One can imagine lying in bed with the knowledge that they have only a week to live. This prognosis is brought on because the person needs a new heart, liver, kidney, or any other life saving organ. Now that the realization of what has transpired hits this person it is time to find an organ donor. It could be the next car crash victim or someone from the immediate family. However, the odds of finding a donor grim. Wouldn’t it be nice if the technology to clone a perfectly matching organ to replace the faulty one existed? This is the problem with today’s society.
Too many people are afraid of the future. Cloning, like any other science is hindered by the general public’s fear of the unknown. Whether it is a single cell to a full human, cloning research is a major next step in scientific development. It is easy to understand why people fear the unknown, but it is hard to figure out why they can’t take a step back and realize that cloning is basically an extension of current and accepted practices. Also, the general public’s fear shows up in the nation’s congress and even the president.
Who knows the real opinions of the individuals in congress, but as long as the general public is against cloning, politicians will be too, so they can gain support from voters. Even with all these setbacks, there are still major uses for cloning research. Uses that will never present themselves unless people put down their moral, ethical, and religious shields and allow the research to take its course. Regardless of the majority opinion, cloning is just another science. It deserves the time and mind straining efforts given by today’s scientists.
It doesn’t deserve to be shut out or pushed aside because people are too paranoid to let the future take its course. Cloning has been around for several years. It has just recently hit the spotlight with Dr. Richard Seed’s announcement that he will start a project to clone the first human in one and a half years (Krieger 1). With all the media coverage, the general public’s knowledge of cloning has shifted from nothing to forming biased opinions on a topic they really still don’t have all the facts about. In some cases, cloning is an extension of current and accepted practices that will very likely improve over time.
This includes reproductive therapy like in vitro fertilization. The American Life League in the following states information on the advantages of cloning over in vitro fertilization: “Consider couples going through IVF. [There are] many reasons why they might choose to clone embryos either by blastomere separation, or by nuclear transfer. One would be to obtain enough embryos to achieve pregnancy and offspring. If a woman produced only one or two eggs or one or two embryos, it might be difficult for that couple to have a family. Splitting the embryos or cloning them by nuclear transfer would enable them to overcome that problem.
Or they may want to do that to avoid having to go through a second IVF cycle which not only is very costly but is onerous for the woman involved, including hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval. A third [reason] would be to have a back up supply of embryos from which tissue or organs could be obtained if a tragedy befell a first child. Obviously in that scenario the cloned embryos could be transferred to the uterus at the same time leading to simultaneously born intended twins or they could be transferred at later points in time.
Now an important point, indeed a crucial point, about cloning as part of IVF is that such activities would appear to fall within the fundamental freedom of married couples, including infertile married couples to have biologically related offspring. If the ability to clone an embryo and transfer it to the uterus is essential in determining whether that couple will reproduce, then cloning should receive the same legal respect and protection that other means of noncoital reproduction receive” (39). Many scientist use genetic screening to create perfect genomes for whatever their research might be.
The possibility of screening human embryos for genetic diseases and replacing the disrupted genes with perfectly cloned genes remains if the research is allowed to continue. This opens many doors for the medical field. It would be an enormous feat if genetic diseases like Muscular Dystrophy could be destroyed before the child was even born. Or if the child wasn’t going to grow an organ or appendage, new genes to stimulate growth and function could be cloned and placed with the embryo to aid the development of the child (American Life League 40). In the future, cloning could prove to aid in organ donor programs.
The ability to clone an organ would be incredible because it would allow patients that would almost certainly die another chance. This procedure has already been developed by Dr. Anthony Atala, director of tissue engineering in the urology department at the Children’s Hospital in Boston, and his partner Dr. Dario Fauza. Together, they have experimented with a method of growing replacement organs for babies while they are still in the womb. Dr. Atala cited underdeveloped and disrupted bladders and windpipes as organs that could be cloned and replaced in a baby inside the womb (Price 1).
Dr. Atala states, “As surgeons, that’s what we dream about- having a shelf full of body parts” (Price 2). One of the major problems a scientist has in trying to develop a science like cloning is the politics behind it. Soon after Dr. Seed’s announcement President Clinton tried to revive a bill he proposed that would put a five-year ban, or waiting period on cloning (Chayes and Edwards 2). Clinton’s intentions are to give an American Bio-ethics team time to decide if cloning is morally acceptable and should be permitted.
It is not certain whether President Clinton is totally against cloning or not. However, with all the media coverage, the major opinion towards cloning is that it isn’t wanted. It is conceivable that most politicians are going to sway on their personal beliefs about cloning because of their political agendas and obligations to registered voters. Richard A. Vierling Ph. D. , director of the genetics program at Indiana Crop Improvement Association and Purdue, refutes congress’s intentions on banning cloning or any technology. Dr.
