Another Chance of Life Can there be another you

The answer is no, but by human cloning you can reproduce an offspring that grows into an exact genetically double of you. All of us want to prolong the lives of our loved ones and have a healthy newborn baby. Many infertility couples wanted to have a baby that is genetically theirs, not from adopting a child from a different family background. In the cloning technology, eggs or sperms would not be needed to be conceived by a person because any cell would do. One parent contributes DNA, making the child almost an identical twin.

He or she would differ from the parents much more than identical twins differ from each other. In many parts of the world, human cloning is banned. For example, Canada’s new Human Reproductive and Genetics Technologies Act made it illegal to clone human embryos, research on human embryos later than 14 days after conception, and the creation of embryos for research purposes alone. This act will make it more difficult for the estimated 280,000 infertile couplesin Canada to obtain domestic assistance in having a genetic child of their own.

Human cloning should not be banned because it has many promising benefits to infertility couples and to the basic research for treatment of various diseases. Most people would not want to clone themselves. Those people think a human clone resembles the person it is made from. The genes do not form our character and so identical twins would never get 100 percent identity because of the experiences and environment for everyone is never exactly the same. “It’s a horrendous crime to make a Xerox copy of anyone,” argue author and science critic Jeremy Rifkin.

The child from cloning is not a copy, but a unique individual. 1. 5 million identical twins are far from being identical. They have different brain structures, IQ’s, fingerprints, and personalities. The concern is the way people think about cloning. “Its not that anyone thinks there is a commandment, Thou shalt not clone, but there are limits to what humans out to be thinking about doing,” said Margaret O’ Brien Steinfels of Catholic commonwealth magazine. People fear that cloning will become a tool to copy their greatest players.

Now, Germany had developed laws governing the cloning procedures so that cloning is used solely for the benefits of the country. In the United States, the government cuts off funding for projects that seem offensive. Cloning is financed largely by the flourishing in-vitro fertilization business. Human cloning is the following step that started with in vitro fertilization to help couples who had troubles of getting pregnant. The embryo cloning increases the chances of a successful pregnancy for infertility couples. Fifteen percent of a dults suffer from infertility that cannot be cured by current medicine.

Millions cannot have children because that cannot produce more than one embryo. The in vitro (out of the body) fertilization aimed at developing fertilized eggs in test tubes can be implanted into the wombs of women having difficulty becoming pregnant. However, these fertilized eggs do not develop into a stage that is suitable for transplantation into a human uterus. The hit or miss depends on the number of embryos used. Through in vitro fertilization, the woman with only one embryo has about 10% to 20% chances to be conceived with a baby.

If that embryo could be cloned and turned into three or four, the chances of getting pregnant would increase significantly. Here are some ways how cloning had been used that helped our society. The gene cloning can provide large quantities of copied gene for use in medical research. If a child had an inherited disease, hemophilia or cystic fibrosis, the parents could have a couple of extra clones around to ensure that the defect gene does not pass on so that a perfect healthy child would be born.

In recent years, the scientific techniques had the ability to isolate and make copies from embryonic cells that are easier to work with but human cloning is far beyond today’s science. The Rosaline team was able to accomplish the difficulty of cloning from an adult cell. Dolly, the six years old ewe cloned, was a living proof that an adult cell can revert embryonic stage and produce a mature being. Dolly was like any other sheep. It gave birth to a healthy lamb. In the future, we can clone people the similar way they cloned Dolly. To do so, human cloning should not be banned for it is a new law of nature and a big step in science discovery.

Cloning Humans Essay

Shortly after the announcement that British scientists had successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly, cloning humans has recently become a possibility that seems much more feasible in today’s society. The word clone has been applied to cells as well as to organisms, so that a group of cells stemming from a single cell is also called a clone. Usually the members of a clone are identical in their inherited characteristics that is, in their genes except for any differences caused by mutation.

Identical twins, for example, who originate by the division of a single fertilized egg, are members of a clone; whereas nonidentical twins, who derive from two separate fertilized eggs, are not clones. (Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia). There are two known ways that we can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloning them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular person.

With these two methods at our desposal, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: Should we do this, and Can we? There is no doubt that many problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future. Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society could actually experience.

Today’s technological speed has brought us to the piont to where almost anything is possible. Sarah B. Tegen, ’97 MIT Biology Undergraduate President states, “I think the cloning of an entire mammal has shown me exactly how fast biology is moving ahead, I had no idea we were so close to this kind of accomplishment. ” Based on the current science , though, most of these dreams and fears are premature, say some MIT biologists. Many biologist claim that true human cloning is something still far in the future. This raises ethical questions now as towhether or not human cloning should even be attempted. ttp://www. usnews. com/usnews/issue/).

There are many problems with cloning humans. One method of human cloning is splitting embryos. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington D. C. There Dr. Jerry Hall experimented with the possibility of human cloning and began this moral and ethical debate. There it was concluded that cloning is not something that can be done as of now, but it is quite a possibility for the future.

These scientists experimented eagerly in aims of learning how to clone humans. Ruth Macklin of U. S. News & World Report writes, “Hall and other scientists split single humans embryos into identical copies, a technology that opens a Pandora’s box of ethical questions and has sparked a storm of controversy around the world” (http://www. usnews. com/usnews/issue/). They attempted to create seventeen human embryos in a laboratory dish and when it had grown enough, separated them into forty-eight individual cells.

Two of the separated cells survived for a few days in the lab developed into new human embryos smaller than the head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells each. (http://www. usnews. com/usnews/issue/) Although we cannot clone a human yet, this experiment occurred almost two years ago and triggered almost an ethical emergency. Evidence from these experiments received strange reactions from the public. Ruth Macklin states, “Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it’s not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity.

Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an unthinking disgust–a sort of “yuk factor. ” And that makes it hard for even trained scientists and ethicists to see the matter clearly. While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm, either. ” (http://www. usnews. com/usnews/issue/). Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity. That would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a lesser being, with fewer rights or lower stature.

But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn’t share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? If and when cloning comes about, will people be willing to pay anything for a clone of themselves? It is such a costly form of technology. As we see with so many other aspects of today’s socity, people will do all kinds of things for money. (Will human cloning make a type of black market for embryos could easily someday develop? ) Parents already spend a great deal of money on in vitro fertilization, and who knows how much they would be willing to pay for cloning their children?

The question as to what cloning would do to society from both the moral and economic standpoints comes to the conclusion that for the most part cloning is too expensive and too dangerous. In the religous circles the question of human cloning has stirred debate. Rev. Robert A. Martin states: “It appears that from the beginning God reserved for Himself the right to create living souls. I understand that the philosophy of modern psychiatry is to teach that human beings are soulless, therefore we are just flesh and blood which can only respond to the environment with no ability to make conscious decisions for itself.

In other words people are no differnet than animals to be used and manipulaated. Thus, there is, from the beginnging, a fundamental difference between what the Bible teaches and what psychiatry teaches. This being the case, it is little wonder then, that some people assume the prerogative of playing the role of god. ” (http://www. user. shentel. net/ramartin/applied/cloning. htm) Embryonic cloning could be a valuable tool for the studying of human development, genetically modifying embryos, and investigating new transplant technologies.

Using cloning to produce offspring for the sake of their organs is an issue that we must also face and question whether or not it is morally right. No one will say that it is okay to kill a human being for the sake of their organs. But will many have no objection to cloning thousands of individuals for the sake of organ transplants? Technology seems to take away many of the morals that we have worked so hard to install in society. Most people only seem to want to cater to their own needs and do not bother to consider the consequences that society and the clone may have to face.

With the issue of parents’ involvement in cloning, Ruth Macklin, writes, ” Perhaps a grieving couple whose child is dying. This might seem psychologically twisted. But a cloned child born to such dubious parents stands no greater or lesser chance of being loved, or rejected, or warped than a child normally conceived. Infertile couples are also likely to seek out cloning. That such couples have other options (in vitro fertilization or adoption) is not an argument for denying them the right to clone. Or consider an example raised by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which the husband has some tragic genetic defect.

Currently, if this couple wants a genetically related child, they have four not altogether pleasant options. They can reproduce naturally and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can go to a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro fertilization and dispose of any afflicted embryo–though that might be objectionable, too. Or they can get a male relative of the father to donate sperm, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by cloning might see it as not the worst option. ” (http://www. usnews. com/usnews/issue/). Should we be excited at the prospect of cloning?

