Category: Cloning

Cloning is a scientific term referring to the scientific process of the method of replication of genes, and human cloning is also known as the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) (Pakhare, 2007). There are diverse views on the issue of acceptance of human cloning, which has given rise to an ongoing debate in the global community.

Those who oppose the cloning of humans are concerned over the issue of the health of women, considering the large number of eggs that would be required for the process of human cloning and affirm the interference this would have on the natural process of human growth and development. Proponents of cloning affirm that new ray of hope to childless couples, who can successfully have children, genetically and biologically related to them. The debate has attracted the attention of not only the scientific community but has garnered opponents and proponents from the educational, political, and religious communities as well. While the researcher aims to project both sides of the argument, the crucial aim would be to endorse the view that human cloning should be allowed selectively.

The researcher aims to propose that human cloning could have advantages as well as disadvantages; as such, it should be selectively permitted in cases where there is the unavailability of any other treatment or cure in sight.

The basic argument of the opponents of human cloning is the premise that SCNT is an inefficient technique for the cloning of ‘embryos’ (Norsigian, 2005). Women would be required in huge numbers to produce the eggs, which could result in the exploitation of their health as medication to increase egg production could prove hazardous to their health and may prove a risk to their lives.

Kass (1997) debates that cloning would result in the “commodification” of human beings where there would be a greater choice of traits and characteristics that would be preferred during the process of cloning. It is argued that human cloning is considered a threat to human ‘dignity as cloning could result in the fabrication of human beings as “commodities” rather than naturally produced beings (President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002). As such, the unethical nature of human cloning for reproductive purposes is therefore claimed to be an unethical process (President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002). The President’s Council (2002) also elucidates that the process of cloning could result in the reduction of the relationships of “humans to each other and their culture” and is a “dehumanizing” practice that could risk the entire society.

The issue of the risk to humans is the particular focus of the opponents of cloning who state that the health of women, in particular, will be at risk (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). According to the report, ‘Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning’ by the National Academy of Sciences (2002), Cohen (2001) has stated that there would be the need for innumerable eggs or embryos from women, the medications to acquire which, could pose serious threats to these women, more specifically the women from the lower strata of society. Cohen (2001) raises the concern that women will be given excessive drugs in order to facilitate the ovule production in their bodies, which could have serious implications on their health in the long as well as the short term.

There are also considerable risks to the health and well-being of children who are born due to human cloning. The American Medical Association (1999) states that reproduction by human cloning can cause “physical and psychological” harm to the resultant child and would give rise to problems of identity in the child, who would not be an original but a copy. Forwarding this argument, Feinberg (1992) states that children born due to human cloning would be denied of rights to an “open future.”

Richardson and Kurt A. (1998) have asserted that human cloning could have serious “psychological effects” since the children would be created from the gene of an already existing person and would be devoid of a distinct individual identity. This would obviously give rise to several legal problems concerning the rights and identity of the cloned individual who would be related to not only the biological parents but also additional humans, resulting in controversial relationships, for which there are no governing laws (Elster, 1999).

The multiplicity and diversity of the human race are considered to be a potential risk since cloning would give rise to identical humans with the same traits. This could further increase problems as humans are unable to distinguish the advantageous genes from the disadvantageous and harmful genes, making human cloning an extremely dangerous process (Kolehmainen, 1999). Kolehmainen (1999) also questions the seriousness of human cloning by stating that cloning would result in decreased tolerance power of humans towards each other who would prefer personalities of specified clones rather than original ones with distinct traits.

Not only would this restrict the variety of humans in the world, but it also results in biases and special preferences of some over others. This is turn, could potentially rip the human race and diversity off its variety with only clones of specific humans in the long run.

While social, moral, ethical, and scientific aspects of cloning are constantly debated, proponents of human cloning assert its importance and utility.

Human cloning is considered to be a boon to childless couples who can have biologically similar children with the help of cloning, and infertility would not manifest as a serious problem to couples who can have a child with similarities to one of the spouses (Orentlicher, 2000). Cloning is also believed to have tremendous potential in scientific research as it could expose the basic disease-causing genes of humans (Weissman, 2002).

Research and development in cloning are believed to be particularly beneficial to inherit and terminal diseases like cancer (Weissman, 2002). Proponents of human cloning also assert that stem cells have tremendous scope in the treatment of deteriorating diseases for which there is a lack of therapy and treatment available (Biotechnology Industry Organization). The researchers affirm that treatment and therapy by this method involve the use of stem cells from the body of the patient so that there is no potential harm to the body of any other human. The United Kingdom Department of Health (2000) thus advocates the selective use of cloning for therapeutic purposes in order to save the lives of “countless” humans.

Thus we see that while there are many disadvantages of human cloning, there could be some advantages as well. However, considering that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages, the pros and cons of human cloning must be carefully evaluated before arriving at any firm conclusion. An option could be considered where human cloning could be selectively allowed for therapeutic purposes in the treatment of diseases for which there is no other available treatment.

References

American Medical Association, (2002). Cloning to Produce Children, Position Statement: E-2.147. Web.

Cohen, Cynthia, (2001). The Image of God, the Eggs of Women, and Therapeutic Cloning. 32 U. Tol. L. Rev.367.

Biotechnology Industry Organization. The Value of Therapeutic Cloning for Patients. Web.

Elster, Nanette (1999). Who is the Parent in Cloning? Hofstra L. Rev. 533.

Feinberg, Joel, (1992). The Child’s Right to an Open Future, in Freedom and Fulfillment. Philosophical Essays, 76-97.

Kass L., (1997). The Wisdom of Repugnance, NEW REPUBLIC: 17, 23.

Kolehmainen S., (1999). Human Cloning: Brave New Mistake, 27 HOFSTRA L. REV. 557, 563-64.

National Academy of Sciences, (2002). Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning.

Norsigian, Judy (2005). Risks to Women in Embryo Cloning. The Boston Globe.

Orentlicher, David (2000). Beyond Cloning: Expanding Reproductive Options for Same-Sex Couples. 66 Brooklyn L. Rev. 651.

Pakhare J., 2007, Human Cloning Benefits. Web.

President’s Council on Bioethics, (2002). Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry.

Richardson, Kurt A., (1998). Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective. 32 Val. U.L. Rev. 739.

United Kingdom Department of Health, (2000). Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility: A Report from the Chief Medical Officer’s Expert Group Reviewing the Potential of Developments in Stem Cell Research and Cell Nuclear Replacement to Benefit Human Health. Web.

Weissman, I.L., (2002). Stem cells: Scientific, medical, and political issues. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1576-1579.

