Cloning

.. hat cloning from an already existing human may effectively work in the near future. In a movie called, The Boys from Brazil, two clones of Hitler are supposedly produced from a cell obtained containing Hitler’s genes. This cell was in turn joined with an egg, and an embryo was formed containing solely the genes of Hitler with only the necessary ones from the woman. This science fiction-like experiment was done for many reasons, but it was mostly intended to test the clones’ behavior away from one another and to see if any certain kind of attitude can be passed on from one clone to another.

The boys in this movie seem to demonstrate this concept through their slight displays of Hitlers personality traits even after being raised apart with totally different lifestyles. Although, this idea of cloning seems feasible, it is not very logical with today’s level of technology. A cell from a nonreproductive part of one’s body cannot be taken and used in place of a reproductive cell like sperm. This movie is not very accurate in its portrayal of the cloning process, but it does however, fully express the emotions felt by the clones and the others around them. The horizon for making a clone in the embryonic form is a very relative possibility within the next five to ten years.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Who knows though, pretty soon we may be able to go out a choose the person that we want our child to look identical to and create a clone for them. Although in this movie there were only two clones created, the boys were supposed to have Hitlers genes and seemed to carry his violent instincts. This statement proves to be true in the movie but also lacks reality of everyday society in the way that not even a clone can be identical to its other clones because environment plays a very large role. Studies of how the cloned individuals would relate to one another are found with the experiment of twins separated at birth and raised in two very different environments. Because nature makes its own clones through the process of twins, it is easy to research about how a clone might feel and how they would react to having another clone around them.

Environment plays a big part in determining how a clone may turn out. Traci Watson writes, Identical genes don’t produce identical people, as anyone acquainted with identical twins can tell you. In fact, twins are more alike than clones would be, since they have at least shared the uterine environment, are usually raised in the same family, and so forth. Parents could clone a second child who eerily resembled their first in appearance, but all the evidence suggests the two would have very different personalities. Twins separated at birth do sometimes share quirks of personality, but such quirks in a cloned son or daughter would be haunting reminders of the child who was lost–and the failure to re-create that child.

Even biologically, a clone would not be identical to the master copy. The clone’s cells, for example, would have energy-processing machinery that came from the egg donor, not from the nucleus donor. But most of the physical differences between originals and copies wouldn’t be detectable without a molecular-biology lab. The one possible exception is fertility. Wilmut and his coworkers are not sure that Dolly will be able to have lambs.

They will try to find out once she’s old enough to breed. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon. htm) Many parents have great concern in regards to having a child that has been cloned. However, there are many excited parents looking forward to this breakthrough in technology. By looking at the many different reasons for cloning a child, one can better understand why it may seem appealing to parents. Cloning from an already existing human will provide the opportunity for parents to pick their ideal child. They will be able to pick out every aspect of their child and make sure that it is perfect before they decide to have it.

As Traci Watson writes; Sure, and there are other situations where adults might be tempted to clone themselves. For example, a couple in which the man is infertile might opt to clone one of them rather than introduce an outsider’s sperm. Or a single woman might choose to clone herself rather than involve a man in any way. In both cases, however, you would have adults raising children who are also their twins–a situation ethically indistinguishable from the megalomaniac cloning himself. On adult cloning, ethicists are more united in their discomfort.

In fact, the same commission that was divided on the issue of twins was unanimous in its conclusion that cloning an adult’s twin is bizarre .. narcissistic and ethically impoverished. What’s more, the commission argued that the phenomenon would jeopardize our very sense of who’s who in the world, especially in the family. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon. htm) Whether or not cloning happens with embryos or adults, various groups in society may react very differently to it. For example, there are many religious groups that feel cloning should not be considered for any reasons whatsoever. JefferY L.

Sheler states: Many of the ethical issues being raised about cloning are based in theology. Concern for preserving human dignity and individual freedom, for example, is deeply rooted in religious and biblical principles. But until last week there had been surprisingly little theological discourse on the implications of cloning per se. The response so far from the religious community, while overwhelmingly negative, has been far from monolithic. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon. htm). This somehow parallels to the issue of abortion and whether or not it is morally right. Religion is the root of many peoples’ values and their beliefs about things like cloning and abortion lie behind these. Richard McCormick basically summarizes the statement that society is already pretty messed up and with the idea of cloning in perspective, we need to beware as the future approaches.