Vierling said, “We will never be able to stop technology. If we try, it puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage in technological advancement. This is especially troubling, since countries are judged not by their manufacturing capabilities, but on their technological status. Technology is power. ” In all aspects, cloning is a new science that is being criticized and hindered by a biased opinion largely brought on by the media. It is unfortunate that this opinion generates initial action by congress to ban cloning.
The sheer facts on cloning are easy to understand. It is a simple process and deserves further study. As a whole there are many reasons people feel that cloning shouldn’t be allowed. Fear is a major complication to science. Fear is an interesting thing. It plays with people’s minds and forces quick judgment. Sometimes those judgments are for the better. With the cloning issue, they aren’t. While fear is a great contributor to the hindrance of the science of cloning, religion adds another aspect to be dealt with.
Many peoples’ beliefs on cloning are affected by their religion. The American Life League stated, “The gift of life which God the Creator and Farther has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the center of one’s reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problem raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation” (6).
Basically this quote is a very eloquent way of interpreting the Bible so that it is against cloning. The Bible has been studied for hundreds of years, but its interpretation can suggest just about anything the particular person reading it wants to believe. The Bible is a long history book. Whether it is entirely true or not is another debate. For all intents and purposes, the Bible is an “ace in the hole” for anyone who wants to debate the morals and ethics against cloning. However, the Bible is only a worthy source if the person expressing its ideas has what they believe is faith.
If the Bible and teachings of the church controlled scientific development, this society would probably still believe the world was flat or the center of the universe. It is impossible to defend against the teachings of the Bible because that is all they are, teachings. Teachings, that reflect a countless number of peoples’ opinions and religious beliefs. The bible should not be used as a weapon to slow or stop the development of cloning or any other science. Cloning is just another science. It is almost redundant in that fashion.
Its only uniqueness is that it has such a controversy around it caused by fear and misconception. Any science is too valuable to be brushed aside. People must look past the politics and the morals to see that cloning is an extension of current practices and could prove to be better then those practices. There are too many conceivable uses for cloning to let the technology die. No one knows what the future holds, but the technology must be permitted to go on. Like it or not, sciences like cloning are here and here to stay.
It is up to society to put aside its fears and stop trying to control the rate at which scientific development advances because it is the only thing that is going to make a better tomorrow. One can imagine lying in bed with the knowledge that they have only a week to live. This prognosis is brought on because the person needs a new heart, liver, kidney, or any other life saving organ. Now that the realization of what has transpired hits this person it is time to find an organ donor. It could be the next car crash victim or someone from the immediate family. However, the odds of finding a donor grim.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the technology to clone a perfectly matching organ to replace the faulty one existed? This is the problem with today’s society. Too many people are afraid of the future. Cloning, like any other science is hindered by the general public’s fear of the unknown. Whether it is a single cell to a full human, cloning research is a major next step in scientific development. It is easy to understand why people fear the unknown, but it is hard to figure out why they can’t take a step back and realize that cloning is basically an extension of current and accepted practices.
Also, the general public’s fear shows up in the nation’s congress and even the president. Who knows the real opinions of the individuals in congress, but as long as the general public is against cloning, politicians will be too, so they can gain support from voters. Even with all these setbacks, there are still major uses for cloning research. Uses that will never present themselves unless people put down their moral, ethical, and religious shields and allow the research to take its course. Regardless of the majority opinion, cloning is just another science.
It deserves the time and mind straining efforts given by today’s scientists. It doesn’t deserve to be shut out or pushed aside because people are too paranoid to let the future take its course. Cloning has been around for several years. It has just recently hit the spotlight with Dr. Richard Seed’s announcement that he will start a project to clone the first human in one and a half years (Krieger 1). With all the media coverage, the general public’s knowledge of cloning has shifted from nothing to forming biased opinions on a topic they really still don’t have all the facts about.
In some cases, cloning is an extension of current and accepted practices that will very likely improve over time. This includes reproductive therapy like in vitro fertilization. The American Life League in the following states information on the advantages of cloning over in vitro fertilization: “Consider couples going through IVF. [There are] many reasons why they might choose to clone embryos either by blastomere separation, or by nuclear transfer. One would be to obtain enough embryos to achieve pregnancy and offspring. If a woman produced only one or two eggs or one or two embryos, it might be difficult for that couple to have a family.
Splitting the embryos or cloning them by nuclear transfer would enable them to overcome that problem. Or they may want to do that to avoid having to go through a second IVF cycle which not only is very costly but is onerous for the woman involved, including hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval. A third [reason] would be to have a back up supply of embryos from which tissue or organs could be obtained if a tragedy befell a first child. Obviously in that scenario the cloned embryos could be transferred to the uterus at the same time leading to simultaneously born intended twins or they could be transferred at later points in time.
