The Pros And Cons Of Reproductive Human Cloning
Antinori also argues that the clone will not be a 100% exact copy of the father, and thus the uniqueness is still somewhat conserved. As the egg used to create the clone is from the mother, some of the DNA of the clone will be from the mother. This is because the mitochondria organelles comes from the egg cell when an embryo is forming. This cloned embryo will receive some of the DNA from the mitochondria from the mother’s egg cell. Though this may be true, a question of identity is raised; if the clone has a man’s DNA, and the mitochondrial DNA from the mother, and then possibly was born from the womb of a surrogate mother, whose offspring is the clone really? The claim that the clone will not be a 100% copy of the DNA donor is questionable, as Dr Paul Atkinson, general manager of science from AgResearch 2002, states “These minor differences are "epigenetic", meaning they will not be passed on to the clones' offspring.”[18], that is assuming if clones can produce offspring. As Antinori’s medical claims and
…show more content…
practices have been questioned by before in the past by mainstream scientists and doctors[23][24](such as the recent accusations of Antinori stealing the eggs of a women in Rome[25]), I have little confidence in taking Antinori’s facts as honest and reliable.
One of the many NZ organisations against human cloning is a non-profit organisation called GE Free New Zealand (in food and environment). GE Free NZ has been tackling and calling on the NZ government to permanently ban human reproductive cloning within NZ borders. Their 2002 spokesperson for Transhuman Eugenics, Tremane Barr argues it is a major health risk to the cloned babies, "From a health perspective human cloning represents a threat to the health of the cloned babies themselves. We know from animal cloning that on average 99% of pregnancies end in failure; with a high percentage of the 1% that do survive to term dying due to health problems soon after birth.”[10] and that human cloning can destabilize the moral and ethical grounds on which society stands, “However, it is the long term risks to human dignity and equality and the threats these pose to the social stability of our society from human cloning that are our primary reason for calling on the government to permanently ban human reproductive cloning here in New Zealand”[10]. From analysing the biological concepts and article reports mentioned in this report, Barr’s statements on health risks are not far from the truth. His quote that human cloning conflicts with the morals and ethics our society stands on, is tricky as society’s view on right and wrongs are constantly changing with new generations, although as far as today’s society is, cloning would definitely be against most of society’s morals and ethics, until our views on identity, dignity, value, equality, etc are either erased or changed.
Barr has also written an article on the GE Free NZ website, where he points out the similar ideas and purposes Human cloning and Nazi Germany has, on the effort to try and ‘purify’ the human race from those that are ‘inferior’ due to disorders or diseases[11]. Barr’s article which examines the NZ government’s amends proposal to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill (HART Bill), analyses the implications human cloning could have on NZ and the world, “At present the NZ public have no idea that this is the direction the government is leading not just New Zealanders, but the whole human race.” He expresses his concerns that the new HART bill could likely lead the world towards Hitler’s ideal world, as it allows the opportunity for researchers to develop the technology and ideas that will allow the eugenic genetic ‘purification’ of NZers, as well as the rest of the world. Although Hitler's’ methods to do so were more extreme and blatantly evil than what germline genetic engineering, than what SCNT proposes to do, both methods ignores and goes against the Disabled People International 2002 declaration; where about 600 million people worldwide are affected, and declares the right to be different, and defends the view that the concept of a ‘person’ is not linked to certain set abilities. This view seems a little bit paranoid, but can be reasonable as history has the tendency to repeat itself, despite our efforts, in new forms and disguises; for example, war over land is still an event that occurs even now in countries, leaders running their country to bankruptcy, people being killed based on the view that they are inferior (i.e racism, slavery, religious view, sex preference etc). The idea of human cloning paralleling Nazi Germany is not a very big step to take, and the possibility that any type of gene manipulation practices having an ulterior motive (to rid of any possible diseased, mutated, or to achieve the ‘perfect’ child) should be taken seriously and considered when debating whether human cloning should be banned.
After analysing the research and the opposing views, I believe the cons of reproductive human cloning outweigh the pros, and thus should stay banned within NZ.
The ethical issues that are raised from to this issue have not been successfully debated about, and is still in the grey, and thus human cloning could produce more problems than solutions among between the opposing members of NZers. Ethical issues such as ‘are clones entitled to human rights’, what is the clones’ identity crisis, is the clone an individual or an extension of the copied human, etc raises far too many sub-branching questions, most of which cannot be answered without making implications on other controversial issues, such as abortion, contraceptives, murder, etc. For the sake of our current social stability, reproductive clones should not be introduced into our world, which threatens the moral values, dignity and pride that our laws, society, and as individual humans, stand firmly
on.