Introduction

The Case of Human Cloning

In 1998, Kyunghee University Medical Center (KUMC) attempted to clone a human being using an embryo. KUMC attempted to clone human embryos twice within two months. According to the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences, KUMC made the first attempt on 20^th November 1998 after collecting numerous ova from patients who visited the center (1). The patients normally visited the center to receive in vitro fertilization but did not know their ova were being used in research to clone a human being. Fortunately, one patient who went to receive the in vitro fertilization revealed that the medical center had collected 23 ova and used them in experiments. Although the researchers used 20 ova in conducting in vitro fertilization, they utilized the remaining three ova in an attempt to clone a human using embryo. The researchers subjected the three ova to the process of cloning. However, the researchers were unable to clone a human being using the embryo because the nuclear transfer of genetic material failed. This paper explores the ethical issues surrounding human cloning coupled with outlining the major achievements in this field of research. The paper centers mainly on the attempts by Kyunghee University Medical Center to clone a human being in 1998 and the controversies surrounding the case.

After conducting more research on embryo cloning, the researchers decided to attempt another cloning the following month. On 7^th December 1998, the researchers collected 16 ova from another patient and subjected them through the same process of in vitro fertilization and cloning. Although the researchers used three ova in the cloning of an embryo, they only managed to clone one successfully. A single ovum went through the cloning process successfully where researchers managed to transfer nuclear material from it into another ovum (Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 1). Incubation of the cloned embryo allowed it to develop into a four-celled embryo after which its growth halted. The researchers discarded the remaining two ova because they were unable to transfer the nuclear material successfully. Eventually, the researchers used one ovum in cloning a human embryo, which successfully developed into the four-celled stage of human embryo development.

Having made such achievements in the cloning of human embryos, KUMC released the findings to the public claiming that they had successfully cloned human embryos. On 14^th December 1998, the Korean media reported that KUMC had performed human cloning by transferring the somatic cell nucleus into the ovum. The news triggered much interest from scientific bodies in various parts of the world including Korea. To confirm the credibility of the findings, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences formed an ad hoc committee to look into the claims of human cloning and the process of cloning employed. The ad hoc committee examined the process of cloning that KUMC utilized and concluded, “…the research team did not disclose acceptable evidence … the committee was unable to confirm the claims that the human embryo cloning was successfully undertaken to the four-cell stage” (1). In this case, KUMC was unable to furnish the committee with relevant information about embryo cloning because they used only one ovum in their research.

When the Korean Medical Association received the report from the committee, it sided with the committee’s conclusion and expressed concerns about the supposedly successful human cloning that KUMC carried out. According to the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences, although biotechnology is vital in improving human health and treating incurable diseases, researchers must perform their experiments using clear research design and guidelines while complying with ethical guidelines (1). In the case study, KUMC did not have a credible scientific design in performing the study because researchers could not determine whether they had cloned an embryo or not. Moreover, the researchers based their conclusions about successful cloning on a single embryo, which is quite unscientific. Thus, the human cloning incident by KUMC triggered numerous implications in the medical field.

The outcome of the Case

The case of human cloning at KUMC triggered reactions from the scientific field because many scientists never believed that human cloning was possible then. Examination and assessment of the human cloning process, which KUMC applied shows that a valid scientific basis did not exist for the researchers to go ahead and manipulate the ova. Since the scientists were performing in vitro fertilization, mere curiosity drove them to use the available ova to attempt cloning of an embryo. Moreover, the researchers at KUMC used only one embryo to perform successful human cloning where an embryo was divided into the four-celled stage. After performing a single experiment of cloning an embryo, the KUMC researchers concluded that they had cloned a human embryo. Such an experiment void of scientific basis, design, and validity is against the principles of scientific research.

After careful analysis of the report from the committee, the Korean Medical Association observed that KUMC had no objective evidence to show whether they followed a credible cloning process in removing and transferring the nucleus into a somatic cell. Brown argues that the cloning of human beings is more complicated; for instance, researchers at Roslin made 227 attempts to produce 29 embryos out of which only one managed to develop into the Dolly sheep (652). In contrast, the researchers at KUMC made two attempts at embryo cloning and claimed that only one embryo managed to develop into the four-celled stage of cell development. Such findings do question the scientific process of cloning in terms of the credibility, validity, and reliability of the findings.

The objective of the KUMC in the research was to conduct in vitro fertilization of the ova but the researchers went ahead and performed human cloning using some of the ova that they had obtained from the patients. Haphazard manipulation of ova draws in the question of ethical issues surrounding the research coupled with how researchers should abide with the ethics while performing experiments that involve humans. There is no evidence that the patients signed a consent form to allow the use of their ova in human cloning. In this case, the researchers performed unethical research because they used human ova in performing other experiments apart from in vitro fertilization. MacKinnon asserts that experiments that involve human subjects must comply with the principles of informed consent (11). The case of human cloning did not comply with the principles of informed consent because researchers intended to use donated ova in performing in vitro fertilization, but ended up using some in human cloning. In this view, it implies that human cloning was not part of their research objectives. Therefore, KUMC did not comply with ethical principles of informed consent when they attempted to clone a human embryo.

The claims of human cloning at KUMC also elicited controversy about human cloning. According to the Korean Academy of Sciences, if researchers do not adhere to ethical and scientific principles, human cloning may lead to grave consequences for the outcomes of cloning create problems that degrade human dignity (1). Currently, social, religious, and political views regarding human cloning are against human cloning. Critics of human cloning regard the practice as an unethical act that not only degrades human dignity, but also violates rights and freedom of a clone since an individual takes the responsibility of determining genomic composition of another being. In their objections to cloning, Kanchan, Kumar, Kumar, and Das argue that human cloning is an unnatural process that degrades human dignity and abuses individual rights in determining the genomic composition of a person (126). A person must have inalienable rights to exist naturally, rather than being an object of scientific experiments in a laboratory. For human dignity to prevail, researchers must consider the ethical implications of their experiments at individual and societal levels.

The case of human cloning by KUMC also brought up the issue of the relationships between the media and research. When KUMC released the findings of their research, the Korean media picked the news and made it public that KUMC had made successful cloning of a human embryo. Usually, scientists release and publish their results in peer-reviewed journals but KUMC did not publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Korean scientists were skeptical when they heard claims that KUMC had cloned human embryos yet it had not published the study in peer-reviewed journals (The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 1). Moreover, the release of the research findings into the media did not only attract the attention of the scientists, but also the public. The news alarmed the public because people did not know that human cloning experiments were taking place in a laboratory. The attempts of human cloning performed by KUMC researchers were not valid scientifically because they neither complied with scientific nor ethical principles. Thus, release of invalid and incredible findings into the media without passing through a review process would misguide the public and complicate the issue of human cloning in society.