Now an important point, indeed a crucial point, about cloning as part of IVF is that such activities would appear to fall within the fundamental freedom of married couples, including infertile married couples to have biologically related offspring. If the ability to clone an embryo and transfer it to the uterus is essential in determining whether that couple will reproduce, then cloning should receive the same legal respect and protection that other means of noncoital reproduction receive” (39). Many scientist use genetic screening to create perfect genomes for whatever their research might be.
The possibility of screening human embryos for genetic diseases and replacing the disrupted genes with perfectly cloned genes remains if the research is allowed to continue. This opens many doors for the medical field. It would be an enormous feat if genetic diseases like Muscular Dystrophy could be destroyed before the child was even born. Or if the child wasn’t going to grow an organ or appendage, new genes to stimulate growth and function could be cloned and placed with the embryo to aid the development of the child (American Life League 40). In the future, cloning could prove to aid in organ donor programs.
The ability to clone an organ would be incredible because it would allow patients that would almost certainly die another chance. This procedure has already been developed by Dr. Anthony Atala, director of tissue engineering in the urology department at the Children’s Hospital in Boston, and his partner Dr. Dario Fauza. Together, they have experimented with a method of growing replacement organs for babies while they are still in the womb. Dr. Atala cited underdeveloped and disrupted bladders and windpipes as organs that could be cloned and replaced in a baby inside the womb (Price 1).
Dr. Atala states, “As surgeons, that’s what we dream about- having a shelf full of body parts” (Price 2). One of the major problems a scientist has in trying to develop a science like cloning is the politics behind it. Soon after Dr. Seed’s announcement President Clinton tried to revive a bill he proposed that would put a five-year ban, or waiting period on cloning (Chayes and Edwards 2). Clinton’s intentions are to give an American Bio-ethics team time to decide if cloning is morally acceptable and should be permitted.
It is not certain whether President Clinton is totally against cloning or not. However, with all the media coverage, the major opinion towards cloning is that it isn’t wanted. It is conceivable that most politicians are going to sway on their personal beliefs about cloning because of their political agendas and obligations to registered voters. Richard A. Vierling Ph. D. , director of the genetics program at Indiana Crop Improvement Association and Purdue, refutes congress’s intentions on banning cloning or any technology. Dr.
Vierling said, “We will never be able to stop technology. If we try, it puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage in technological advancement. This is especially troubling, since countries are judged not by their manufacturing capabilities, but on their technological status. Technology is power. ” In all aspects, cloning is a new science that is being criticized and hindered by a biased opinion largely brought on by the media. It is unfortunate that this opinion generates initial action by congress to ban cloning.
The sheer facts on cloning are easy to understand. It is a simple process and deserves further study. As a whole there are many reasons people feel that cloning shouldn’t be allowed. Fear is a major complication to science. Fear is an interesting thing. It plays with people’s minds and forces quick judgment. Sometimes those judgments are for the better. With the cloning issue, they aren’t. While fear is a great contributor to the hindrance of the science of cloning, religion adds another aspect to be dealt with.
Many peoples’ beliefs on cloning are affected by their religion. The American Life League stated, “The gift of life which God the Creator and Farther has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the center of one’s reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problem raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation” (6).
Basically this quote is a very eloquent way of interpreting the Bible so that it is against cloning. The Bible has been studied for hundreds of years, but its interpretation can suggest just about anything the particular person reading it wants to believe. The Bible is a long history book. Whether it is entirely true or not is another debate. For all intents and purposes, the Bible is an “ace in the hole” for anyone who wants to debate the morals and ethics against cloning. However, the Bible is only a worthy source if the person expressing its ideas has what they believe is faith.
If the Bible and teachings of the church controlled scientific development, this society would probably still believe the world was flat or the center of the universe. It is impossible to defend against the teachings of the Bible because that is all they are, teachings. Teachings, that reflect a countless number of peoples’ opinions and religious beliefs. The bible should not be used as a weapon to slow or stop the development of cloning or any other science. Cloning is just another science. It is almost redundant in that fashion. Its only uniqueness is that it has such a controversy around it caused by fear and misconception.
Any science is too valuable to be brushed aside. People must look past the politics and the morals to see that cloning is an extension of current practices and could prove to be better then those practices. There are too many conceivable uses for cloning to let the technology die. No one knows what the future holds, but the technology must be permitted to go on. Like it or not, sciences like cloning are here and here to stay. It is up to society to put aside its fears and stop trying to control the rate at which scientific development advances because it is the only thing that is going to make a better tomorrow.