No matter what we say or do, research for cloning will steadily continue and even more moral and ethical issues will arise. Who knows which of the two kinds of cloning will become the most popular in the future, but right now the main decision we need to make is whether or not it can be done and should be done. Who knows if human cloning done in research labs presently will go beyond the laboratory and affect individuals lives. What we do know however, is that cloning seems to be very appealing in some aspects and very frightening in others. Cloned or not, we all die.

The clone that outlives its parent or that is generated from the DNA of a dead person, if that were possible–would be a different person. It would not be a reincarnation or a resurrected version of the deceased. Cloning could be said to provide immortality, theologians say, only in the sense that, as in normal reproduction, one might be said to live on in the genetic traits passed to one’s progeny. (JefferY L. Sheler).

Since the science of cloning research is just in its infancy, there has been a rush to decide what guidelines are going to be instituted for governing cloning experiments. President Clinton said in a written statement that federal funds should not be used for human cloning and current restrictions do not fully assure that result. Also, Clinton asked for a voluntary moratorium on human cloning experiments anywhere in the United States – at least until the legal and ethical issues can be sorted out. Since privately funded scientists are not covered by Clinton’s directive, only a voluntary moratorium would ensure that ethical issues are fully debated before there are any efforts to clone humans. Citing the cloning of an adult sheep in Scotland, Clinton asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission last week to review the ramifications that cloning would have on humans and report back to him in 90 days. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ap0304a.htm). Now that man has created Dolly this has certainly caused a lot of ethical problems that are hard to answer. Will this experiment be used to create a new race of human clones? I personally think that human cloning to any extent will be at least problematic.

I think nature will put up a good fight against mans feable intrusion into the creation business. As I have mentioned before in the movie The Boys from Brazil, man can only screw-up any attempt at creation. Just ask Dr. Frankenstein. Who knows what kind of mutations cloning would breed. Biologically would a clone evolve faster, slower? Would it affectively wipe out gene diversity making humans susectable to disease? Could a common cold be the new plauge? These are questions I hope we will never have to answer.

Bibliography Clone, Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia. 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Macklin, Ruth. Human cloning? Don’t just say no U.S. News and World Report.

3 March 1997 (4-26-98) Martin, Robert. Creating a Soul by Cloning? Applied Christianity. 1998 (http://www.user.shentel.net/ramartin/applied/clon ing.htm) (4-26-98) ROSS, SONYA President ruling out federal research on human cloning U.S. News and World Report. 3 March 1997 (4-27-98).