The biological processes involved in performing SCNT has also been so far with very little success in non-human animals, and is still dangerous to be performed on humans. I do not believe the science and medical procedures behind it are reliable or safe enough to consider trying on humans, as the results so far have been a 97%-99% failure on any cloned organism. Although SCNT may be possible and backed up with the biological facts and concepts, the fact remains that so far, not enough tests have succeeded to be considered as an actual scientific reality. As science is the process of discovering facts through repeated successful experiments, human cloning fails in this respect to meet these science standards, and should not, for now, be considered as a part of the modern medical practice, at least until more of the biology behind DNA and replication is understood and discovered, that will contribute towards improving the procedures of reproductive cloning, and has shown improved test results on other organisms. Not only has cloning in general has been a failure so far, but it has yet to create a healthy, fully functional, ‘normal’ organism as well. As mentioned before in the biological implications section, the clones that do end up surviving have to be fed with drugs, sometimes be supported by machines, and are in some way still deformed and have shorter life-spans than their non cloned peers. With the fact there is very little success in cloned animals, cloning humans would be an ill-made decision.
At the moment, the only sound reason people seem to want to legalise human reproductive cloning, is to help infertile people conceive an offspring with his/her own genetic material (i.e pass on their alleles). Using human cloning as an answer to infertile individuals, I believe it is not the best option or answer for the situation. Biologically, in terms of evolution, an infertile-born organism should naturally not be able to reproduce and pass on alleles to the next generation, as the DNA that codes for infertility would only cause the clone to be infertile him/herself. This is to guarantee that the only the most beneficial alleles are passed on to aid the survival of the species, and eventually, evolve. Also, since there is no guarantee that human clones are able to produce offspring of their own, the genetic material of the clone’s donor would only cease and end at the next generation, unless the clone gets cloned who gets cloned; creating a system where a line of descendants are reliant on SCNT cloning to be kept within the human race. This way of ‘the survival of genes’ is not very efficient or practical within the natural world. Although humans have already slowed the evolution process of the human race dramatically (by using contraception, drugs, medicines etc) I do not believe we should be trying to encourage our society to stray even further from the laws of nature (evolution, natural selection etc), as this could result in drastic results, such as extinction, as our world’s ecosystem is changing quicker than evolution can maintain, due to the increased pollution, greenhouse gases, and the destruction of the natural environment. Also, as SCNT cloning creates a biological identical organism (almost like a bacteria), this can cause problems in terms of natural selection. As natural selection is the environmental pressures acting on different phenotypes, having a diverse range of combinations of alleles (and thus phenotypes) is essential to increase the chances of surviving. The unique DNA of the fertilized egg that was used to carry and develop clone embryo, has been discarded, and thus the opportunity of a unique human being to be born and increase the survival rate of the human race, has been wasted and destroyed by another person’s greed and selfishness.
Infertile couples who are wishing to start a family, have many other options to do so which has been proven to be more safer, raises less moral dilemmas, has been more successful in the past, and is more guaranteed to produce a healthy, more independant offspring to raise; for example IVF, adoption, fertility drugs, ISCI, and surrogacy. As the main reason people are promoting reproductive cloning is to solve the increasing infertility rate of the world, I would propose to start a petition directed to the NZ Ministry of Health to increase the number of NZ registered Fertility clinics. So far only 8 clinics can be found based on their website[22], all of which are only available in the main regions of NZ; Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. This creates more difficulty for those living in more remote and isolated areas to seek fertility treatments, increasing the cost for travel and accommodation, and thus might discourage more NZers from seeking treatment. The petition would be to call on the Ministry of Health to create and make more IVF clinics available to NZers, so that the patients don’t have a long waiting list, and have easier access to these options, which can encourage NZers to consider IVF treatments as a safer, less expensive, and more practical (close to home) solution, than trying to encourage more different and dangerous ways to reproduce such as the SCNT cloning. The effectiveness of a petition is dependant on how many people are willing to sign it. The more people there is to show support for it, the more likely it is for the Ministry of Health to listen. To do this, people would have to be convinced that more IVF clinics are needed within NZ. This would be done by providing a pamphlet or presentation briefly providing information to the public on the decreasing fertility rates in NZ and the social implications this poses to the our society (extinction), encouraging them to take a stand against limited fertility access for our people. By providing information to the NZ public in streets, schools, and outside popular buildings, this would increase the number of people to become aware of the infertility problem in our society, and by informing them of the threats reproductive cloning has as an answer to the problem, would encourage more people to take action against the infertile problem, and sign the petition. This petition would be then mailed to the NZ Ministry of Health along with a letter outlining the reasons for the petition and the concerns about the future generations’ safety and opportunity to excel in their lives without having to worry about making sure to start a family early; which could provide the country benefits economically and reputationally, by providing more opportunities for people to succeed in life.