Implications of the Case

The case of human cloning resulted in several implications in medical research. As the KUMC researchers experimented with human cloning, they did not have a scientific basis for they had not designed the experiment well. For scientific experiments to be valid and credible, they must adhere to scientific principles that are necessary for performing the research. Poorly designed researches give incredible and invalid results that are not worth generalization and extrapolation to the general population. It was unscientific for KUMC to use two ova and claim that they had managed to clone human embryos. As cloning technology has benefits in medical research, its use must comply with scientific principles. The application of cloning technology has significant importance in medical research because researchers can generate effective therapies and improve reproduction (Kanchan, Kumar, Kumar, and Das 125). Hence, cloning experiments should comply with all scientific principles of research to come up with credible and valid findings.

Another implication of the case of human cloning at KUMC touched on the ethical issue that researchers must comply with before embarking on research involving humans as subjects or participants. From the report of the committee that investigated the claims of human cloning, it is evident that KUMC was dealing with in vitro fertilization. To carry out in vitro fertilization, the researchers had to collect ova from patients who attended the center and request their services. However, KUMC researchers went ahead and performed human cloning using ova that remained from the process of in vitro fertilization. This scenario indicates that KUMC researchers violated the principle of informed consent for the patients who were not aware that the researchers used their ova in human cloning. Following the claims of human cloning, the Korean Medical Association deferred any experiment that uses human ova until it prepared guidelines to regulate human cloning (The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 1). Thus, in Korea, researchers that use human ova must comply with guidelines that the Korean Medical Association has prepared.

The case of human cloning at KUMC ignited a controversy on the morality of cloning a human embryo. Human cloning is a controversial issue that has prompted leaders in political and religious circles to declare it illegal. Although the cloning technology has significant benefits in the development of effective therapies against molecular diseases, many people still object to the application of the cloning technology in research (Brown 676). In this view, the use of biotechnology for biomedical research is different from the use of cloning technology for reproduction. Hence, laws and regulations must differentiate the two for scientists to continue researching effective therapies that cure molecular diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease amongst many others. MacKinnon adds that there should be regulations that guide researchers in both animal and human cloning so that researchers do not perform cloning experiments haphazardly (11). Therefore, one can conclude that human cloning is under regulation and would be illegal for any researcher to perform cloning experiments without complying with laid down regulations.

Since the media played a role in the dissemination of the research findings to the public that KUMC had managed to clone a human embryo without verifying the credibility of the study, it attracted undue attention from the public. The role that the media played questioned the procedure of releasing and publishing new scientific findings. Instead of releasing and publishing the results through peer-reviewed journals, KUMC released the information directly to the media, which then presented the news to the public without double-checking the validity of human cloning claims. According to Kanchan, Kumar, Kumar, and Das, institutional ethics committee should provide guidelines that researchers must follow when performing all activities in research activities (126). Hence, all research activities should comply with regulations that the institutional ethics committee has provided to guide the research process.

Conclusion

The case of human cloning at KUMC indicates that human cloning is still a controversial issue because researchers are likely to abuse the cloning process to gain selfish interests. Scientists are human and thus subject to manipulation to gain personal exploits without considering the set protocols. In the light of this knowledge, cloning technology has significant benefits in the medical field; however, unethical practices that emanate from human cloning prevent researchers from exploring the benefits thereof. Nevertheless, to gain the potential benefits of cloning technology, effective regulations should be in place to bar scientists from engaging in unethical practices of cloning humans.

Works Cited

Brown, Barry. “Human cloning and genetic engineering: The case for proceeding cautiously.” Albany Law Review 65.0 (2002): 649-677. Print.

Kanchan, Tanuj, Mohan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, and Sanhjoy Das. “Multifaceted aspects of human cloning.” JK Science, Journal of Medical Education & Research 8.3 (2006): 125-128. Print.

MacKinnon, Barbara. Human cloning: science, ethics, and public policy. New York: University of Illinois, 2001. Print.

The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. “Incident of ‘human cloning’ from Kyunghee University Medical Center.” Journal of Korean Medical Science 4.1 (1999): 1. Print.

Science is viewed dually by people. On the one hand, it is a means to improve the technological progress and at the same time to improve the quality of human life. On the other hand, the strength of religious beliefs and traditions makes people rebel against science if it breaks their outlook of the world (Trefil and Hazen, 2007). Accordingly, this paper will discuss the direction of the modern science that is heavily disputed – human cloning.

To start with, it is necessary to state that scientists who went ahead of their epochs and discovered the truth about our planet were always discriminated or even executed. Thus, for example, the discoveries of Galileo were perceived hostilely by the society of his epoch. The statements of this scientist about the shape of out planet, as well as about the fact that it rotates around the sun, resulted in his death in prison. This happened because the Christianity was rather conservative at that time, and the discoveries by Galileo contradicted its major dogmas. For example, the central role of Earth in the Universe was undoubted by the Church, but the statements of Galileo dismantled this myth, and made Earth into simply one of the planets turning around the sun (Trefil and Hazen, 2007).

However, with the development of the mankind, the ideas by Galileo became universally accepted and proven. Nowadays, there is another phenomenon that causes a lot of controversy – it is human cloning. The major reason to this negative attitude towards cloning is again the religion. All the religions of the world admit that the human beings were created by the God, and it is not in the human power to duplicate God’s creatures. Thus, the conservatism of the mankind stops its progress and does not allow the humanity to treat lethal diseases and prolong the lives of people (Annas et a., 2002).

It is proven by the researchers who cloned animals and plants, that human beings can be cloned for the sake of preserving their health. Moreover, the organs of human beings can be cloned separately to make the tasks for transplantation surgery easier and save lives of thousands of people. Nevertheless, there are numerous public organizations that stress the supremacy of the human rights over the needs of science. According to such scholars as Annas, Andrews, Isasi (2002) and others, there is a strong need in prohibiting the cloning research and inheritable alterations of human genes. These scientists stress the immoral and anti-human character of cloning as far as every human being is unique in his or her essence and it is the violation of rights and freedoms to create the copy of any other human being (Annas et a., 2002).

Moreover, one more reason for human cloning prohibition is the alleged possibility of dysfunction of the cloned human beings or separate organs. For example, scholars say that cloned organs can be infected with various diseases or be inclined to cancer and other serious illnesses. Having no knowledge about the possible development of these organs, as well as cloned human beings, it is rather dangerous to carry out such experiments (Annas et a., 2002).