Cloning

Many have imagined what it would be like to have a clone of themselves.
Many have also feared the thought of having a clone. Due to popular belief that a clone
would be an exact duplicate. An incorrect presumption made by many. Proceeding along
side is the religious beliefs and the controversial ethicality and morality aspects of human
cloning. A stance taken by many religions and their congregations. In reality the public has
a very narrow sense of what human cloning is. Rather than research and understand the
scientific aspect of human cloning, they instead take faith in what the media and movies
portray human cloning to be. It is from this information source that a majority base their
decision on weather human cloning is ethical or unethical. Human cloning is a new
challenge for science and that by pursuing it we will become enlightened in who and what
the human being is and its true potential. The truth is that despite the many claims of
religious leaders and anti-cloning protesters, human cloning may truly be the key to curing
all disease and cancers that have plagued humans from the, dawn of human. The questions
is,” Do the benefits of human cloning out weigh the risks and ethicality of society?’
Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, wrote
“Cloning Misperceptions,” from Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New
World. Silver asks, “Why do four out five Americans think that human cloning is morally
wrong?” Silver answers by pointing out that people have a very muddled sense of what
human cloning is. This accredited to the fact many people perceive what they see in the
media and movies and associate it with reality. For example, the movie Multiplicity where
a man has himself cloned and then his clone makes a clone of itself this happens two more
times and each time a clone was made it became less intelligent. This brings up his next
point which was depicted in the movie Blade Runner, many people believe a human clone
would not have a soul, because it would be a replication of a living thing that is still in
existence. Which is not true since a clone child is conceived and birthed like any normal
child would, from a mother’s womb. And just like any other child, the clone would have a
mind and personality of its own. He then informs the reader of possibility of “Brave New
World” Scenario being put into effect. Presenting the idea of a rogue government creating
an army of elite clone soldiers or to create a totalitarian society. Silver concludes that this
scenario is of low probability due the fact that it would require that cooperation of many
women in order to birth to these soldier or totalitarian clones. Silvers article is agreeable
considering the fact that many people believe what they see in the media and movies, many
are not willing to research the subject of cloning to find out what it is. Instead they let the
media and movies decide weather cloning is right or wrong. In actuality seventy percent of
the time the media and movies are bias, only showing one aspect of human cloning.
Which unfortunately happens to be the negative aspect, because it makes the most money
in television and movie ratings. Then there is the claim made by many that human clones
are soulless vessels which is completely incorrect. Once taken into consideration the
human cloning process is quite similar to that of invitro fertilization, both take place
outside of the females body and both embryos are then placed into the mother where they
are conceived, within nine months a child is born just like any other child. Since cloning
brings up the possibility of clone armies or totalitarian cloned states created by rogue
Governments, it should be pointed out that these scenarios are highly unlikely.
Considering that a government would have to gain control of many women to birth these
clones.
The article, The Risks of Human Cloning Outweigh the Benefits is, from Cloning
Human Beings: Reports and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) believes the risks
that would be involved in producing a child via somatic cell nuclear transfer would out
weigh the benefits. Using Dolly the Sheep as an example, NBAC explains that it is
important to recognize that the technique used to produce Dolly was not successful until
after 277 attempts. The commission proposed that cloning a child would interfere with the
child’s individuality or human right to a unique identity. A point was brought up
concerning the potential harm to important social values, presenting the idea that cloning
would only objectify children and encourage the attitude that children are objects. Stating
that cloned children would only be based on how close they come to meeting parental
expectations instead of being loved for their sake. Another concern was the possibility of
cloning being used for eugenic purposes. By having genes removed and added to
the donor DNA until the desired human traits were assembled into the perfect genome.
The conclusion that was derived by the commission was that cloning is unethical, due to
the fact that such techniques are unsafe at this current time. The NBAC does present some
very important points that describe the risks of cloning a child, but the fact is there will
always be risks weather the technology used is primitive or advanced. Not doing it all is
risk in itself, in that prohibiting cloning could deny the human species the key to finding
the cure for all diseases and cancers. The concerns on weather cloned children will treated
like objects is neither agreeable nor disagreeable for there is no evidence that gives insight
in to how a parent or parents would treat a cloned child. The concern on weather the
possibility of eugenics is agreeable, but hopefully for our sake eugenics will be taken as far
as to only be used for therapeutical reasons, in order to remove cancer causing genes and
other genes that would either disable or disfigure a child.


Many people believe a human clone would not have a soul, because it would be a
replication of a living thing that is still in existence and that a clone is an exact copy of a
person including personality and conscience.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now


The truth is that a cloned child is the same as any normal child, because both are
conceived and birthed by a mother. Once taken into consideration the human cloning
process is quite similar to that of invitro fertilization, fertilization takes place outside of
the females bodies and both embryos are then placed into the mothers where they are
conceived, within nine months a child is born just like any other child. So yes a cloned
child would have soul. As for clones being exact duplicates of their progenitor not
possible, because genetics are only part of equation in determining who an individual is
there are several other factors in determining a persons personality including education,
environment, and family life. If identical twins have soul than so will clones, because in
actuality clones are nothing more than a later twin of progenitor.
One of the most controversial arguments against human cloning is the belief that
cloning would objectify and hurt or damage the cloned child psychologically. Many
activist proposed that cloning a child would interfere with the child’s individuality or
human right to a unique identity. A point was brought up concerning the potential harm to
important social values, presenting the idea that cloning would only objectify children and
encourage the attitude that children are objects. Stating that cloned children would only be
based on how close they come to meeting parental expectations and how much was spent
on cloning them, instead of being loved for their sake.
The first subject of controversy is the belief that cloning interferes with child’s
individuality or human right to a unique identity. The belief that a child would not have
any relevant sense of identity is completely false. The fact is a majority of people are
referring to the physical identity of the child, intending that the various physical
properties and characteristics that make each individual unique and different from others
determines how they think and act which is untrue. An example would be identical twins
although they are natural clones, because they share the same genetic material, they are
distinct and different from each other both cognitively and personality wise. The point
brought up about the commodification and objectification of a clone is truly determined by
what kind of parent or parents the cloned child has. As for the commodification of
children, the fact is that all reproductive technologies and adoption cost money. This does
not make a baby less valuable to its parents or reduce the amount of love they give it. For
example it would cost between $10,000-$12,000 for invitro fertilization and it would cost
between $25,000-$40,000 to adopt a child, this does not mean that the adopted child
deserves more love than the invitro child or vis-a-versa. It also believed that there would
be a stronger bond between parent and clone. Due to the fact that they share the same the
same genetic makeup. Also the parent would have a better understanding of the clone
child, because in a sense the parent is watching him or her self grow up all over again.
The truth is that anti-cloners are not giving enough credit to parents and the unconditional
love that parents would give there child. Despite what people think all parents have certain
expectations of their children weather: naturally conceived, invitro fertilization, or
cloned. Weather the children meet these expectations or not parents still love their children
unconditionally.