No more nasty surprises like sickle cell or Down syndrome-just batch after batch of high-grade and, genetically speaking, immortal offspring! Cloning from an already existing adult is a second method that we must consider when discussing the cloning of humans. This type of cloning would no doubt be a very controversial issue any way that it is looked at, but it is necessary to understand the two ways that it could be done if we were to clone humans. Unlike the process of cloning embryos, cloning from already existing humans allows one to know exactly what their clone will look like ahead of time.

Before the clone is actually produced, the parents or the individual’s clone will know exactly what to expect in their offspring as far as looks go. Personality and other factors cannot be certain, but it is stated that if the clone is observed carefully and compared with its other clones, many similarities will automatically arise. Cloning among adults is less obtainable than embryonic cloning, but it seems to cause just as much controversy. Embryonic cloning has not been successful yet, as far as we know. We do know, however, that 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. 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 … rcissistic 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.

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.

Cloning humans and organs

Cloning humans and organs could only yield new technologies that will be beneficial to society. Organ cloning is something that would be extremely beneficial to society. For example, if we could clone human organs there would be no need for waiting lists for people looking for donors. Scientist could make a clone of a patients organ, that their body would be more likely to accept, without the imperfections of their previous organ. This way, another person who was on the waiting list could receive the organ.

In America 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 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.

Whether or not people believe in the “art” of cloning you have to agree that there are definitely 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 should be ethical to everyone, but just imagine the possibilities. No more waiting lists, and nearly uliminating organ rejection should be and exiting prospect to everyone. This type of technology could save thousands of lives. Using just the embryonic cloning, we could drastically improve many peoples chance to live.

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, nuclear technology has yielded many new technologies that will forever aid us in the bettering of our society. We cannot 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. The imposed a ban on cloning basically imposes a ban on the right to live. In summary, cloning is ethical, and therefore should not be apposed by society. For the ongoing inhabitation of life on earth, cloning could be a very important feature. The questions raised by the dawn of human cloning are no reason for bans and criticism. The potential medical benefits are too great to let fear dictate policy. Once the technology is safe and reliable, it should be applied to humans.

What is a clone

A clone is a duplicate – much like a photocopy is a duplicate, or copy, of a document (Kolate, 238). A good example of copies that occur in nature are identical twins, which are duplicates of each other. On a daily basis, molecular geneticists and other scientists use cloning techniques to replicate various genetic materials such as gene segments and cells (Kolate, 238). Recently the cloning of a living life form was brought from the realms of science fiction to reality with the cloning of a sheep named Dolly (Kolate 236). Imagine meeting an exact replica of somebody or yourself seven to ten years from now (Kaku 6).

They look alike, and even have the same genetic makeup. This is the new world of cloning. As with every new science, there are those who believe in it, and those who oppose it. So many questions arise. What if some one like Hitler had access to this technology? Would people want two identical copies of a child or a relative? What are the chances of people illegally obtaining blood samples of, for example, Albert Einstein, Bill Clinton, or even Lee Harvey Oswald for sale on the black market? Is there a way we can possibly outlaw and enforce cloning?

Could this development actually be used for a benefit, such as bringing back endangered or extinct animals? The instantaneous reaction of the world has been mixed. However, the overall benefits appear to out weigh the other factors. This new technological development can not be passed off. It has the potential of enormous benefits to society. The new technology of cloning should be utilized because it could bring back extinct organisms, help infertile couples to have children, and potentially save many lives. Cloning could bring back extinct animals (Kaku 227). Over millions of years, thousands of different species have gone extinct.

Most were due to natural selection, while several others were due to human intervention. Approximately two-thirds of all the native bird species (Kendall n/a) and one-fifth of the native plants (Kendall n/a) originally found on the Hawaiian Islands have gone extinct recently. Predators, competitors, or diseases introduced by humans from continental areas are responsible for many of the extinctions. Also, many remaining species on other oceanic islands are threatened or endangered. A benefit of cloning would be the cloning of endangered species that have difficulty reproducing in captivity (Kaku 227).

Many of the animal species, and numerous plant species could be brought back to life with cloning. Even though there is currently no technique for bringing the plants back, with technology advancing so quickly, we could have a solution in the near future. Ultimately, cloning could have significant human applications. Cloning could help a couple unable to have children because one of them was infertile. In the case of an infertile father, scientists take an egg from the mother, remove its nucleus, then take a cell from the father, remove its nucleus, and place the nucleus inside the empty egg (Kolate 242).

That cell acts as a reproductive cell. They then put the egg in the mothers’ womb to impregnate her. Mark Sayer, an infertility expert at Columbia Presbyterian Medial Center in New York, would like to take each cell from an early human embryo and clone it, making identical twin embryos in the womans uterus immediately, and freeze any extras for future attempts at pregnancy (Kolate 242). The attempt would prove that the process of reprogramming a cells DNA begins with clones (Kolate 237). In the field of medicine, cloning can be a very useful technique.

A major goal of scientists working on cloning is to clone genes that direct the production of medically significant uses in treating disease (Robel n/a). Medical scientists would be able to not only reproduce the genes, but would be able to transfer them and to study them (Kolate 236). It would be possible to study organs of the human body to learn how they could alter them to cause them to regenerate after injury. Another possible medical use for cloning is the development of pigs that have been modified with human genes so their organs can be transplanted into humans (Charles F01).

Other research applications of cloning would involve genetically modifying adult cells to be cloned to create animal models of human diseases to study the effects of drugs (Charles F01). The ways of reproducing genes and copying DNA could help in finding cures for certain diseases and disorders. Scientists could take DNA from healthy cells and copy it, then inject it into an unhealthy cell to cancel out the bad genes (Charles F01). Cloning would also help parents that are facing the possible loss of a child due to illness.

More palatable than the ego cloneis the medical clone, a baby created to provide transplant material for the original (Kluger 66). The idea of a medical clone, or a baby created to provide transplant material for the original child has surfaced (Kluger 70). While the idea of harvesting a one-of-a-kind organ, such as a heart from a new child resulting in creating a clone just to kill it for the organ is not advocated (Kluger 70), most parents are not against raising a clone, or identical child so some of its bone marrow can be used to save the life of the first child (Kluger 69).

The idea that future clones could produce such medically important substances as Insulin, interferon, and growth hormone is exciting to scientist (Robel n/a). To begin with, the most stunning, but least disputed possibility, is to consider the idea of using human cloning to grow your own organs for transplant(Kolate 234). A noted Harvard Medical School professor, Stuart Orkin, testified before a presidential ethics commission in 1997 and predicted that it might be possible to use the cloning breakthrough to enable patients to grow their own bone marrow that would be a perfect match and ready when the patient needed it (Kolate 234).

Another medical benefit of cloning could lead the way to creating genetically altered animal that act as living drug factories by producing valuable pharmaceutical substances in their milk (Small 3). Also, such genetically altered animals could be used as living organ factories because their organs would not be rejected by the human immune system (Small 3).

In addition, medical scientist hope to use cloned, genetically engineered cows as donors for neutral cells that could be used to treat nerve-damaging diseases such as Parkinsons and diabetes (Small 3). At Genzyme Transgenics Corporatation, they are working on making a heard of genetically engineered cattle that will produce the human serum, albumin, a protein that is currently derived from pooled human plasma, and is given to people who have suffered blood loss (Small 4).

Because of the overwhelming positive implications, society must embrace this the idea of cloning. The new technology of cloning should be used because it could resurrect extinct animals, give infertile couples new hope, and provide medical science with a new tool that could potentially save thousands of lives. With recent advances moving along at such speed, cloning will become an integral part of our society.

The Process of Cloning and the Ethics Involved

Cloning is a biomedical engineering process that has come into the national spotlight in recent months. In 1996, embryologists at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland amazed scientists around the world as they were the first to successfully produce a clone using a specialized cell from an adult vertebrate. Although it is considered a biological breakthrough, the event has produced controversy over the ethics of the process. Cloning is a process that has been attempted for years, but it was never successfully performed until 1996. Scientists assumed that the cells of mature organisms were too specialized to be cloned.