Thus, the modern science faces serious resistance from the side of church, other scientists and the society. The issue of human cloning is rather controversial as some people see it as a means to save the mankind, while others consider it to be the major threat to the latter.

References

Trefil J., & Hazen, R. M. (2007). History and methods of science: Custom edition (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Annas, G., Andrews, L., Isasi, R. (2002). Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28, 151 – 178.

Introduction

The following description is a series of important events that led to the identification and subsequent cloning of the PARK2 gene responsible for Parkinson’s disease.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a severe neurodegenerative disorder that impairs various important functions. The main problems include bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability and people affected by this disorder may fall in the age range of 65-80 (Daniel Weintraub et al., 2008). The etiology of this disease is believed to have a strong relationship with hereditary factors. As such, understanding the genetic predisposition of certain families to Parkinson’s disease became more vital. Gene mapping studies have made a significant contribution in assigning the location of specific genes to particular chromosome loci.

Main body

Quinn, Critchley, and Marsden (1987) conducted a study on two groups of patients with PD and reported that the patients in the age range of 21 and 40 years should be called “young onset Parkinson’s disease.” and those below 21 years should be identified as having “juvenile parkinsonism.” This was supported by another similar study that described the development of juvenile parkinsonism in four of the five siblings in a family (Takahashi et al., 1994).

One of the clinical forms of PD is autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism (AR-JP) which was regarded as a ‘familial’ type of PD and subsequent cloning of the gene responsible for the autosomal recessive type of ‘familial PD’ has contributed to the better understanding of sporadic cases of PD (Mizuno, Hattori, & Matsumine, 1998).

Hiroto Matsumine et al. (1997) conducted a linkage analysis study on AR-JP. According to this study, the AR-JP gene was found to be localized at chromosome 6q25.2-27 and co-segregated with another gene known as SOD2 (Mn-superoxide dismutase gene) between D6S437 andD6S264 markers. This study has chosen the SOD2 gene because its increased activity was reported to interfere with the pathology of PD.

Previously, it was believed that the alteration of mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) function would result in neuronal death in PD (Di Monte DA, 1991). Mizuno et al (1995) described a reduction in the complex I of mitochondrial electron transfer complex and loss of the alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex (KGDHC) in the substantia nigra of patients with PD. These defects could have led to the generation of neuronal toxins in patients with PD (Mizuno et al. 1998).

This process might have also led to impairment of the mitochondrial respiratory chain that facilitated the excess of superoxide anions release and subsequent enhancement of the SOD 2 gene activity (Hiroto Matsumine et al. 1997). Hence, the polymorphism of the SOD 2 gene has led to the finding of the AR-JP gene and drawn further research attention.

Further, linkage analysis studies were performed using the markers, D6S437, D6S1581, D6S1579, D6S305, D6S411, SOD2, D6S253, D6S1599, D6S1719, and D6S264 have revealed that the candidate gene for AR-JP was located near the 4-cM region between D6S437 andD6S264 (Saito et al.1998).

AR-JP was found to contribute to nigral neuron death. This was shown by a genetic model study that emphasized the relationship between the absence of Lewy body formation and neuron death in AR-JP (Matsumine, 1998). This study also described that AR-JP gene mapping to chromosome 6q25.2-27 was considered as an indication of functional single-gene mutations in the episode of nigral neural death.

These findings have finally led to a new candidate gene to be associated with the AR-JP.

Kitada et al. (1998) conducted genetic studies and described that AR –JP is caused by a mutation in a newly identified gene known as Parkin. This report described that this gene has 12 exons with 5 of them deleted in patients and shortening of a gene transcript in the brains of individuals with exon -4 deletions.

This report was further strengthened by another description that highlighted homozygous deletions in the parkin gene in individuals with AR-JP (Hattori et al.1998). Matsumine et al. (1998) conducted deletion studies while mapping the AR-JP gene and reported that exon search would help in promoting the cloning procedure of the AR-JP gene. As exon deletions were reported in an earlier study, understanding the key deletion mechanisms would help in a better understanding of molecular aspects of AR-JP. It was confirmed by subsequent immunohistochemical and immunoblotting studies that revealed the absence of parkin protein in the brains of AR-JP patients (Hattori & Mizuno, 1999). It may be inferred that the presence or absence of protein-induced immunological activity may play role in the pathogenesis of AR-JP.

Therefore it can also be concluded that that the onset of AR-JP occurs due to deletion mutation of the Parkin gene, PARK 2.Hence, mutation studies have not only allowed the proper association between the PARK2 gene and AR-JP but also strengthened the involvement of markers and SOD 2 gene.

From the available literature, it was understood that the age and onset of symptoms of AR-JP differ from PD and AR-JP was prevalent in Japanese families. The incidence of AR-JP in homozygous recessive individuals would clearly indicate that the disease runs in closely related families and seems much confined. As there are poor reports on the prevalence of AR-JP, further data is largely needed. Djarmati et al. (2004) described that parkin mutations are dependant on the ethnic origin of the patients.

Emerging trends in modern biology have facilitated the cloning of many candidate genes. Previous experiments have shed light on the function of parkin protein by studying the expression of mouse cDNA clones that are homologous to the human parkin gene (Kitada et al.2000).

On the whole, Parkinson’s disease is a severe neurological disorder with many etiological factors. Compelling evidence has revealed two forms of PD where juvenile parkinsonism has gained much research significance as it occurs at an early age of below 21. Considerable interest was also centered on ‘young onset Parkinson’ disease that occurs between 21 and 40 years of age.

One of the diagnostic features of AR-JP is neuronal injury and the absence of Lewy bodies.

In contrast, Lewy body formation is present in the native form of PD.

Genetic studies have identified autosomal recessive juvenile Parkinsonism (AR-JP) as a separate class of PD and the candidate gene was mapped to chromosome 6 between the D6S437 and D6S264 markers near SOD 2 loci by linkage analysis.

Mitochondrial function was also given much emphasis as its genome is reported to be involved in neuronal death. The involvement of altered SOD -2 gene function arising from the increasing superoxide anions of the mitochondrial respiratory chain has further strengthened the association of mitochondria with the etiology of PD. Other mitochondrial defects are also reported to contribute to neuronal toxicity.

Conclusion

Next, functional genomics has further elaborated the research and refined the existing knowledge of PD. As such gene deletion studies have clearly elucidated the importance of exon deletions in the brain of patients with AR-JP and connected this deletion mutation with the newly identified Parkin gene, PARK 2.

Further, it appears that there is much requirement to dissect the relationship between the pathogenesis of AR-JP and ethnicity due to its much confined familial form.

