Cons Of Cloning Research Paper

Cloning
The Pros and The Cons

Today, one of the largest debates in the scientific world is on the topic of cloning, genetic cloning, that is. As beneficial to our world as this may be, everything has its drawbacks. There are two types of cloning, reproductive and therapeutic. Reproductive cloning consists of reproducing a whole organism through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process works by taking the nucleus out of a donor egg and inserting a nucleus from a cell that has been obtained from the organism that is supposed to be cloned. This newly created cell begins to divide, using electrical impulses. It is then placed inside the body of the host organism and eventually divides enough to create a clone of the donor
organism. However, therapeutic cloning entails different processes and outcomes. It involves the manipulation of the human embryo and the application of cloning technology, its benefits involved with bodily repair. Therapeutic cloning utilizes somatic cell nuclear transfer as well, but in this case, the nucleus from a somatic cell is fused with an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The applications of nuclear transfer technology concerned do not lead to the creation of an entire human. Instead, the cloning of embryos is done in order to produce identical cell lines, the removal of which destroys the embryo. The passage of an electric current across each cell should allow development as a specified somatic or body cell. But each of these types of cloning has their own pros and cons; it only has to be decided if the pros outweigh the cons, or if it is the other way around. The cloning ethics debate will likely be a very long-lived one, for it can do so many good things for society, as well as vice versa. Many would argue that therapeutic cloning entails more pros than reproductive. To begin with, the creation and destruction of ‘spare’ embryos for cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment has already been accepted. IVF facilitates the creations of human life, while stem cell treatments will allow the saving of human life that already exists. The infertile will still survive. The controlling of creation, storage and destruction of embryos will not be a problem. Although we cannot condone the ‘wastage’ of human embryos, the loss of a human embryo is not the loss of human life, for the embryo is not recognized as having any rights at law until the fourteenth day after creation. We cannot consider an embryo to be an ‘individual’ that lives or dies, when it could naturally develop into twins or become nothing at all.
In addition, it is possible that a greater understanding of human cells will increase the utility of adult cells in the future. Finally, therapeutic cloning would allow new tissues and perhaps even new organs to grow in a natural way. These new organs and tissues would be able to “serve as backup systems for human beings.” If and when organs such as the heart, kidney or lungs fail, cloning would allow those very same organs to grow with identical DNA: “They might be able to understand the composition of genes and the effects of genetic constituents on human traits in a better manner. They will be able to alter genetic constituents in cloned human beings, thus simplifying their analysis of genes. Cloning may also help us combat a wide range of genetic diseases.” But reproductive cloning has its benefits too! A whole new realm of biological science would be opened up, allowing scientists to help people like never before! Infertile couples would be able to have biologically related children, and reproduction could happen regardless of the circumstances, meaning that same-sex couples along with single parents would be able to have children of their own! Reproductive freedom and choice would
be greatly expanded, and positive characteristics would be more readily passed on from generation to generation. In addition, parents would be able to produce ideal transplant donors who would be able to help out an ill-existing family member! Unfortunately, cloning does have its negatives as well. Firstly, there is no moral guidance provided by merely hoping for a good final result. However much sympathy is felt for sufferers of terminal diseased, the use of human embryos cannot be tolerated as the means to the end of them. Stem cell research would cause lives to be created and then destroyed, in order to save another life. When life must always be destroyed, there is no overall good consequence. Although the loss of embryos in IVF may be ground for condemning the treatment, it is not necessarily a reason for allowing another procedure that will sacrifice much more potential life. Also, the value of scientists regulating other scientists is highly questionable. The HFEA is a body composed of experts in the field of embryology and is accountable to Parliament only by means of annual reports. This gives great opportunity for research projects to destroy thousands of embryos with little monitoring and with even less scientific gain. Although the embryo isn’t technically a person, many think that the embryonic human should have the same moral status as the fetus, the child or the adult, and just that the embryo looks different from the fetus, the child and the adult is not enough to prove that the embryo is not a human being. They believe that the status of a human being does not depend on whether he is physically familiar or attractive. In addition, utilizing embryo stem cells is not necessary.
Research has continued for many years into the use of adult stem cells and found that they are replaceable and could be used for the purposes of treatment and research without the destruction of embryos. In terms of reproductive cloning, it has never been proven that it is safe enough to try on the human race. Multiple studies involving mammals, such as rats, have found damage to both the cloned child and the surrogate mother. “In animal experiments to date, only approximately 5 percent of attempts to clone have resulted in live births, and a substantial portion of those live-born clones have suffered complications that proved fatal fairly quickly.” Some of the medium-term consequences, including premature aging, immune system failures and sudden unexplained deaths, have already been demonstrated in cloned mammals. The cloned child and surrogate mother are subject to health complications for the rest of their lives, including that the surrogate mother’s ability to reproduce in the future may be inhibited. Also, in the medical field, the patient’s consent is required for most procedures, however it is impossible to obtain
consent from a human clone itself. There is no one to speak on the cloned human’s behalf and agree to the great risks and dangers associated with the cloning process and the life effects with which the clone has to live. There is not even a way to acquire approval of the cell donor for therapeutic cloning, because no one is able to say how far scientists can or cannot go in terms of cell development and how close they are to actually creating new organisms. In addition, it is feared that “the line between therapy and enhancement” will be crossed. People do not want doctors and scientists to be altering the human population in order to create an “ideal human being.” This ideal being would not allow genetic variety and natural selection to take place, and it is formidable to many that scientists will disregard these very principles and instead create man-made humans. Furthermore, the unique people of today fear that scientists will go beyond the natural realm of science and push barriers set up by nature. “Each of us has a unique, never-before-enacted life to live with a unique trajectory from birth to death.” By cloning a human, the cloned being is automatically denied individuality and uniqueness. Their ability to be whomever they want is taken away. Their life has been enacted before, and there are expectations set, expectations to be met. Without being able to give input on what it wants to do, the cloned being already has a set future for itself. But how do these pros and cons balance out? This is what brings about the ongoing debate, all these reasons and more. But the real root of the question is if the benefits outweigh the risks. Personally, I am for cloning, but only to a certain extent. Reproductive cloning is wrong, in my opinion, because I do think that scientists will take it too far and begin to create “designer” babies. These children would not have the same opportunities, individuality and flaws, which truly are what make every child perfect. In terms of therapeutic cloning, I think it can be beneficial to our society, even taking into consideration the wastage of embryos. The saving of lives is worth a few embryos lost here and there, at least that’s what I think. Overall, cloning can be useful, but we just have to use this amazing new knowledge correctly.