commercial purposes. In this context commercial laboratories use the research results of botanical gardens to produce several hundreds and thousands of similar plants thus reducing the burden on wild and natural plant populations. Cloning enables the production of a large number of plants in a short time as compared to traditional procedures of planting seeds and other measures such as divisions and cuttings.
Cloning helps a great deal in the conservation of plants because botanical gardens share their research results with plant nurseries which in turn use such results to produce large numbers of native plants by using the given tissue cultures. Usually botanical gardens, after having done the cloning exercise with rare plants, plant them back in their natural habitats, thus providing for adequate natural environment of such plants.