Park 2 gene has contributed enormously to the understanding of the polymorphic deletions that are considered pathogenic. It played a vital role in understanding nigral degeneration and facilitated further cloning experiments to get deep insights into the molecular biology of AR-JP.

References

Daniel Weintraub, Cynthia, Comella, & Stacy Horn.(2008). Parkinson’s Disease—Part 1: Pathophysiology, Symptoms, Burden, Diagnosis, and Assessment. Am J Manag Care, 14, S40-S48.

Quinn, N., Critchley, P., & Marsden, C.,D. (1987). Young onset Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord,2,73-91.

Takahashi, H., Ohama, E., Suzuki, S., Horikawa, Y., Ishikawa, A., Morita, T., Tsuji, S., Ikuta F(1994).Familial juvenile parkinsonism: clinical and pathologic study in a family. Neurology, 44(3 Pt 1),437-41.

Hiroto Matsumine, Masaaki Saito, Satoe Shimoda-Matsubayashi, Hajime Tanaka,

Atsushi Ishikawa, Yuko Nakagawa-Hattori, Masayuki Yokochi, Tomonori Kobayashi,

Shuichi Igarashi, Hiroki Takano, Kazuhiro Sanpei, Ryoko Koike,Hideo Mori,

Tomoyoshi Kondo, Yoshihiko Mizutani, Alejandro, A., Schaffer, Yasuhiro Yamamura,

Shigenobu Nakamura, Shigeki Kuzuhara, Shoji Tsuji, Yoshikuni Mizuno (1997) “Localization of a gene for an autosomal recessive form of juvenile Parkinsonism to chromosome 6q25.2-27.” Am. J. Hum. Genet, 60, 588-96.

Di Monte, D., A. (1991). Mitochondrial DNA and Parkinson’s disease. Neurology, 41(5 Suppl 2):38-42; discussion 42-3.

Mizuno, Y., Ikebe, S., Hattori, N., Nakagawa-Hattori, Y., Mochizuki, H., Tanaka, M., Ozawa, T.(1995). Role of mitochondria in the etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1271, 265-74.

Saito, M., Matsumine, H., Tanaka, H., Ishikawa, A., Shimoda-Matsubayashi, S., Schäffer, A.A., Mizuno, Y., Tsuji, S.(1998).Refinement of the gene locus for autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism (AR-JP) on chromosome 6q25. 2-27 and identification of markers exhibiting linkage disequilibrium. J Hum Genet, 43, 22-31.

Matsumine, H. (1998). A loss-of-function mechanism of nigral neuron death without Lewy body formation: autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism (AR-JP).J Neurol, 245, (11 Suppl 3):P10-4.

Kitada, T., Asakawa, S., Hattori, N., Matsumine, H., Yamamura, Y., Minoshima, S., Yokochi, M., Mizuno, Y., Shimizu, N.(1998). Mutations in the parkin gene cause autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism. Nature, 392, 605-8.

Mizuno. Y., Hattori, N., Matsumine, H. (1998). Neurochemical and neurogenetic correlates of Parkinson’s disease. Neurochem, 71, 893-902.

11. Hattori, N., Kitada, T., Matsumine, H., Asakawa, S., Yamamura, Y, Yoshino, H., Kobayashi, T.,Yokochi, M., Wang, M., Yoritaka, A., Kondo, T,, Kuzuhara, S, Nakamura, S, Shimizu, N., Mizuno, Y.(1998). Molecular genetic analysis of a novel Parkin gene in Japanese families with autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism: evidence for variable homozygous deletions in the Parkin gene in affected individuals. Ann Neurol, 44, 935-41.

Hattori, N., & Mizuno, Y. (1999). Parkin gene and its function; a key to understand nigral degeneration. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 39, 1259-61.

Djarmati, A., Hedrich, K., Svetel, M., Schäfer, N., Juric, V., Vukosavic, S., Hering, R., Riess, O., Romac, S., Klein, C., Kostic, V.(2004). Detection of Parkin (PARK2) and DJ1 (PARK7) mutations in early-onset Parkinson disease: Parkin mutation frequency depends on ethnic origin of patients. Hum Mutat, 23:525.

Kitada, T., Asakawa, S., Minoshima, S., Mizuno, Y., Shimizu, N.(2000). Molecular cloning, gene expression, and identification of a splicing variant of the mouse parkin gene. Mamm Genome, 11, 417-21.

Matsumine, H., Yamamura, Y., Hattori ,N., Kobayashi, T., Kitada, T., Yoritaka, A., Mizuno, Y. (1998). A microdeletion of D6S305 in a family of autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism (PARK2). Genomics, 49, 143-6.

Introduction

Cloning can be defined as the molding of an organism that has the same genetic settings as another organism. This means that the created organism has the same DNA as the original organism. Naturally, there exist human clones which can be attributed to the fact that they have the same DNA settings and it is important to note that these clones were not made in a laboratory but were born as identical twins. Historically, the first cloning was done on a sheep which is popularly known as Dolly and this was in the year 1997. But the cloning technology had been present for a number of years before the first success was recorded on Dolly the sheep (McLaren 2000).

Main body

There are various ways of creating a cloning and some of the most popular ways include the artificial twining of embryos and transfer of nuclear sells. Artificial embryo twining is the traditional way of cloning and can be said to be the lowest technology in the art of cloning (McLaren 2000). It involves the copying of the natural process which ends up in the creation of natural twins. Naturally, twins are created after an egg is fertilized by a sperm.

In cases which are not normal the eggs which has been fertilized divides itself into an embryo which is two-celled and hence separates and creates two individuals within the mother of the twins. This is how identical twins are created. This is the same way that artificial twining of embryos is done. It is achieved by separating the embryos manually.

The transfer of somatic cells through nuclear uses a different approach than the artificial embryo. However, the results are the same as those of the artificial embryo. This is the approach that was used in creating Dolly the sheep. Somatic cell can be said to be any cell in the body excluding the reproductive cells which are the ova and the sperm. Somatic cells are also called germ cells and this can be rooted to the fact that they only have a single cell which is complete. Mammals have somatic cells which contain two complete sets of chromosomes. Nuclear can be said to be the brain of the cell and it is an enclosed compartment which is in possession of all the information need by an organism. This information is what is referred to as DNA and it has a unique way of being identified (McLaren 2000).