The last argument is one of religious aspects on why cloning should not be done.
The two main reasons is that most people believe that we should not be playing God when
it comes to cloning and that belief that cloning is unnatural. Along with the question
pertaining to do we sacrifice a life in order to further human existence or do we deny
humans the right to new life saving medical technologies created by cloning.
Many people believe that cloning is against God’s will because cloning replicates
an already existing life form and that we should not be playing God. Yet in modern
medicine we play God all the time, instead of leaving matters to “Nature.” The fact that
we use invitro fertilization or that we try to keep a 700-gram newborns alive instead of
letting nature take its course and where culture and religion permit, use donor sperm,
eggs, or embryos. So the question is why is cloning different from other reproductive
technologies? The fact is that we having been playing God for a long time now matter of
fact since the day we created modern medicine. There will always be risks in the medical
field no matter what this should not stop humans from exploring human cloning and the
many technologies that would follow it. Human cloning truly has many benefits such the
ability to reverse the aging process or instead of waiting for a transplant organ it could be
cloned using a stem cell. Or by allowing an infertile couple to have a child or for a child to
be replaced after an untimely death. What having the ability to reverse the effects of a
heart attack by injecting healthy heart cells into the damaged areas. Condemnation of this
new technology could be denying human beings the key to finding the a cure for all
diseases and cancers. And the enlightenment of who and what we are.
The truth is that human clones are just has human as any one else and do not
deserve to be treated like second rate citizens. Clones have souls too and are autonomous
individuals with their conscience and personalities. Parents need to be given more credit in
that they would not objectify their cloned children, but love them unconditionally. Cloning
should not be condemned, due to fear for the unknown, but should be explored to benefit
human kind and enlighten us on who and what we are. Human cloning is a new frontier
that will have its own obstacles and walls to climb over, go around, or go under.
Human cloning will be cherished and prized for what it has brought humanity, new
medical technologies, along with cures for disease and cancer. Unfortunately it is
inevitable, but a sacrifice will be made some where as with many past medical
advancements.Words
/ Pages : 2,109 / 24

Cloning

Cloning And Ethics Ever since the successful cloning of an adult sheep, world has been buzzing about the historical event. “Dolly” the sheep has redefined the meaning of the words “identical twin.” Not only does she look like her mother, she has the same genetic makeup as her. This experiment was not only was thought of as impossible, but unthinkable. It was achieved in July 1996 by Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Roslin, Scotland.

“Dolly” was announced to the public when she was seven-months old, on February 23, 1997. Since the birth of “Dolly,” the Wilmuts Institute has cloned seven more sheep from three different breeds. This process that successfully worked with the sheep, is now being tested with humans. In response to the global research, President Bill Clinton immediately ordered a ban on the federal funding of human cloning in U.S. research.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This issue is not to be taken lightly. On the surface, human cloning looks like the perfect solution to end many of societys problems, but in actuality it has tremendous side effects. Human cloning is an unethical procedure that has detrimental negative psychological effects. Cloning is the process that ends in one or more plants or animals being genetically identical to another plant or animal. There are two procedures that can be called “cloning:” embryo cloning and adult DNA cloning. Embryo cloning is also known as “artificial twinning.” This form of cloning has been used by animal breeders since the late 1980s and in mice experiments since the late 1970s (“Human Cloning” 1). The procedure consists of splitting a single fertilized ovum into two or more clones and then transplanting them into other females.

This process has not been used to clone human embryos due to the Regan and Bush administrations that banned the public funding of human embryo and fetal research during most of the 1980s and early 1990s. The ban was finally lifted under Clintons presidency. After this ban was removed, the first known human embryo cloning was done under the supervision of Robert J. Stillman at the George Washington Medical Center in Washington DC. They used seventeen flawed human embryos.