practices have been questioned by before in the past by mainstream scientists and doctors[23][24](such as the recent accusations of Antinori stealing the eggs of a women in Rome[25]), I have little confidence in taking Antinori’s facts as honest and reliable.
One of the many NZ organisations against human cloning is a non-profit organisation called GE Free New Zealand (in food and environment). GE Free NZ has been tackling and calling on the NZ government to permanently ban human reproductive cloning within NZ borders. Their 2002 spokesperson for Transhuman Eugenics, Tremane Barr argues it is a major health risk to the cloned babies, "From a health perspective human cloning represents a threat to the health of the cloned babies themselves. We know from animal cloning that on average 99% of pregnancies end in failure; with a high percentage of the 1% that do survive to term dying due to health problems soon after birth.”[10] and that human cloning can destabilize the moral and ethical grounds on which society stands, “However, it is the long term risks to human dignity and equality and the threats these pose to the social stability of our society from human cloning that are our primary reason for calling on the government to permanently ban human reproductive cloning here in New Zealand”[10]. From analysing the biological concepts and article reports mentioned in this report, Barr’s statements on health risks are not far from the truth. His quote that human cloning conflicts with the morals and ethics our society stands on, is tricky as society’s view on right and wrongs are constantly changing with new generations, although as far as today’s society is, cloning would definitely be against most of society’s morals and ethics, until our views on identity, dignity, value, equality, etc are either erased or changed.
Barr has also written an article on the GE Free NZ website, where he points out the similar ideas and purposes Human cloning and Nazi Germany has, on the effort to try and ‘purify’ the human race from those that are ‘inferior’ due to disorders or diseases[11]. Barr’s article which examines the NZ government’s amends proposal to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill (HART Bill), analyses the implications human cloning could have on NZ and the world, “At present the NZ public have no idea that this is the direction the government is leading not just New Zealanders, but the whole human race.” He expresses his concerns that the new HART bill could likely lead the world towards Hitler’s ideal world, as it allows the opportunity for researchers to develop the technology and ideas that will allow the eugenic genetic ‘purification’ of NZers, as well as the rest of the world. Although Hitler's’ methods to do so were more extreme and blatantly evil than what germline genetic engineering, than what SCNT proposes to do, both methods ignores and goes against the Disabled People International 2002 declaration; where about 600 million people worldwide are affected, and declares the right to be different, and defends the view that the concept of a ‘person’ is not linked to certain set abilities. This view seems a little bit paranoid, but can be reasonable as history has the tendency to repeat itself, despite our efforts, in new forms and disguises; for example, war over land is still an event that occurs even now in countries, leaders running their country to bankruptcy, people being killed based on the view that they are inferior (i.e racism, slavery, religious view, sex preference etc). The idea of human cloning paralleling Nazi Germany is not a very big step to take, and the possibility that any type of gene manipulation practices having an ulterior motive (to rid of any possible diseased, mutated, or to achieve the ‘perfect’ child) should be taken seriously and considered when debating whether human cloning should be banned.
After analysing the research and the opposing views, I believe the cons of reproductive human cloning outweigh the pros, and thus should stay banned within NZ.
The ethical issues that are raised from to this issue have not been successfully debated about, and is still in the grey, and thus human cloning could produce more problems than solutions among between the opposing members of NZers. Ethical issues such as ‘are clones entitled to human rights’, what is the clones’ identity crisis, is the clone an individual or an extension of the copied human, etc raises far too many sub-branching questions, most of which cannot be answered without making implications on other controversial issues, such as abortion, contraceptives, murder, etc. For the sake of our current social stability, reproductive clones should not be introduced into our world, which threatens the moral values, dignity and pride that our laws, society, and as individual humans, stand firmly
on.