Conclusion

Both approaches result in the creation of an organism. However, there is a distinction between the two approaches and this can be seen in that the two cells that are used by the two approaches originate from different sources. In fertilization the egg and the sperm contains a single set of chromosomes and when they are joined a zygote is produced (McLaren 2000). A zygote hence contains two sets of chromosomes each from the egg and the sperm. In somatic cell nuclear transfer, the cell from the egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from the somatic cell and this has chromosomes which are two complete sets.

Bibliography

McLaren A, 2000, “Cloning: pathways to a pluripotent future”. Science 288 (5472): 1775–80.

Human cloning is one of the most exciting and contradictory concepts of recent times. It raises a vast amount of ethical, scientific, and existential questions for humanity. Among these are the meaning, complexities, and attitudes toward future clones. However, despite all the details of the research, this technology has the potential to affect humanity’s development in a positive way. The main ethical issue is the potential violation of human rights in any cloning attempt and in understanding its consequences’ meaning and significance. Thus, some argue that a cloned human being without an officially confirmed registered parent has no right to be called human. This claim, in turn, violates the rights of the already cloned and is easily refuted by a large number of orphans among human beings. The multitude of the biologically born have no way of knowing their fathers and mothers and have all the rights in human society, and no one can even afford to think about violating them.

Moreover, many people already consume foods from genetically modified varieties and species, or even cloned sources, and do not think twice about it. There is confirmation in the laws of modern countries that clones of edible animals are no different from the original and cannot be distinguished from them even by scientists. Accordingly, many opponents of cloning, not only humans but also of the process in principle, have had cloned foods in their diet for a long time now without being harmed by them and without even thinking about it.

The second possible issue deals with the problem of overpopulation on our planet and emphasizes the overconsumption of natural resources. However, science has not yet come to the actual cloning of human beings, limited by the norms of morality and the rules of states. So it is not worth thinking about such an issue now, or at least it is not a priority. In addition, no one has any right to regulate the amount of people on the planet and to determine who is more worthy of living than others. A third point can be determined by the already sufficient advancement of biology and genetics in the cloning process. Small animals and even a few large ones have been successfully cloned. The point is basically to create an optimal environment for the fetus to grow under artificial conditions, which has already been realized for some animal species. Accordingly, concerns about the safety of the process have little reason to grow.

Based on all of the above, it is possible to identify the main reasons for opposition to the cloning process. These include, in the first place, the violation of human rights without specifying them, as is often done by scandalous social organizations. Then comes the claim that the human personality would be incompletely formed under such conditions, and worries about overpopulation. Virtually all of the proponents’ reasons are poorly reasoned and count only on interaction with poorly educated activists among the masses.

Accordingly, most of the counterarguments in the discussion of the possibility of human cloning have no practical sense or coherence. Apart from the legal restrictions that have been able to limit human cloning to safety concerns and prohibitions on human experimentation, there are no objective contradictions. In the future, humanity will surely overcome stereotypes and take up the issues of cloning research, advancing scientific progress.

In order to maintain a decent standard of living, humankind inevitably needs a sufficient supply of food to nurture the body. With the unprecedented boost of human population in recent times, a lack in nutritious supply is observed, as the results of natural agriculture cannot possibly satisfy the growing needs of people, in particular, of those dwelling in the lower-developed regions of Asia and Africa. Another issue of especial importance to people is the preservation of endangered species of animals and breeding perfect samples of a kind since the achievement of the desired objective in purely biological ways is more a matter of luck and long-term careful selection the result of which may not always meet the naturalists’ expectations. Both issues mentioned have been attracting the attention of biological science for years on end, and nowadays the achievements of genetics have made it possible to solve those problems by means of animal cloning and engineering. A whole era in cloning has passed since the famous sheep Dolly experiment, and animal clones are now an almost normative biological phenomenon. But however optimistic the picture may look, there still exist a number of ethical and practical issues that call into question the necessity and reasonableness of animal cloning.

The excitement caused among the agriculturists by the prospects of animal cloning cannot be overestimated; which farmer would object to owning a herd of superior performing animals, and which breeding company would not like to gain revenue by selling cloned embryos. But there emerged a number of problems connected with cloned animals. For one thing, abnormalities have been reported to develop in cloned animals, who also suffered health problems throughout their life: “Dolly was diagnosed arthritis at a seemingly young age and cloned mice had a shorter than normal life span” (Niekerk 134). For another thing, the practice of cloning leads to loss of genetic diversity in the herds which in its turn results in biological defects of the animals. Those factors question the humanity of the cloning process. The sufferings of animals taking part in the cloning procedure occur in two stages: the first is marked by embryonic and fetal loss, with the overall efficiency being less than five percent — which makes animal cloning a so far high-cost and low-efficiency enterprise that does not cover the expenses it involves; the second concerns health problems in the surviving embryos that experience such almost obviously attributable to cloning procedure diseases as obesity, hypertension, osteoporosis, and anemia (Levine 80, 83).

In addition to a certain degree of suffering experienced by cloned animals, there exists a danger both for transgenic animals and for people consuming genetically modified products. Biological products can leak into the blood of transgenic animals that are producing them, and some of such products constitute a danger to the normal bodily functions of the animal. Dangerous implications of cloned animals for human beings are seen in transgenic fish escaping into nature and cross-breeding or competing with the population, possibly introducing a protein that is potentially toxic or allergic to humans. (Niekerk 129–132)

Contributing to the issue of ethical appropriateness of cloning is the case of pets cloning. Many people develop such an attachment to their domestic favorites that upon their decease cannot put up with the loss; a clone of the pet would seem to be a perfect substitute and solution for the situation. But there emerges an issue of the cloned animal perishing too soon due to its cloned nature, or it’s not inheriting some of the desired qualities of its predecessor due to mistakes in reading the DNA code. All of that would leave the owner dissatisfied and distressed. In the case of cloning endangered species for preservation, however, good intentions may be driving the scientists, but the basic problem of the environment due to which animals become instinct remains unsolved thus nullifying the cloning efforts. Besides, obtaining genetic material can endanger the remaining representatives of the species.

On the whole, with all the current success of the cloning industry, it still remains a disputable terrain that needs careful ethical consideration in order to avoid dramatic consequences for humankind and the planet.

References

Levine, Aaron D. Cloning. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2009.

Niekerk, Alvin van, ed. Ethics in Agriculture — an African Perspective. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2005.

Human cloning is the use of technology to reproduce an identical newborn like that of a human being. Human cloning has been at the center of controversy for the past few years mainly because people have defined it in the wrong context. Many people have remained negative towards the adoption of the concept of human cloning.