They all had been fertilized by two sperm and had an extra set of chromosomes. The embryos would never have developed into fetuses. In October 1994, the embryos were successfully split (“Human Cloning” 1). This experiment began the public controversy over the ethics of cloning. The government now had to set guidelines.

They included the use only of embryos that had already been created for the use of in vitro fertilization, because many of these are either thrown out or frozen. Other procedures were banned, such as implanting the human embryos in other species and cloned embryos into humans, moving the nucleus from one embryo to another, and the use of embryos for sex selection. The first documented case of successful adult DNA cloning was the “Dolly” case. Adult DNA cloning, in the case of “Dolly,” started when a cell was taken from the mammary tissue of a adult sheep. It was then fused with an ovum after the nucleus had been removed.

To start the developing, the egg was shocked with an electric pulse. 29 out of 277 of these special eggs began to divide. They were all implanted in sheep, but only 13 became pregnant and only one lamb, “Dolly,” was born. Animals that have been cloned run the risk of being infertile and having a lower life expectancy. Although “Dolly” has been the most publicized animal that has been successfully cloned.

There have been other attempts. A monkey has been cloned and many embryos have been made of a cow, but none have survived (“Can we Clone” 1). The monkey has been the closest animal to the human to be cloned. This makes the issue of successful human cloning more realistic. But will its uses be ethical? Simply put, human cloning is “playing God.” Manufacturing will replace procreating.

Instead of the parent and child being on the same level, the parent would have power over the child. The child would be designed by the parent to serve some purpose. According to the “Human Cloning: Religious and Ethical Aspects” article, there are numerous uses that would have positive effects. But in further reading the article there are also some social concerns with these new technological advances. A recent poll conducted by CNN found that 6 percent of the United States think that human cloning might be “a good idea” (Dixon 2). There were various ways that people wanted to use cloning. “Recover someone who was loveda twin, a reminder” (Dixon 3).

Now how could this be a beneficial use? Dying is a process of life. All living things die. Thats the way things happen. Everyone at some point in time has a regret about not telling a loved one something before it was too late and might want to bring them back and tell them. This is not the same thing. This cloned person, will be a baby and a different individual than the person who has died.

Even though their outside appearance might be identical, they are two separate people. The poor child will have to live in comparison to their twin that came before them. This could harbor feelings of resentment, towards the dead twin and the parents. There are some people who would use cloning to end infertility. Rather than using donated sperm and eggs, a cell of the parent is used. Not only would the parent give birth to a child that was his/hers, but it would be his/her twin.

This will eliminate procreating all together. But that could also lead to problems. Sex “creates new gene combinations that confer new strengths, especially to disease” (Economist 20). Using one parents cells to create a child could also lead to megalomania, which is the “desire to reproduce ones own qualities” (Dixon 3). Cloning could allow a parent to pass on certain qualities that they want to make sure that their children have. Instead of letting a child be who he/she wants to be the parent is in a way trying to control his/her child. This is one step away from eugenics.

This is a way to “improve the human race” (Dixon 3), by giving each child conceived a certain characteristic. This concept is rooted in Nazi belief in the Aryan race. Humans will be bred to produce certain traits. Once the “perfect human” was developed, “embryo cloning could be used to replicate that individual and conceivably produce unlimited numbers of clones. The same approach could be used to create a genetic underclass for exploitation: such as individuals with sub-normal intelligence and above normal strength” (“Human Cloning” 4).

The population should pride itself in the differences in everyone. This concept of an “ideal” person is the reason that there are people with depression, causing low self esteem, eating disorders and ultimately suicide. One of the worst things that cloning could be used for is “spare parts.” Using a cell from a persons own body to duplicate yourself would make your twin a specimen more than a person. One suggestion from Dixons article was to “take tissue like bone marrow, then offer the baby for adoption” (3). It is a dehumanizing act that makes the child an object not a person who needs love just like everyone else.

The purpose of human cloning is “to create someone exactly like the original. But everyones idea about this clone, this copy, seems to be that he or she would be available for experimentation, used as a repository of spare parts, or as some sort of pliable toy one could mold in ones own image” (Shoun 1). The clone itself is seen as inhuman, an “it,” not a “he” or “she.” When, in actuality, the clone is just as much as a person as the person who he/she was cloned from. The clone and the donor are twins separated by time. This leads to the point that the clone will have serious psychological problems as he/she grows up and throughout his/her life.