However, Roslin researchers solved this problem by starving a ewe’s specialized udder cell of nutrients. The process itself is not complicated when put into simple terms. One explanation of the now famous “Dolly” cloning process divides it into six main steps. The first task that the embryologists at Edinburgh performed was the objective of placing an udder cell from a donor ewe into a solution for a few days. This step ensured that the cell would not receive any nutrients in order to make it non-specialized. The next task for the scientists was to remove the nucleus from the egg cell of another provider ewe by means of a thin pipette.

After both of these steps were completed, scientists retrieved the non-specialized cell and the enucleated egg cell, and both cells were fused with an instant spark of electricity. Next, both cells fused to produce one new cell. This cell contained the donor ewe’s udder cell nucleus and genes, and the egg provider’s cell surrounded the nucleus. The next to last step involved the product cell growing into an embryo. The researchers then took this embryo and implanted it into the womb of a surrogate sheep mother. Finally, after a period of time, the surrogate mother gave birth to he resulting lamb which was named “Dolly”.

Dolly, the final product, was an exact genetic duplicate of the donor ewe, or in other words, Dolly was the donor ewe’s clone. Although a biological marvel, the cloning of “Dolly” brought about fears of the future of cloning. Many animal-rights and ethics experts questioned the right of humans to play “God” in duplicating natural organisms. After a Chicago scientist announced his intention to work to clone a human, heated debates erupted over the morals of playing with human life. However, the FDA has the final say in the legality of cloning a human eing. Also, concerns were raised over the cloning of “Dolly”.

Since Dolly was a genetic duplicate of a six-year old animal, there was worry over whether Dolly’s chromosomes might contain genetic damage as a result. Premature aging was a concern because Dolly’s chromosomes contained characteristics of an older animal. As a result of all these concerns, many scientists are opposed to the cloning of a human. Some additional ethical questions could arise if a human was to be cloned. Parents might start to base their affections for their offspring on selected traits opposed to asing affections on the uniqueness and individuality of a naturally conceived child.

In addition, cloning for eugenics (the scientific improvement of the human race) is also an issue. Ethicists worry that the selective breeding of humans to be used for slavery or warfare could undermine the preciousness of human life. On the other hand, cloning may have unlimited benefits, according to proponents of the process. A strong argument in favor of cloning is that cloning could possibly be the only way for an infertile couple to have children. Also, some scientists support the ideas that cloning could help umans gain more knowledge about genetic diseases, and they also argue that suitable organs could be grown for organ transplants.

Also, advocates of cloning say that a misconception of cloning is that the clone is an exact identical in all aspects to the original organism. To correct this, they point out that the clone is younger than the original, thus making it a delayed twin and a separate individual. In addition, these scientists argue that the environment of which the clone grows up in determines its personality and individuality. Therefore, the clone would not develop in he exact same way as the original, say the researchers.

I personally believe that the cons of cloning outweigh the pros. To me, human life is precious and it should not be toyed with. The individuality and uniqueness of a naturally produced creature is the beauty of nature, and I do not think humans are in a position to mess with perfection. Although I admit cloning does have potential benefits, these hopes for a better society should not force our values of human life to be compromised. Ultimately, I believe scientists will find the cloning process to be scientifically successful but morally and ethically flawed.

A clone is really just a time-delayed

A clone is really just a time-delayed identical twin of another animal or person. Cloning is accomplished by getting two cells to fuse to become one. The egg gains a full set of genes from the adult and thinks it has been fertilized. Then it begins to divide and become identical twin or clone of the adult. There are many different good things that could come from this new science. One way it would be helpful is reversing heart attacks. Some scientists believe that they would be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged.

Another helpful way cloning would be. Is to create organs or tissues to replace damaged ones. Some scientists believe that it would be possible to create these tissues or organs. Human cloning can also help parents that can not have a child have one. One more way cloning would be helpful in animals is that we could create the perfect animal that would produce what we wanted. It would have no flaws and would live long enough. It would also be immune from diseases. Cloning could also become harmful. People could go and create the perfect person.

But what is perfect? Another way that cloning could be harmful with the research going to far. Is that people with the money are the only people that would be able to clone. The government should take action on this. They should not let the cloning go on. It is not right to create people. People should be created the old fashioned way. Congress should be the level of government taking action on this issue. They can make a law that would not allow it to be done. Sure they would make the law but people would still be doing it.

The emotional aspect of cloning is that people are getting the wrong view of cloning from fiction novels, like Frankenstien, they think that clones will be zombies. Many people find human cloning disgusting but there are many things also that people find disgusting like sex changes. But people are letting that happen. This is said by many people for cloning. The scientific group of people are pushing for cloning as much as they can. They are looking to do cloning and create the perfect being. If they proceed with cloning they can open other things. Religious groups are against cloning. They are saying cloning is confusing natures course.

Are there different types of cloning

The possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep “Dolly” (Nature 385, 810-13, 1997), aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of “cloning” –an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material. What is cloning? Are there different types of cloning?

When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. A basic understanding of the different types of cloning is key to taking an informed stance on current public policy issues and making the best possible personal decisions. The following three types of cloning technologies will be discussed: (1) recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, (2) reproductive cloning, and (3) therapeutic cloning.

Recombinant DNA Technology or DNA Cloning The terms “recombinant DNA technology,” “DNA cloning,” “molecular cloning,”or “gene cloning” all refer to the same process: the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be propagated in a foreign host cell. This technology has been around since the 1970s, and it has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today. Scientists studying a particular gene often use bacterial plasmids to generate multiple copies of the same gene.

Plasmids are self-replicating extra-chromosomal circular DNA molecules, distinct from the normal bacterial genome (see image to the right). Plasmids and other types of cloning vectors are used by Human Genome Project researchers to copy genes and other pieces of chromosomes to generate enough identical material for further study. To “clone a gene,” a DNA fragment containing the gene of interest is isolated from chromosomal DNA using restriction enzymes and then united with a plasmid that has been cut with the same restriction enzymes.

When the fragment of chromosomal DNA is joined with its cloning vector in the lab, it is called a “recombinant DNA molecule. ” Following introduction into suitable host cells, the recombinant DNA can then be reproduced along with the host cell DNA. See a diagram depicting this process. Plasmids can carry up to 20,000 bp of foreign DNA. Besides bacterial plasmids, some other cloning vectors include viruses, bacteria artificial chromosomes (BACs), and yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs).

Cosmids are artificially constructed cloning vectors that carry up to 45 kb of foreign DNA and can be packaged in lambda phage particles for infection into E. li cells. BACs utilize the naturally occurring F-factor plasmid found in E. coli to carry 100 to 300 kb DNA inserts. A YAC is a functional chromosome derived from yeast that can carry up to 1 MB of foreign DNA. Bacteria are most often used as the host cells for recombinant DNA molecules, but yeast and mammalian cells also are used. Reproductive Cloning Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal.

Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

Dolly or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone’s chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor. Some of the clone’s genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg. Mitochondria, which are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell, contain their own short segments of DNA. Acquired mutations in mitochondrial DNA are believed to play an important role in the aging process.

Dolly’s success is truly remarkable because it proved that the genetic material from a specialized adult cell, such as an udder cell programmed to express only those genes needed by udder cells, could be reprogrammed to generate an entire new organism. Before this demonstration, scientists believed that once a cell became specialized as a liver, heart, udder, bone, or any other type of cell, the change was permanent and other unneeded genes in the cell would become inactive. Some scientists believe that errors or incompleteness in the reprogramming process cause the high rates of death, deformity, and disability observed among animal clones.

Therapeutic Cloning Therapeutic cloning, also called “embryo cloning,” is the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease. Stem cells are important to biomedical researchers because they can be used to generate virtually any type of specialized cell in the human body. Stem cells are extracted from the egg after it has divided for 5 days. The egg at this stage of development is called a blastocyst.

The extraction process destroys the embryo, which raises a variety of ethical concerns. Many researchers hope that one day stem cells can be used to serve as replacement cells to treat heart disease, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and other diseases. See more on the potential use of cloning in organ transplants. In November 2001, scientists from Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT), a biotechnology company in Massachusetts, announced that they had cloned the first human embryos for the purpose of advancing therapeutic research.

To do this, they collected eggs from women’s ovaries and then removed the genetic material from these eggs with a needle less than 2/10,000th of an inch wide. A skin cell was inserted inside the enucleated egg to serve as a new nucleus. The egg began to divide after it was stimulated with a chemical called ionomycin. The results were limited in success. Although this process was carried out with eight eggs, only three began dividing, and only one was able to divide into six cells before stopping. How can cloning technologies be used?