Benefits to Be Realized From Human Cloning

There are a number of ways in which the human cloning is beneficial to mankind the examples include:

• Better Understanding of Genetic Diseases. The technology used in cloning can be useful while carrying out tests in genetics. This can lead to cure of some of the incurable diseases. Diseases such as leukemia could be curable this is through the production of embryos from which organs could be grown for transplant. (Wilmut&Highfield, 2006)
• The Infants Health. Scientists can alter the genetic makeup of an infant in case he/she has been diagnosed with a disease such as downs syndrome. This will be done by balancing the chromosomes in the embryo to give the parents a perfectly normal child.
• Resolving Heart Problems. Healthy heart cells can be cloned and administered to a patient suffering from a heart problem through injection in places where the heart is damaged after suffering from a heart attack.
• Infertility. With the option of cloning, couples who are deemed to be infertile could have children. This would save them a lot of time, money and the enduring emotional torture that is accompanied by the fact that they cannot be able have children.
• Other Incurable Diseases. Diseases such as cancer and spinal chord injuries could become a thing of the past if scientists are allowed to use cloning for their tests. Body organs such as the liver and kidney could be cloned in order to replace them in case they fail.
• Reconstructive, Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery. With the coming of the human cloning it would be possible to construct bones, cartilages and even fat practically. Anyone who wishes to undergo any form of surgery should be able to find his/her exact tissue makeup as opposed to being inserted with foreign objects inside their bodies.

According to (Kass &Wilson, 1998) they stated that no matter how much the government tries to place restrictions on scientific research concerning human cloning, they will be engaging in a process of futility since the scientists will move to other countries whereby they will continue with the research. This goes out to show that instead of fighting a losing battle, it is important to look at the bigger picture and support the legislation on the implementation of the human cloning.

Another argument will be that the overall benefits to be realized from this exercise are tremendous. Scientists will be able to make so many breakthroughs to find cures for the supposedly incurable diseases. (Young, 2000).

The course of action recommended is for the people to overcome their fears and have an open mind towards human cloning. The scientists ought to be given the powers to work without being regulated by anybody in the course of their research. (Price, 1998)

Likely question one would be asked includes:

• How is a clone produced?

This involves the duplication of DNA sequences. A good example in a human case will involve the duplication copy of an existing person.

• What are the benefits of cloning?

There are so many benefits that can be realized through cloning mainly on the research on incurable diseases.

• What are your thoughts when human cloning is used to help infertile couples?

This is a noble idea because to my understanding no parent should be denied the right to have a child.

• Is human reproductive cloning against the law?

Most of the laws which are in place are not clear more so in distinguishing between reproductive cloning from research cloning. Some states have not yet placed any legislation controlling the legislation.

• Would access to reproductive planning constitute reproductive rights?

Yes. This is evident in the essence that parents who do not have children have a chance to have children.

References

Kass, l. T., & Wilson, Q.J.(1998).The Ethics of Human Cloning. New York: Aei Press. Print.

Price,C.E.(1988).Does The F.D.A Have Authority To Regulate Human Cloning?. Havard Journal of Law and Technology, 11, 1255-1353. Print.

Wilmut, I&Highfield, R. (2006).After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human. New York: W.W Norton Press. Print.

Young, E. F. (2000).Science Magazine: A Time for Restraint, 15(30), 1325-1450.Print.

The aim of the experiment

The aim of this experiment is to amplify a segment of DNA containing the GFP gene.

The plasmid vector pTTQ18 and the GFP PCR product will be digested with restriction enzymes and the desired DNA fragments obtained thereof will be purified by Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and ligated with DNA ligase resulting in a recombinant DNA molecule. The transformation of the recombinant DNA molecule will be done in E. coli bacteria. Upon transformation of the pTTQ18-GFP recombinant DNA, DNA sequencing will be used to confirm the correct insertion of the GFP gene in the pTTQ18 vector.

Material and methods

• pTTQ18 vector
• GFP gene
• Test tubes
• EcoR1
• Pst1
• DNA
• 1% Agarose
• Loading Buffer
• GelRed dye
• Test tube rack
• E. coli bacteria
• Petri dishes

Procedure

1. Restriction digests of the plasmid vector pTTQ18 and GFP product were set up in two separate test tubes with EcoR1 and Pst1 by adding 2ml buffer (10X), 1ml EcoR1, 1ml Pst1 and 16ml of DNA. These samples were then incubated in an oven at 370°C for 1 hour.
2. Thereafter, 4ml of loading buffer (6X) was added to each of the samples of which 20µl volume was used. The role of the buffer was to stabilize the pH and to make it constant.
3. The samples were then loaded into a gel containing 1% Agarose and a small amount of GelRed dye, a non-toxic substitute for ethidium bromide. This was to enable visualization in the UV light. The gel was run for 30 minutes at 100V.
4. Ligation of the GFP product and the plasmid vector pTTQ18 that were earlier prepared was made by mixing 1 ml ligase, 2ml ligation buffer (10X), 2ml of the vector DNA (pTTQ18), 6ml GFP PCR product and 9ml of water in a new clean tube. The tube was then placed in a wooden rack provided and incubated overnight at 15°C.
5. From the ligation mix, 5 ml was taken and added to 50µl of JM101 E. coli strain of bacteria. The sample was mixed thoroughly and set on ice for 30minutes. Thereafter, the cells were subjected to heat shock at 42°C for 1 minute and later incubated on ice for 30 minutes.
6. This was followed by the addition of 950µl L-buffer and a further incubation of 45 minutes at 37°C.
7. The next step involved plating 100µl of the sample onto L-agar-ampicillin and incubating at 37°Covernight.
8. The plate was later checked for any growth of green and white colonies of E. coli bacteria and these were counted and recorded down.
9. Finally, a chromatogram of the DNA sequences was obtained and analyzed.

Discussion

The Sanger dideoxy sequencing method (Chain-terminator) method of DNA sequencing is more efficient and it uses fewer toxic chemicals and lower amounts of radioactive compounds than the method of Maxam –Gilbert method. In this line, it rapidly became the method of choice widely used in many labs, and in this experiment too. The main principle of the Sanger method is the use of dideoxynucleotides phosphates (ddNTPs) as DNA chain terminators. Provided was a DNA sequence showing two sequences. The first sequence had colored peaks and was observed by the radio-labeled dideoxynucleotides along with the forward primer GFP_F with 616 nucleotide bases. The second sequence used the reverse primer GFP_R shown to have 616 nucleotide bases. The two sequences from the forward primer GFP and the reverse primer GFP had the same length of the nucleotides because they were observed from the same gene.

The authors provide that technology has many positive and adverse impacts on human health and from a religious perspective, human cloning has a negative impact. Cloning has numerous advantages and disadvantages which makes it prohibited for religious scholars.