Cloning causes problems with identity and individuality. If the cloned child is the identical twin of the mother or father, he/she is already born into a world of constant comparison. Being expected to be like the person that he or she is modeled after, could burden down the cloned child. This ultimately gives the “parents” more control over their children. They can vicariously live through their children and live on as their children.

These “recreations” of themselves can now become just like them and even fulfill their hopeless dreams. Not only will they not have an opportunity to be themselves, but these children will have to constantly try to live up to the hopes of their parents (Kass 6). Technically, one parent would actually be the biological twin of the child. Through human cloning, parent-child relationships would lose all meaning. As bioethicist James Nelson has pointed out, a female child cloned from her “mother” might develop a desire for a relationship to her “father,” and might seek out the father of her “mother” (who is her biological twin sister) for paternal attention and support. In the case of “self-cloning” the child is also the donors twin, which is the equivalent to the result of incestto be parent to ones sibling (Kass 7). The meaning of father, grandfather, aunt, and cousin will drastically change. Family values are trying to be restored in this country, but how can they be restored if this country doesnt even know what a family is.

Dr. Wilmut has been noted as saying, “People are not thinking this thing carefully. I have not heard of an application of this to copy a person with which I would be comfortable. That is not appropriate.” He continued that using this technique on humans would be “quite inhumane” and that he was glad that he lives in a country where embryo experimentation is illegal (“Scientist” 1). “Would cloning be wrong because it is playing God, or because, when we want to play God, too often were looking for an excuse to demean or mistreat someone? Is cloning wrong because it has the potential to create a subspecies for which we presently have no category, or because our sinful nature likes to relegate one group or another to a class beneath ourselves?” (Shoun 2).

No matter how one looks at this issue, cloning humans will do more harm than good. It is just one more example of technology getting out of hand before we can control it. This inhumane act must be stopped before we will not be able to stop it.

Cloning

By: Estevan Salinas
E-mail: emailprotected
The first thing that must be cleared up is what is cloning, and what is a clone. A clone is an organism derived asexually from a single individual by cuttings, bulbs, tubers, fission, or parthenogenesis reproduction (“Cloning”, 1997). Pathogenesis reproduction is the development of an organism from an unfertilized ovum, seed or spore (“Pathogenesis”, 1997). So cloning, biologically speaking, is any process in which production of a clone is successful. Therefore, the biological term cloning is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an organism. However, people can use the word cloning to intend other meanings. For instance, we generalize many older and new techniques as cloning. This is not a good practice because these techniques are different and impose unique concerns and issues. In the world of scientific technology, cloning is the artificial production of organisms with the same genetic material. Scientists actually call the transferring of a nucleus from the cell of one organism to an enucleated egg cell, nuclear transfer (Wilmut 811). This will produce an organism that has the exact genetic material as that of the donor cell. Scientists are using current techniques exceedingly more, and with a variety of species. Astonishingly, more clones are present in the world than one would think. In nature, and even in the lives of humans, clones are present. As stated earlier, a clone is an organism that has the same genetic information as another organism. From this we can say that cloning occurs with all plants, some insects, algae, unicellular organisms that conduct mitosis or binary fission, and occasionally by all multi-cellular organisms, including humans. Monozygotic twins, or identical twins, are clones of each other. They have the same exact genetic information due to the division of an embryo early in development, which produces two identical embryos. About eight million identical twins are alive in the world; thus, already eight million human clones inhabit the world. Today, the only cloning research is occurring in scientific model organisms. These are organisms that research scientists from around the globe have collected abundant amounts of data. All this data is necessary so that advancements in research can continue more efficiently. The most common scientific models are E. coli, mice, fruit flies, and frogs. The first organisms that were cloned using nuclear transfer were frogs. This is because they have large egg cells and scientists can obtain up to two thousand of them from one ovulation. (McKinnel 79) Successful cloning has occurred with livestock. The drive toward success is not because livestock like cows and sheep are model organisms. Instead, the farming industry has made and continues to make a big effort toward finding a way to implement the technique of nuclear transfer for livestock. Research in cloning is also occurring in primates. The reason for studying primates is the similarities with humans. This leads us to the most talked about aspects of cloning, the use of the techniques with human cells and eggs. Cloning of humans in a biological sense already has and is occurring. Scientists are researching by splitting embryos to execute experiments to find data relating to cell differentiation, the use of stem cells, and genetic screening. Amazingly, genetic screening is occurring in Britain quite often. Fertility clinics aim this service toward couples where the mother or father has a genetic disorder. A fertility clinic will clone an embryo, then test it for genetic disorders. If the embryo tests negative for genetic disorders, then the fertility clinic implants a clone of that embryo. This should guarantee that the child would not have any genetic disorders. (Benoit 2) Amazingly, the first attempts at artificial cloning were as early as the beginning of this century. Adolph Eduard Driesch allowed the eggs of a sea urchin develop into the two-blastomere stage. Then he separated it by shaking it in a flask and allowing them to grow. The cells developed into dwarf sea urchins. Driesch could not explain his experiments and gave up embryology for philosophy (McKinnel 19). During the late seventies and early eighties, there were few scientists still studying cloning. Many had predicted that it was impossible to clone embryonic mammal cells. Few continued with research. Many