Recombinant DNA technology is important for learning about other related technologies, such as gene therapy, genetic engineering of organisms, and sequencing genomes. Gene therapy can be used to treat certain genetic conditions by introducing virus vectors that carry corrected copies of faulty genes into the cells of a host organism. Genes from different organisms that improve taste and nutritional value or provide resistance to particular types of disease can be used to genetically engineer food crops. See Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms for more information.

With genome sequencing, fragments of chromosomal DNA must be inserted into different cloning vectors to generate fragments of an appropriate size for sequencing. See a diagram on constructing clones for sequencing. If the low success rates can be improved (Dolly was only one success out of 276 tries), reproductive cloning can be used to develop efficient ways to reliably reproduce animals with special qualities. For example, drug-producing animals or animals that have been genetically altered to serve as models for studying human disease could be mass-produced.

Reproductive cloning also could be used to repopulate endangered animals or animals that are difficult to breed. In 2001, the first clone of an endangered wild animal was born, a wild ox called a gaur. The young gaur died from an infection about 48 hours after its birth. In 2001, scientists in Italy reported the successful cloning of a healthy baby mouflon, an endangered wild sheep. The cloned mouflon is living at a wildlife center in Sardinia. Other endangered species that are potential candidates for cloning include the African bongo antelope, the Sumatran tiger, and the giant panda.

Cloning extinct animals presents a much greater challenge to scientists because the egg and the surrogate needed to create the cloned embryo would be of a species different from the clone. Therapeutic cloning technology may some day be used in humans to produce whole organs from single cells or to produce healthy cells that can replace damaged cells in degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. Much work still needs to be done before therapeutic cloning can become a realistic option for the treatment of disorders. What animals have been cloned?

Scientists have been cloning animals for many years. In 1952, the first animal, a tadpole, was cloned. Before the creation of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal, clones were created from embryonic cells. Since Dolly, researchers have cloned a number of large and small animals including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, rabbits, and a gaur. See Cloned Animals below. All these clones were created using nuclear transfer technology. Hundreds of cloned animals exist today, but the number of different species is limited.

Attempts at cloning certain species such as monkeys, chickens, horses, and dogs, have been unsuccessful. Some species may be more resistant to somatic cell nuclear transfer than others. The process of stripping the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell is a traumatic one, and improvements in cloning technologies may be needed before many species can be cloned successfully. Can organs be cloned for use in transplants? Scientists hope that one day therapeutic cloning can be used to generate tissues and organs for transplants.

To do this, DNA would be extracted from the person in need of a transplant and inserted into an enucleated egg. After the egg containing the patient’s DNA starts to divide, embryonic stem cells that can be transformed into any type of tissue would be harvested. The stem cells would be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the recipient. In theory, the cloned organ could then be transplanted into the patient without the risk of tissue rejection. If organs could be generated from cloned human embryos, the need for organ donation could be significantly reduced.

Many challenges must be overcome before “cloned organ” transplants become reality. More effective technologies for creating human embryos, harvesting stem cells, and producing organs from stem cells would have to be developed. In 2001, scientists with the biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) reported that they had cloned the first human embryos; however, the only embryo to survive the cloning process stopped developing after dividing into six cells. In February 2002, scientists with the same biotech company reported that they had successfully transplanted kidney-like organs into cows.

The team of researchers created a cloned cow embryo by removing the DNA from an egg cell and then injecting the DNA from the skin cell of the donor cow’s ear. Since little is known about manipulating embryonic stem cells from cows, the scientists let the cloned embryos develop into fetuses. The scientists then harvested fetal tissue from the clones and transplanted it into the donor cow. In the three months of observation following the transplant, no sign of immune rejection was observed in the transplant recipient.

Another potential application of cloning to organ transplants is the creation of genetically modified pigs from which organs suitable for human transplants could be harvested . The transplant of organs and tissues from animals to humans is called xenotransplantation. Why pigs? Primates would be a closer match genetically to humans, but they are more difficult to clone and have a much lower rate of reproduction. Of the animal species that have been cloned successfully, pig tissues and organs are more similar to those of humans.

To create a “knock-out” pig, scientists must inactivate the genes that cause the human immune system to reject an implanted pig organ. The genes are knocked out in individual cells, which are then used to create clones from which organs can be harvested. In 2002, a British biotechnology company reported that it was the first to produce “double knock-out” pigs that have been genetically engineered to lack both copies of a gene involved in transplant rejection. More research is needed to study the transplantation of organs from “knock-out” pigs to other animals.

What are the risks of cloning? Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large.

Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia’s first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death. In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised.

In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes. Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents.

A process called “imprinting” chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos. For more details on the risks associated with cloning, see the Cloning Problems links below. Should humans be cloned? Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning.

Currently, the U. S. Congress is considering the passage of legislation that could ban human cloning. See the Policy and Legislation links below. Due to the inefficiency of animal cloning (only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for every 100 experiments) and the lack of understanding about reproductive cloning, many scientists and physicians strongly believe that it would be unethical to attempt to clone humans. Not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail, about 30% of clones born alive are affected with “large offspring syndrome” and other debilitating conditions.

Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors such as intellect and mood may not be as important for a cow or a mouse, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. With so many unknowns concerning reproductive cloning, the attempt to clone humans at this time is considered potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible.

Cloning Debate Essay

The recent news of the successful cloning of an adult sheep-in which the sheep’s DNA was inserted into an unfertilized sheep egg to produce a lamb with identical DNA-has generated an outpouring of ethical concerns. These concerns are not about Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about the considerable impact cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but rather about the possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however, the ethical concerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because they are based on erroneous views about what genes are and what they can do.

The danger, therefore, lies not in the power of the technology, but in the misunderstanding of its significance. Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to creating a “carbon copy”-an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. It would be more like producing a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separate people-biologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically-so a clone is a separate person from his or her non-contemporaneous twin.

To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic eterminism-the view that genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are utterly insignificant. The overwhelming consensus among geneticists is that genetic determinism is false. As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which genes operate, they have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects their “expression. ” The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits, such as height and hair color, is significantly mediated by environmental factors.

And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply, from intelligence to compassion, is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect. Indeed, we need only appeal to our ordinary experience with identical twins-that they are different people despite their similarities-to appreciate that genetic determinism is false. Furthermore, because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably always be riskier-that is, less likely to result in a live birth-than in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer.

It took more than 275 attempts before the researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloning methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF techniques typically have a success rate of less than 20 percent. ) So why would anyone go to the trouble of cloning? There are, of course, a few reasons people might go to the trouble, and so it’s worth pondering what they think they might accomplish, and what sort of ethical quandaries they might engender. Consider the hypothetical example of the couple who wants to replace a child who has died.

The couple doesn’t seek to have another child the ordinary way because they feel that cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost child. But the unavoidable truth is that they would be producing an entirely different person, a delayed identical twin of that child. Once they understood that, it is unlikely they would persist. But suppose they were to persist? Of course we can’t deny that possibility. But a couple so persistent in refusing to acknowledge the genetic facts is not likely to be daunted by ethical considerations or legal restrictions either.

If our fear is that there could be many couples with that sort of psychology, then we have a great deal more than cloning to worry about. Another disturbing possibility is the person who wants a clone in order to have acceptable “spare parts” in case he or she needs an organ transplant later in life. But regardless of the reason that someone has a clone produced, the result would nevertheless be a human being with all the rights and protections that accompany that status. It truly would be a disaster if the results of human cloning were seen as less than fully human.

But there is certainly no moral justification for and little social danger of that happening; after all, we do not accord lesser status to children who have been created through IVF or embryo transfer. There are other possibilities we could spin out. Suppose a couple wants a “designer child”-a clone of Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Taylor-because they want a daughter who will grow up to be as attractive as those women. Indeed, suppose someone wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to enjoy the notoriety of having one. We cannot rule out such cases as impossible. Some people produce children for all sorts of frivolous or contemptible reasons.

But we must remember that cloning is not as easy as going to a video store or as engaging as the traditional way of making babies. Given the physical and emotional burdens that cloning would involve, it is likely that such cases would be exceedingly rare. But if that is so, why object to a ban on human cloning? What is wrong with placing a legal barrier in the path of those with desires perverse enough or delusions recalcitrant enough to seek cloning despite its limited potential and formidable costs? For one thing, these are just the people that a legal ban would be least likely to deter.