For therapeutic purposes, Iran was amongst the first countries to conduct reproduction technology basing the process on Muslim values. Examined by religious beliefs, human cloning raises ethical concerns based on biblical values. Furthermore, scientists affirm the presence of a high risk of survival of the clones. Indeed, most embryos barely make it to the birth stage hence religion considers the exercise as the killing of innocent souls. This source is useful because it provides some reasons why religious groups find human cloning unethical and illegal. The article is also reliable because it provides recent findings on the topic.

The text covers the principle of taking lives from the biblical worldview known as murder. The biblical teaching of the Ten Commandments prohibits humans from killing. Therefore, when scientists take embryos for cloning and they die before the birth stage, it is considered taking lives. Christians and other believers know it is wrong to end human lives. Religious scholars are faced with the dilemma to practice their beliefs and continue working as scientists.

From my perspective, cloning helps infertile couples but since the harm involved if it does not succeed and biblical teachings about reproduction, I consider it wrong. The cloning of embryos exposes little humans to the danger of death. As the research shows, there is a high probability of death for embryos before birth age. Thus, cloning entails killing humans and that is against the biblical teachings.

The article evaluates the position of religions in the world of technological reproduction. Human cloning is an innovative reproductive process and has been helpful to infertile couples and LGBTQ+. However, it has attracted the attention of many experts including religious scholars. After assessing three religions including Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism, the study found that Muslims do not address the issue directly.

Christianity and Judaism insist on the traditional reproductive process which involves the participation of females and males in conception. Therefore, the Semitic religions profoundly reject the procedure of human cloning. Religious experts need to conduct more research on the topic before making any comments. This source is useful because it sheds light on the opinions of the three religions regarding technological procedures. Furthermore, it provides a perspective of religious experts in the health field. Although human cloning practice helps some people, the Semitic religions prefer the natural way of reproduction.

The principle of natural reproduction as commanded in the bible arises. The biblical teaching demands the participation of males and females in conception. It is the only way God showed the believers hence they have no other practice to believe. Both Judaism and Christianity trust the reproductive method provided by God. Therefore, from a religious perspective, human cloning is acting against the orders of God as provided by the bible.

My view is that as a believer, it is only right to stick to the biblical teachings. God through the Scripture does not advise on any other way of reproduction but the sexual intimacy way, hence I should not follow any other way. Furthermore, God advised the man to marry a woman and reproduce through the act of sexual intimacy. It is for the same reason that Christians should follow the scripture and act accordingly.

The authors provide that human cloning helps infertile couples and organ transplant needs. The practice of cloning humans is not wrong, but the intentions behind it can be different. In therapeutic cloning, human organs are transplanted from one person to another. The procedure intends to help another person but morally, helping a person should not be at the cost of another person. In the process of transplanting, an organ is created while another is killed. Therefore, from a moral evaluation, the intentions of cloning are bad. The authors provide that human cloning might end up replacing the natural way of reproduction.

Thus, cloning would pose a threat to human dignity, influence abuse, and could lead to the commodification of people. This source helps reveal the consequences of human cloning as well as the potential threats involved. From a religious view, the source gives more reasons to reject the practice in protest of human dignity. Human cloning is a threat to morally wrong because it poses a threat to human life.

The article raises the principle of protecting the threatened human dignity. The Bible seeks to protect the lives of humans and allows no one but God to interfere with them. It is for the same reason the Scripture provides that humans should not kill one another. Therefore, to protect human dignity and existence, believers must refuse cloning technology. Christians have distanced themselves from the act of ending lives.

My opinion is to keep off cloning to protect the respect of humankind. Human dignity even without considering religion should be protected at a social level. It is morally right to respect the way of existence of humans. Using technology to create children is showing that we are not proud of the natural procreation way. Humans should be proud of their sources and traditional ways of doing things, including giving birth.

The author provides that the church does not decline cloning for research as long as the used stem cells are not from humans. The act of using human embryos for scientific research is considered a sin in a church setting. The church opposes the use of embryos for stem cells because it involves killing them. Furthermore, the church revokes the act of reproductive cloning because it is not according to the will of God. Believers attest that couples should practice the act of patience by waiting upon the Lord. Thus, when they look for alternative ways of creating children, the couples show a lack of faith in God. The source is useful in proving more reasons why Christians should be against human cloning. It provides proof that reproductive cloning is an act of lack of faith. Believers should show faith by the willingness of waiting upon God, the sole creator. Therefore, human cloning is wrong because it destroys human life and shows a lack of faith.

The source raises the principle of having faith in God as required of Christians. Church believers know that God requires them to have faith in his intentions and actions. Furthermore, lack of faith shows distrust in God and it is such actions as reproductive cloning that prove so. Scientists should find other legible sources of stem cells other than using human organs. The church discourages reproductive cloning to protect religious scholars from sinning murder.

My opinion is that scientists should consider other sources of stem cells but embryos. I want to believe that other sources of stem cells could be used instead of killing an already breathing fetus. Believers on the other end should wait upon the Lord and have natural reproduction. The act of waiting for God to bless couples with children is a test of faith. Church believers cannot claim to have faith if they cannot wait on God’s timing. Therefore, the church should continue discouraging reproductive cloning and encourage couples to wait for the lord’s blessings.

Scientists through the use of stem cells find a cure for various human diseases. The stem cells are obtained from human embryos which require cloning for reproduction. When they are cloned, the embryos are destroyed for use in creating treatments for diseases. Therefore, therapeutic cloning is manipulative because it creates a life with intentions of later destruction. When reproduction is done, humans undermine the power and purpose of God to give children.

The Christian Institute (n.d) provides that God has reasons for giving couples children at specific times or not at all. Hence, when a man creates a child through cloning, it is proving superior to our creator. This source is useful because it tells the kind of religious sin people commits by undermining the creator of human life. Thus, human cloning is wrong because it is the act of life destruction and undermining of God’s power and level of reasoning.

The principle of God as the sole creator of human life is raised in the article. Human life should only exist because it is provided by God. In the beginning, God created a man and ordered him to go and reproduce with a woman. He has reasons for giving certain couples children and denying others the same. The embryos are used as a source of treatment when used in therapeutic cloning.

My perception is that as a believer, scientists undermine the will of God by cloning. When humans clone embryos for babies, they are assuming the role of Creator. Taking the role of God, the creator of humans is blasphemy. Furthermore, scientists could find other sources of making treatments for diseases. Believers must understand their boundaries when it comes to doing the work of God. Hence, religious scholars should only be cloning, whereby they do not hurt other humans.