Cloning

Cloning Angie Porter & Karisa Sa Organ Cloning: The future of our lives On February 23, 1997 the world itself was changed forever. Whether or not you believe that it was for the good is an entirely different question. You can not argue the fact that a major breakthrough in cloning technology had been made. With a lot of time and effort, scientists were able to successfully clone a sheep. Since then, British scientists have also cloned a frog embryo.

Cloning has, and will continue to be a controversial issue for a long time to come. Often people say that we are trying to play the role of God. We feel that the scientists are not trying to play God, but just improve the lives of people. Many people say that we should not try to interfere with nature. If we try to clone organs for transplant patients that are in their final hour then we are actually improving their life.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

If you feel that saving a persons life is a bad thing, then Im sorry. People often question whether or not we have the right to clone. We are all guaranteed rights by the fact that we are human beings. Those rights include the right to pursue areas of scientific study, and also the right to live. They could have argued the fact that man was not meant to walk on the moon. If they did, and the program did not succeed, then we would not have the technology that we have today.

Cloning organs can only yield new technologies that will be beneficial to society. Organ cloning is something that would be extremely beneficial to society. Imagine the ability to create a liver for James Earl Ray. He was the man that was accused in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. After he died, new evidence was brought forth in finding that he might not have been responsible for Kings death. Imagine if the technology was available to clone his liver in order to prolong his life so that the truth could be shown.

That would solve an important mystery and save the life of one person on the waiting list to receive a new organ. This way, another person who was on the waiting list could receive the organ. In this country there are thousands of people on waiting lists to receive new organs that will help prolong their life. Many of these people will die because there is not a suitable donor that matches their needs. Imagine the lives that will be saved if an individual can clone their own liver, or any other organ that is needed to survive an illness.

The process is fairly uncomplicated. When a child is conceived, doctors will take a few cells from it and clone them. These cells will then be placed in a national tissue bank until needed. There they are readily available. If the child gets hurt, or contracts a disease, it will have a body repair kit to fall back on. Most of the controversy is over whether or not we will be killing another human in order to get these parts.

In a sense, we would. The frozen embryo would be placed in a surrogate mother. There it needs only a mere week to grow. It can then be removed, and the needed organ singled out. Then, this organ can be grown in a lab, where scientists can speed up the process greatly. Yes, we did create the beginnings of a human, but it was only one week old.

If you were to look at the one week old embryo, you would see nothing. There would be no distinguishable features, and certainly none that resemble a human. Whether or not you believe in the art of cloning you have to agree that there are definitely some good things that can come from all of this research. Researchers say that within 5-10 years we will actually be able to grow headless human clones. Im not saying that this is ethically right, but just imagine the possibilities.

No more waiting lists, and no more organ rejection. This type of technology could save thousands of lives. Using just the embryonic cloning, we could drastically improve many peoples chance to live. Just put yourself in one of these situations. If you or a loved one was dying, could you look them in the face and say Im sorry, but its just not right to give you a cloned organ. Theres nothing else we can do, so you are going to die. I know I could never do that, and I would hope that you can see it my way.

Cloning has the ability to change the face of the planet forever. We should be excited that we are able to duplicate such a complex sequence of genes. Whatever you feel is morally right, we should at least allow this to happen because if we never explore the risks then we can never enjoy the benefits. As previously stated, space exploration yielded many new technologies that will forever aid us in the bettering of our society. We can not continue to prohibit the exploration of scientific study.

If this practice continues then we will not be able to continue to develop advancements in the prolonging of the human race. If we impose a ban on cloning, then we are basically imposing a ban on our right to live. Social Issues.

x

Hi!
I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out