But more important, a legal barrier might well make cloning appear more promising than it is to a much larger group of people. If there were significant interest in applying this technology to human beings, it would indicate a failure to educate people that genetic determinism is profoundly mistaken. Under those circumstances as well, however, a ban on human cloning would not only be ineffective but also most likely counterproductive. Ineffective because, as others have pointed out, the technology does not seem to equire sophisticated and highly visible laboratory facilities; cloning could easily go underground.

Counterproductive because a ban might encourage people to believe that there is a scientific basis for some of the popular fears associated with human cloning-that there is something to genetic determinism after all. There is a consensus among both geneticists and those writing on ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic research, that genetic determinism is not only false, but pernicious; it invokes memories of pseudo-scientific racist and eugenic programs premised on the belief that what we value in people s entirely dependent on their genetic endowment or the color of their skin.

Though most members of our society now eschew racial determinism, our culture still assumes that genes contain a person’s destiny. It would be unfortunate if, by treating cloning as a terribly dangerous technology, we encouraged this cultural myth, even as we intrude on the broad freedom our society grants people regarding reproduction. We should remember that most of us believe people should be allowed to decide with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce and how many children they should have. We do not criticize a woman who takes a fertility drug so that she can influence when she has children-or even how many.

Why, then, would we object if a woman decides to give birth to a child who is, in effect, a non-contemporaneous identical twin of someone else? By arguing against a ban, I am not claiming that there are no serious ethical concerns to the manipulation of human genes. Indeed there are. For example, if it turned out that certain desirable traits regarding intellectual abilities or character could be realized through the manipulation of human genes, which of these nhancements, if any, should be available?

But such questions are about genetic engineering, which is a different issue than cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait selection: It simply takes a pre-existing, unengineered genetic combination of traits and replicates it. I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have raised regarding the broad range of assisted reproductive technologies. But we should acknowledge that those concerns will not be resolved by any determination we make regarding the specific acceptability of cloning.

Human Cloning: The Ethical Issues

As the play opens, Willy Loman, who has been a traveling salesman for 35 years, returns home after having just left for a sales trip to New England. He tells his wife Linda that he can no longer go on the road because he cannot keep his mind on driving. At the same time, his elder son Biff is visiting the Brooklyn home after being away for many years. Willy reminisces about Biff’s potential, 14 years earlier, when he was playing high school football and being offered athletic scholarships by numerous university teams. When we meet Biff, he is discussing future job prospects with his younger brother Happy.

Biff considers going to see Bill Oliver, a man for whom he had worked many years earlier, and asking him for a loan to get started in a sporting goods business. Biff and Happy tell Willy of this plan, and he gets very excited with the idea. He emphasizes that Oliver really liked Biff and we begin to see Willy’s fixation with the idea that one only needs personal attractiveness to be successful in the business world. In fact, Willy decides that he too will see his boss the following day and ask for a New York position rather than a traveling job.

The first day ends with the bright hope that Willy, Biff and Happy will achieve their goals for the following day. The three of them plan to meet for dinner after they have been to their respective meetings. Unfortunately, Willy is not successful in his meeting with Howard Wagner, his current boss and son of the deceased owner. In fact, Howard fires Willy because he believes the elder salesman is doing the firm harm. Willy is crestfallen and goes to see his old friend and neighbor, Charley. Charley loans Willy enough money to pay his life insurance premium.

Charley offers Willy a job, but Willy cannot bring himself to accept it. While at Charley’s office, Willy meets Bernard, Charley’s son, who has become a very successful lawyer. Bernard wonder’s why Biff lost his initiative 14 years ago. This angers Willy and causes him to reflect on the past. Biff and Happy meet in the restaurant for dinner. Biff explains that he has had some important realizations about himself. Apparently, Oliver kept him waiting all day and then could not remember who Biff was.

Biff was so upset by this turn of events that he stole Oliver’s fountain pen. This leads him to reconsider all of his previous jobs, most of which he lost because he stole from his employers. Willy arrives at the restaurant and tells Biff that he has been fired. When Biff begins to tell Willy that he stole Oliver’s pen and has been a failure all his life, Willy refuses to listen and retreats to the wash room. Biff leaves the restaurant and asks Happy to make sure Willy is all right, but Happy rejects Willy and departs with two girls he has picked up.

When Biff arrives home later in that evening, Linda is furious with him for deserting his father. Willy is in the backyard planting seeds and holding an imaginary conversation with his dead brother, Ben, who had been a very successful man. In the end, Willy commits suicide. He dies in a car accident, an attempt to leave his life insurance money to his sons, so that they could succeed in life. He hoped that he could give something to them so that they would not turn out to be failures like him.

The History of Cloning

The theory of being able to make a genetic copy (a clone) of another animal has been around for quite a while. In this section as the title reads I will show the history of cloning. 400 million years B. C. – Plants have been cloning themselves since not to long (as far as the Earth is concerned) after their introduction to our planet. They send out runners that create an identical copy of the parent plant. 1938- Hans Spermann, of Germany, envisions what he calls the “fantastical experiment”.

He suggests taking the nucleus from a cell in the late-stage embryo and transplanting that nucleus into an egg. 52- Scientists Robert Briggs and T. J. King use a pipette to suck the nucleus from the cell of an advanced frog embryo, they then add it to a frog egg. The egg didn’t develop. 1970- John Gurdon tries the same experiment with the same procedure. The eggs developed into tadpoles but died after they were ready to begin feeding. He later showed that transplanted nuclei revert to an embryonic state. 1973- Ian Wilmut just finishes his doctorate at Cambridge University when he produces the first calf born from a frozen embryo. Cows only give birth to five to ten calves in a lifetime.

By taking rozen embryos produced by cows that provide the best meat or milk then transferring that to surrogate mother it allows cattle farmers increase the quality of their herd. Mid to late 1970’s- Scientists cut down small forests publishing research papers arguing the ethics of cloning and if it can be done. While they do this other researches around the world are actually investigating if it can be done. 1981- Karl Illmensee and Peter Hoppe report that they clone normal mice and embryo cells. It is later found to be a fraud. 982- James McGrath and Davor Solter report that they can not repeat the mouse cloning experiment.

They conclude that once mouse embryos reach the two cell stage they cannot be used for cloning. Others confirm their results. 1993- Embryologists at George Washington University cloned human embryos: they took cell groups from 17 human embryos (defective ones that an infertility clinic was going to discard), all two to eight cells in size. They teased apart cells , grew each one in a lab dish and a few got to 32 cells- a size when they can be planted into a surrogate mother, although they weren’t. 994- Neal First cloned calves that have grown to 120 cells.

1996- Ian Wilmut repeated First’s experiment with sheep but put mbryo cells into a resting state before transferring their nuclei to sheep eggs. The eggs developed into normal embryos then into lambs. 1997- Ian Wilmut and his colleague Keith Campbell clone an adult sheep. Different Methods: Of Cloning The most famous sheep in history, Dolly, was cloned by using the method of Nuclear transfer. Previously the only cloning was either done on plants or frogs or mice. In this section the different processes will be described.

Gardeners have been cloning plants for centuries and plants have been doing it for longer. Here are three different types of cloning out of many. One ype of plant cloning naturally occurs when a plant grows a runner. The runner grows horizontally across the ground forming a carbon copy of that same plant at the end. Eventually the runner dies and the daughter plant is separated from the mother plant. Another is when you cut a branch or leaf off of a plant and plant it. It will grow another identical plant. That method is called a cutting.

A stolon is where a weak branch of a plant falls over and the tip touches the ground. The tip swells and roots are formed so that growth in the plant can continue. ANIMAL CLONING Lower forms of animals clone themselves quite often like amoeba’s nd paramecium which use binary fission to split themselves in half and create a new but identical animal. The only other kind of cloning in animals is nuclear transfer cloning. Which is the whole topic of this report. Nuclear transfer is when the nucleus of one cell is implanted into another cell that has had the nucleus taken out.