The biological processes involved in performing SCNT has also been so far with very little success in non-human animals, and is still dangerous to be performed on humans. I do not believe the science and medical procedures behind it are reliable or safe enough to consider trying on humans, as the results so far have been a 97%-99% failure on any cloned organism. Although SCNT may be possible and backed up with the biological facts and concepts, the fact remains that so far, not enough tests have succeeded to be considered as an actual scientific reality. As science is the process of discovering facts through repeated successful experiments, human cloning fails in this respect to meet these science standards, and should not, for now, be considered as a part of the modern medical practice, at least until more of the biology behind DNA and replication is understood and discovered, that will contribute towards improving the procedures of reproductive cloning, and has shown improved test results on other organisms. Not only has cloning in general has been a failure so far, but it has yet to create a healthy, fully functional, ‘normal’ organism as well. As mentioned before in the biological implications section, the clones that do end up surviving have to be fed with drugs, sometimes be supported by machines, and are in some way still deformed and have shorter life-spans than their non cloned peers. With the fact there is very little success in cloned animals, cloning humans would be an ill-made decision.
At the moment, the only sound reason people seem to want to legalise human reproductive cloning, is to help infertile people conceive an offspring with his/her own genetic material (i.e pass on their alleles). Using human cloning as an answer to infertile individuals, I believe it is not the best option or answer for the situation. Biologically, in terms of evolution, an infertile-born organism should naturally not be able to reproduce and pass on alleles to the next generation, as the DNA that codes for infertility would only cause the clone to be infertile him/herself. This is to guarantee that the only the most beneficial alleles are passed on to aid the survival of the species, and eventually, evolve. Also, since there is no guarantee that human clones are able to produce offspring of their own, the genetic material of the clone’s donor would only cease and end at the next generation, unless the clone gets cloned who gets cloned; creating a system where a line of descendants are reliant on SCNT cloning to be kept within the human race. This way of ‘the survival of genes’ is not very efficient or practical within the natural world. Although humans have already slowed the evolution process of the human race dramatically (by using contraception, drugs, medicines etc) I do not believe we should be trying to encourage our society to stray even further from the laws of nature (evolution, natural selection etc), as this could result in drastic results, such as extinction, as our world’s ecosystem is changing quicker than evolution can maintain, due to the increased pollution, greenhouse gases, and the destruction of the natural environment. Also, as SCNT cloning creates a biological identical organism (almost like a bacteria), this can cause problems in terms of natural selection. As natural selection is the environmental pressures acting on different phenotypes, having a diverse range of combinations of alleles (and thus phenotypes) is essential to increase the chances of surviving. The unique DNA of the fertilized egg that was used to carry and develop clone embryo, has been discarded, and thus the opportunity of a unique human being to be born and increase the survival rate of the human race, has been wasted and destroyed by another person’s greed and selfishness.
Infertile couples who are wishing to start a family, have many other options to do so which has been proven to be more safer, raises less moral dilemmas, has been more successful in the past, and is more guaranteed to produce a healthy, more independant offspring to raise; for example IVF, adoption, fertility drugs, ISCI, and surrogacy. As the main reason people are promoting reproductive cloning is to solve the increasing infertility rate of the world, I would propose to start a petition directed to the NZ Ministry of Health to increase the number of NZ registered Fertility clinics. So far only 8 clinics can be found based on their website[22], all of which are only available in the main regions of NZ; Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. This creates more difficulty for those living in more remote and isolated areas to seek fertility treatments, increasing the cost for travel and accommodation, and thus might discourage more NZers from seeking treatment. The petition would be to call on the Ministry of Health to create and make more IVF clinics available to NZers, so that the patients don’t have a long waiting list, and have easier access to these options, which can encourage NZers to consider IVF treatments as a safer, less expensive, and more practical (close to home) solution, than trying to encourage more different and dangerous ways to reproduce such as the SCNT cloning. The effectiveness of a petition is dependant on how many people are willing to sign it. The more people there is to show support for it, the more likely it is for the Ministry of Health to listen. To do this, people would have to be convinced that more IVF clinics are needed within NZ. This would be done by providing a pamphlet or presentation briefly providing information to the public on the decreasing fertility rates in NZ and the social implications this poses to the our society (extinction), encouraging them to take a stand against limited fertility access for our people. By providing information to the NZ public in streets, schools, and outside popular buildings, this would increase the number of people to become aware of the infertility problem in our society, and by informing them of the threats reproductive cloning has as an answer to the problem, would encourage more people to take action against the infertile problem, and sign the petition. This petition would be then mailed to the NZ Ministry of Health along with a letter outlining the reasons for the petition and the concerns about the future generations’ safety and opportunity to excel in their lives without having to worry about making sure to start a family early; which could provide the country benefits economically and reputationally, by providing more opportunities for people to succeed in life.