Reproductive Cloning
Under what conditions (if any), should human reproductive cloning be permitted?
Kubiak, J.Z. and Johnson, M.H. (2001). Human Infertility, Reproductive Cloning and Nuclear Transfer: a Confusion of Meanings. Bioessays, 23(4), 359-64.
This article argues that confusions in the semantic meanings of human reproductive cloning may hinder future scientific progressions to discover an ethically viable solution to infertility treatments. Kubiak and Johnson postulates that the term “nuclear transfer” is different from “reproductive cloning” as the former method can generate a person who is not necessarily a “genetic clone”, but a genetic amalgamation of both parents. However, society interprets these two terms as synonyms. The Chief Medical Officer of Health in the United Kingdom recommended “The transfer of an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement into the uterus of a woman should remain a criminal offence”. The authors accept that nuclear transfer is not without its technical flaws, it is however unreasonable to place ethical and legal restraints on its future research because of its seemingly semantic synonymy with reproductive cloning. Furthermore, as UK holds considerable legal influence in the world, such legislation may see an international ban on a potentially beneficial and uncontroversial treatment for infertility.
The article is relevant to the current question and suggests that reproductive cloning may be condoned because ‘clones’ are not always the exact genetic replica of one person, and such method may also be a potential treatment for infertility. The arguments are persuasive as it provides a new insight into the definition of cloning, and holds validity since the former(biased) notion of reproductive cloning are cited in many articles. However, humans are still procreated under artificial means by this method regardless of their collective DNA structure, hence those produced nonetheless lack the link to the naturalness of their origins. The
Kubiak, J.Z. and Johnson, M.H. (2001). Human Infertility, Reproductive Cloning and Nuclear Transfer: a Confusion of Meanings. Bioessays, 23(4), 359-64.
This article argues that confusions in the semantic meanings of human reproductive cloning may hinder future scientific progressions to discover an ethically viable solution to infertility treatments. Kubiak and Johnson postulates that the term “nuclear transfer” is different from “reproductive cloning” as the former method can generate a person who is not necessarily a “genetic clone”, but a genetic amalgamation of both parents. However, society interprets these two terms as synonyms. The Chief Medical Officer of Health in the United Kingdom recommended “The transfer of an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement into the uterus of a woman should remain a criminal offence”. The authors accept that nuclear transfer is not without its technical flaws, it is however unreasonable to place ethical and legal restraints on its future research because of its seemingly semantic synonymy with reproductive cloning. Furthermore, as UK holds considerable legal influence in the world, such legislation may see an international ban on a potentially beneficial and uncontroversial treatment for infertility.
The article is relevant to the current question and suggests that reproductive cloning may be condoned because ‘clones’ are not always the exact genetic replica of one person, and such method may also be a potential treatment for infertility. The arguments are persuasive as it provides a new insight into the definition of cloning, and holds validity since the former(biased) notion of reproductive cloning are cited in many articles. However, humans are still procreated under artificial means by this method regardless of their collective DNA structure, hence those produced nonetheless lack the link to the naturalness of their origins. The