The first time this happened was when Robert Briggs and T. J. King took the nucleus out of a multi-cell embryo and implanted it into the egg. Cell division then takes place and forms into a tadpole then into a frog. This process has been repeated with mice, sheep, monkey’s, etc. That is called embryonic cloning. The kind of cloning that created Dolly is when an adult animal is cloned. What happened in Dolly’s case is that Ian Willmut and his team of scientists took a nucleus from a Finn Dorset sheep and substituted it with a nucleus of an egg from a Poll Dorset.

Once the egg had developed to embryo stage it was implanted into a third breed of sheep a Scottish Blackface. Dolly came out 148 days later as an exact genetic copy of the Finn Dorset. The other important thing about Dolly is that her genes came from a dead sheep. The cells came from a frozen mammary gland. This is explained etter by the magazine “New Scientist. ” The mouse is embryonic, the sheep is the cloning of adult animals. Earlier cloning could duplicate embryos. Mouse A Mouse B Male and female mated Mouse X An undeveloped embryo, characteristics unknown.

Mouse Y Nucleus of cell from X inserted into one of Mouse Y’s egg cells, which starts dividing. Mouse Z Healthy mouse Genetically identical to X. New Method duplicates an adult Sheep X An adult cells were taken from her udder. Nucleus of cell from X inserted into Sheep Y’s egg cell electric shock makes it start dividing. Sheep Z Carried embryo in her uterus (a ommon surrogate breeding technique) Clone of Sheep X Healthy sheep genetically identical to X The Cloning Debate The thought of cloning to some people is repulsive and immoral. Others think that it is a scientific breakthrough to be valued for its own worth.

Anti-cloners believe Man should not meddle in God’s business of creating new beings. They take from the Bible this quote which supports their beliefs: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall ake away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” [Revelations 22:1819].

Advocates for cloning respond by stating that when the airplane was invented people hated the idea and said that if God wanted men to fly he would of given them wings. Now airplanes are thought of as one of the safest and fastest ways of travel. Human cloning presents many ethical problems because it is playing with Life itself. The father of cloning Ian Wilmut stated before the U. S. subcommittee on health last March. ” In previous work with cells from embryos, three out of five died soon after birth and showed developmental abnormalities.

Similar experiments with humans would be totally unacceptable. ” While that argument is good, almost no experiment can be done perfectly the first time. The current methods are a start and can be improved upon. One thing to point out is that when Thomas Eddison invented the light bulb he did it hundreds of times before he got one to work. Those against cloning condemn that argument because when Henry Ford dug up the ground behind his lab he found all the light bulbs hat Eddison had just thrown out the back like a garbage dump.

You cannot just throw out human lives that didn’t come out the way you wanted it to, and if you if it doesn’t turn out the way you wanted it to do you have the right to take its life. Then what if it reproduces with others like it or reproduces with humans. Can you take away its life and all of its offspring. Some suspicions have arisen that even if the U. S. makes cloning of humans illegal, that it will be carried overseas and done there. “Cloning humans from adults’ tissues is likely to be achievable any time from one to ten years from now.

Cornell University biologist W. Bruce Currie estimates that only about ten labs around the world have the ability to clone humans (his not among them) However, an in-vitro fertilization clinic could be upgraded with only a small investment to be able to clone humans. President Clinton proposed a ban on cloning saying that, “Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do…. At its worst [this new method] could lead to misguided and malevolent attempts to select certain kinds of children–to make our children objects rather then cherished individuals.

Those against cloning raised the proposed ban but said that it should include animals because they are cherished individuals too. In the U. K. all research on human embryos is regulated by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act passed in 1990. This provides appropriate framework for resolving the legal and ethical issues involved in cloning. The U. S. is considering whether it should regulate human cloning or just ban it. (Britain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain already do. This may not help anything though, since as of June 17, 1997 federal funds are not allowed to be used for human embryology esearch, but privately funded research can.

When the National Biotechnics Advisory Commission issued its report, it recommended that cloning of human beings be outlawed in the United States. The panel did say this at the end of the report, ” The members recognized that if further research made cloning safer and more familiar, society might one day change its mind. So the panel recommended that any legal ban be re-evaluated after three to five years.

If Congress agrees, the cloning debate could go well into the next century. Those who are against allowing people to clone themselves and others, say that if his process were to be perfected, some lunatic could theoretically go out and clone another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein and that we would have another World War, or Gulf War. Most everybody agrees that the world does not need another Fuhrer or Dictator.

Supporters of cloning have stated that this scientific discovery is not a science fiction book unfolding that this will not allow people to clone themselves when they are dying so they could live forever, that this will not create robots who will look the same as the person they were cloned from or act and think the same. This is summed up best by a quote from Harry Griffin who works at the Roslin Institute. “And what is left when we strip away the hyperbole and what has been written to entertain us? Most certainly a major scientific breakthrough.

Most scientists had thought through differentiation – the gradual process of specialization that allow a single fertilized egg to develop into hundreds of different cell types that make up the whole animal- was irreversible…. The new nuclear transfer techniques could be used to examine how the so-called somatic mutations – mutations that take place in the adult cell which are not inheritable- contribute to aging and lead to tumors. Understanding the process involved in ‘reprogramming ‘ could provide new insight into control of gene expression in differentiated cells and lead to new approaches to cell therapy.

One of the huge bonuses of cloning animals is that if you cloned endangered species you could boost their populations immensely. You could clone a whole herd of rhinoceros or panda. The problem with this is that it decreases the diversity of the gene pool and makes the herd less tolerant to disease. A disease, like a virus, could kill the entire herd of animals. Much like in a forest where there are many of the same trees one virus can come hrough and decimate it. The benefit of cloning domestic animals is that you human genes can be incorporated into an animals body so that they have human genes.

These animals are called transgenic animals. A cow named Rosie was genetically engineered in this manner by PPL Therapeutics (the company that funded the Dolly project). Rosie makes a human protein because, when she was a mere embryo in a dish, scientists slipped the gene for the protein into her cells. The cow’s milk contains the human gene alpha- lactalbumin an amino acid that newborns need. The idea is to purify her milk and sell it in a owdered form, for premature babies who cannot nurse. Transgenic pigs are being studied as a possible source for organs.

If pigs and other animals are genetically engineered scientists hope they can save the ten people that die every day waiting for a donated organ. On Both sides a majority agree that it should not be legal to raise clones just for spare body parts. Imagine having a room full of people being raised so that one day they can be sent off to a slaughter house for humans. Just so that whoever they were cloned from can live a little better or longer. One of the common misconceptions created mostly by the edia about cloning is that clones would be identical copies of the people they were cloned from.

They will maybe look alike but we can’t even be sure of that because if the person was born from a different uterus or at a different time the whole environment during pregnancy is different and the embryo can be affected. Because of this and many factors, a clone would be a completely different person Most of us at some time or another in our life have probably met a clone before. Those people are identical twins. They do not necessarily think and act the same, but they do both think and act. Conclusion This opic is a very controversial issue and I don’t think I will be the last person to do a report on it.

I also don’t think that this report will answer all the questions as to whether cloning should be allowed for animals or humans. Personally, I think that there are many benefits for cloning animals. The most important one in my opinion is the possibility of having animals be organ donors. I am undecided on the benefits, ethics and morality of cloning humans. It does not matter about my opinion because it can do little for or against this issue, this genie (Dolly) has been let out of the bottle and it will not go back in.

The Possibilities Of Cloning

A few years ago if you were to ask someone about the possibilities of cloning they would most likely say it was impossible. This attitude towards cloning has been held into belief up until recently when scientists in Scotland cloned a sheep. And immediately after scientists in Oregon cloned a monkey (Fackelmann 276). The most major breakthroughs of the century in science has occurred and we are not ready for it. The scientific breakthrough of cloning has caused a great deal of controversy in the media and also in the government.

The advantages of cloning are tremendous to the human race and cannot be ignored. I believe that cloning humans is what the human race needs to advance. Humans would be stronger, smarter, and more perfect. Scientists could remove bad genes from the parents and replace it with a good one. If one of the parents had a bad gene or hereditary disease this could be removed from the embryo and replaced with another “clean” gene. This process is called embryo screening it is used to determine if the child has received the defective gene.

Several embryos could be cloned, then the DNA from one of the embryos would then be removed and standard genetic testing would be used to detect whether or not that mbryo contained the genetic disease. If this cloned embryo containd a disease then one of the other embryos could be used for implantation in a parent, this guarantees that the child would be free of genetic disease (Marshall 1025). For those who disagree with cloning I am sure if there child could be saved from a genetic disease they would reconsider cloning. Imagine if one of your friends or family members was in need of a liver or kidney.

Most likely you would donate your own liver or kidney to save there life. But then you are one organ short. Well this happens a lot and seems to work fine. But if they needed a new heart you might have trouble finding one. Not if you had a clone of yourself that could supply you with a new organ or maybe even a relatives organ that was naturally stronger (Cloning 1117). Someone could replace their old organs with new ones and extend their life span. Thousands of lives that could be saved if we had the technology and advanced science of cloning available.

Even accepting an organ from a relative it may fail, it has to be compatible with our body system , if its your clone, then its a perfect match. Cancer is one of the largest killers and also one of the largest dilemmas scientists face today. Well, cancer research is possibly the most important reason for embryo cloning. Oncologists (People who study Cancer) believe that embryonic study will advance understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer. Cancer cells develop at approximately the same great speed as embryonic cells do.

By studying the embryonic cell growth, scientists may be able to determine how to stop it, and also stop cancer growth in turn (Watson 66). Whenever there is a draft for a war people protest hide and even leave the country why should people be sent to fight for something they dont believe in or even in my case a country they dont want to die for. We cannot dispense human lives as if they were candy. If we produced smart, strong and loyal clones, we could have the perfect soldier. There would no longer be humans in the military, there would be no worries about losing lives or family members.

Clones made specifically with a sole mission to die for there country these perfect soldiers would make up a perfect army. Well, in the case of a lost relative, more specifically parents losing their child. Parents could clone a child who had died, as a homage of love. The saying “there is nothing that you can do to bring him/her back” would now be obsolete with the process of cloning. Of course parents could never have their child back exactly as he/she were but they could definitely start over again. Or parents could simply clone the traits of a famous person or favorable traits of someone else and put them in their childs embryo.

Maybe even if they wanted twins or even sextuplets. Parents would be able to make more decisions on their child or childrens traits. The benefits of cloning do not stop at humans it extends out to animals. A lot of controversy is brought about when animals are used for laboratory testing. We should clone animals specifically for laboratory tests, these nimals would not be depleting any populations nor would they be taken away from their habitats destroying any food chains. Also farmers would benefit from cloning their select animals.

This would also give the consumer better meat quality and lower the price of meat. Governments in countries where famine is present could master cloning techniques and provide for the starving populations in their country. One of the most beneficial effects of cloning animals is that species of animals whose populations are almost extinct could be replenished by cloning. Animals such as the Blue whale, the condor, and the Norfolk whale. These are only three examples of endangered species, there are practically hundreds of endangered species that could be saved with the process of cloning.

We wouldnt be bothered by activists or any more “save the whales” foundations asking for you to donate money. If the amount of animals produced were controlled according to the food chains and habitats, these species could thrive once again. We could grow plants that would be immune to bugs or pesticides. Farmers would have crop that would survive the winter and frost. We could eliminate the loss of crops that forces the prices to go up in the supermarkets. Crops that require less water or can grow in certain types of soil.

This would be could for California where water is scarce. This is only the begging of the benefits we can achieve from cloning. Creating a stronger and more advanced human race. Diseases would become weeded and cleaned out of humans genetic makeup. Of course there is a chance of this getting in the hands of a madman or someone who would use it for ill purposes. But we can not let this amazing discovery stopped by people that can only see the bad side of cloning. They must also see the vast benefits of cloning, how it an save lives and entire species from extinction.

I believe that cloning is a part of our evolution, our ancestors evolved by using their hands and minds, by creating language and civilizations, this advanced them. Cloning is what will advance our race more. Our bodies have stopped using and have disposed of unnecessary organs and body features which have proved to be useless. Diseases and deformities are useless and cloning can aid to the evolution of humans by cleansing our bodies of such ill and in some cases deadly burdens. There are too many advantages in cloning for us to ignore it.

Morality Aspects Of Human 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 ortray 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 imes 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 n 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 mportant 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 loning 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 he 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 eplication of a living thing that is still in existence and that a clone is an exact copy of a person including personality and conscience. 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 uman 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 hildren, 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 hild, 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 t 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 etting 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.

Cloning is Ethically and Morally Wrong

The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups.

The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs. The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei.

Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, “the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage” (Logic: Kluger 1997). Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, “the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong” (Expert Opinion).

The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there! are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997.

He states that “children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them… To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children” (Expert Opinion). Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas. He suggests that humans have an inherent “right to ignorance” or a quality of “separateness. ”

Hum! cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twin, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of the effect of one’s genes on one’s future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same.

The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). Western culture and tradition has long held the belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary. But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human?

If a primate was cloned so that it grew human lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart. , what would it then be? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them(Deductive Logic: Kluger 1997)?

Also, if the technology were to be so that scientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice-versa, that would heighten the danger of developing zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans. It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop (Potential Risks). In conclusion, the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support or advocate it. The sheer loss of life in both humans and non-humans is enough to prove that cloning would be a foolish endeavor, whatever the cause.

The cloning ethically and morally wrong

The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly.

No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results n harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs.

The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage (Logic: Kluger 1997).

Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong (Expert Opinion). The sychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there! are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self.

Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 997. He states that children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them… To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children (Expert Opinion). Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas.

He suggests that humans have an inherent right to ignorance or a quality of separateness. Hum! an cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later win, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of the effect of one’s genes on one’s future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same.

The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). Western culture and tradition has long held the belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary. But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human?

If a primate was cloned so that it grew human lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart. what would it then be? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them(Deductive Logic: Kluger 1997)?

Also, if the technology were to be so that cientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice-versa, that would heighten the danger of developing zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans. It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop (Potential Risks). In conclusion, the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support or advocate it. The sheer loss of life in both humans and non-humans is enough to prove that cloning would be a foolish endeavor, whatever the cause.

Cloning in the agricultural aspect

Cloning opens many doors of opportunities in the agricultural aspect of the United States of America. It has already been a major factor in saving the lives of many humans. I feel the society as a whole can not and should not degrade this scientifical finding. I feel that human cloning should not be done and that this subject raises too many ethical questions. I would like to focus on an agricultural aspect if I may. People raised hell when animal parts were put into humans to save lives and today it is an accepted part of medicinal science.

I feel that cloning in an agricultural and medicinal aspect will become the same as transplanted animal parts. It will go through much debate, but ten years from now it will be accepted scientifically, socially, and morally. In an article in Newsweek called A Cloned Chop, Anyone? They take a somewhat neutral, but also somewhat negative viewpoint of cloning in an agricultural and medicinal sense. They admit some good aspects of this genetic engineering, but they still seem pessimistic of the future of cloning in animals excluding humans. The first thing the article states is the Wall Street opportunities for the biotech field.

Instead of phone calls from eager investors only phone calls from reporters were coming in asking about this market. I feel that now would be a great time to invest in biotechnical companies specializing in agricultural and medicinal cloning. This article says nothing about the great potentials of long term investment. Long term investment especially in the medicinal field is incredibly profitable. Just as in other controversial investing opportunities I eel that investors will find they could have made a lot of money if they invested in this area.

Ten to fifteen years from now this agricultural cloning will be a commonly routine thing and price wars will begin for the products produced by them which means many great investment opportunities will be available. But one must remember that Wall Street is extremely short term investing so this is a good explanation for not many investors being interested in this because it is still many years before tangible and profitable products are made from cloning. The article goes on to say the Scottish scientists have a lot of good ideas, but they seem to be only a sci-fi adventure.

Once again I disagree. Scottish scientists are trying to help the human race, not be lucrative mad scientists looking for another way to manipulate the human race. The following are some things that have already been done with genetic engineering and they are helpful to us, the human race. They plan on genetically engineering cows that produce altered milk formulas for premature infants. This is great I do not know how anyone can go against this because if their infant’s life were on he line they would do everything in their power to save their child’s life.

Also they are genetically engineering animal organs to be more similar to those of humans. So just like we have been trying to do we can take organs from animals and successfully transplant them into humans. Again this will save many lives of people with terminal diseases that can be saved by organ transplant. Cloning is referred in the genetics area as transgenics. Some companies have been altering genes of animals with genes of humans to produce proteins needed to fight cancer and other diseases.

Cloning may further enhance this procedure witch will help catalyst this treatment easily past the human testing stage into curing these horrible diseases. One company has already bred cows that may produce milk containing a protein essential for infants who can not nurse. Again I see no down side to this product and cloning will help speed this research along so we can save lives. The article next talks about some positives. It tells how sheep with proteins necessary for saving human lives can be breed more efficiently with cloning.

Right now only one or two out of every ten sheep produce the proteins needed. However with cloning these “good” sheep can be cloned. Then they breed with other clones to make a whole generation of sheep with the desired protein. One company in the biotech field PPL is hoping to genetically engineer animals that will produce a tissue glue for use in surgery and a drug for cystic fibrosis. Finally the article states at the end that does anyone want to eat a cloned chop. Well the major restaurant chains did not seem interested. But first off only one sheep has been produced.

I am sure they are not going to butcher the only clone to see how it tastes. I do not feel people should disclaim cloned meat. If an extremely good beef generation was produced they could be cloned. This would give excellent beef all year round and year after year. Of course cloning should not over take natural breeding, because through natural breeding we find more and better varieties of livestock. I am sure that the meat would be very tasty and palatable. The same goes true for grains, corn, and other plants. A superior seed may be available for worldwide use through loning.

Overall there are many possible positive benefits of cloning in an agricultural and medicinal aspects. As of now no one has the authority or right to belittle cloning. Besides there is not even scientific evidence to support any refutations to go against any cases about cloning that may appear in a court of law. We must be patient as a world community to see what develops of this subject. But it is years away from hitting the market; all we can do is hope and wait that someday cloning will better the human race and ourselves.

Organ Cloning Essay

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. 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.

Cloning, and Stem Cell Research

Technology has advanced a great deal within the past few years. We have learned so much information about animals genes and what can be done with them. However, with this new information brings new questions and arguments. So far, scientists have successfully cloned a sheep, a monkey, a bull, and are working on an endangered breed of ox, of course cloning animals and conducting research on those animals does not concern many people. When people begin discussing cloning and stem cell research heads turn because it is such a controversial issue.

Is it morally right to destroy a life so that maybe someday others could live? According to an article in People Weekly the theory is that embryonic stem cells could replace any damaged or diseased tissue, curing diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and diabetes. Sounds like a winning plan to the uneducated hear. The problem that arises with this theory is that scientists must destroy human embryos to make the cells. Michael West, the chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology a Worcester, Massachusetts based company where a majority of their cells come from embryos left over from In Vitro Fertilization.

In Vitro Fertilization, is a process where the sperm from a male and an egg from a female are fertilized outside of the human body in a laboratory. When scientists perform this procedure generally the scientists will extract more than one embryo from the female to ensure that at least one will be fertilized. The rest of the cells are then extra and are not needed. West and other scientists at Advanced Cell Technology have proposed producing stem cells from cloned embryos. This may lead to treatments in which damaged tissue is replaced with what are essentially the patients own cells.

West also explains that unlike other types of cells, embryonic stem cells can probably reproduce forever. These cells will grow for researchers until the last researcher on the Earth, ads West (Herper). When asked in a CNN. com chat room, When do scientists consider an embryo a life? Dr. Jeffrey Kahn the Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota responded with this. It depends on the scientist, but you would get views ranging from at conception to at birth. Many people consider the stage of embryos we are talking about to be pre-embryos since they are so early in their development.

Some scientists believe that there are many advantages in allowing human cloning to proceed. Dr. Richard Seed, an advocate for human cloning suggests that some day it may be possible to reverse the aging process from what could be learned through cloning. Scientists also believe that they might be able to help heart attack victims by cloning the persons healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of their heart that were damaged from the heart attack. Through cloning, infertile couples could also be able to have children. It is a fact that the average person carries eight defective genes in them.

These genes cause people to become sick when they would otherwise be healthy, through human cloning technology it may be possible to guarantee that the average person may no longer suffer from our defective genes. Scientists hope that one-day we may also be able to clone livers and kidneys for transplant patience. One of the first benefits expected from cloning technology is scientists should be able to clone bone marrow for children and adults who suffer from leukemia. Cancer may no longer be a problem if scientist learn how to switch cells on and off through cloning.

Cloning could even benefit the fashion world, by providing an alternative to silicone breast implants as well as other cosmetic procedures that may cause immune diseases. Cloning would allow doctors to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that is an exact match of the patients. Which would help people who have been deformed or have had a limb amputated due to accidents to have their features repaired with safer technologies. These are just a few of the advantages cloning technology can help mankind, and why many scientists are against the ban of human cloning (humancloning. g).

On the other hand, there are also some scientists that think that the cloning of humans should not be allowed. Michele Orecklin reports in Time magazine that Dr. Leon Kass an eminent University of Chicago Bioethicist makes his views against human cloning well known. Kass this past year was picked by President Bush to head an advisory panel on stem cell research. Kass had recently been changing from a political thinker to a political player because of his opposition to human cloning and he believes that cloning robs us of our humanity.

On June 20, 2001 Dr. Kass gave testimony on his opinions of human cloning in front of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Kass started his testimony by saying that he supported the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 for two reasons. The first reason given by Kass was that human cloning was unethical, both in itself as well as to what it could lead to. His second reason was that he believes that this bill is the only reasonable chance at preventing human cloning from happening. Here is an excerpt from his testimony.

The vast majority of Americans object to human cloning, and on multiple moral grounds, among them the following. It constitutes unethical experimentation on the child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities. It threatens individuality, by deliberately saddling the clone with a genotype that has already lived and to whose previous life its life will always be compared. It6 confuses identity by denying the clone to biological parents and by making it the twin of its older copy.

It represents a giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture (especially when understood as the harbinger of non-therapeutic genetic manipulations to come). And it is a radical form of parental despotism and child abuse even when practiced freely and on a small scale. Permitting human cloning means saying yes to the dangerous principle that we are entitled to determine and design the genetic make-up of our children. If we do not wish to travel down this eugenic road, an effective ban on cloning human beings is needed, and needed now before we are overtaken by events.

There are also many other reasons why human cloning is considered unethical. However most of them do involve the question of whether or not it is acceptable to destroy many potential lives to advance our knowledge as humans, and possibly someday cure many diseases in the process (Kass). Politicians are also very interested in the debate over cloning and stem cell research. One group of representatives known as the New Democratic Coalition collectively wrote a letter to president Bush stating their support for stem cell research using all types of stem cells.

The coalition asked the president to allow the recently issued National Institute of Healths guidelines to remain in place because they provide tough requirements that enable scientists to perform research within the constraints of federal standards. They go on to say that stem cell research could lead to advances in treatment of many diseases and disabilities like Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease. The coalition then states that they appreciate the Presidents support for using stem cells from spontaneous abortions and adult stem cells. However, they do feel that limiting the research to just these two sources will impede the progress.

They specifically point out that embryonic stem cell research offers hope to over one million American children that have juvenile diabetes because of the potential to turn the stem cells into insulin-producing cells. So far there is no evidence that adult stem cells can be used for this treatment. Concluding the coalition states, We have entered the twenty-first century and are on the verge of breakthrough biomedical discoveries that could save millions of lives The United States has an obligation to demonstrate our continued leadership in this arena and we can only do so with the support of out government.

Thirty-six democratic United States representatives signed this letter including Karen McCarthy from Missouri (New Democratic Coalition). When it comes to politics one man stands above the rest, whether you like him or not the president is the head politician. So I thought it wise to see what he had to say about stem cell research. George W. Bushs first big televised chat with the nation was about bioethics. This is a bit odd considering he barely even touched on the issue though the duration of his campaign. Especially a topic as complicated and controversial as this.

Bush compared the decision to concerning federal funding for stem cell research to a decision to send troops to battle. I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans, said Bush. His speech raised all the tough questions. Is an embryo growing in a tube the same as one growing in a womb? Would it be okay to experiment on it if it was to be destroyed anyways? Some people consider answering these questions playing God. Bush warned the nation that these are dangerous waters. So he went on being careful not to step on too many toes.

Bush explained that through private research, over sixty diverse stem cell colonies already exist. These colonies were created from embryos that had previously been destroyed and they can also regenerate themselves forever. Then Bush said this, I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where life and death has already been made (Goldstein). Through the duration of my research I have been trying to decide what exactly my stance is on this issue.

Like many of the scientists and politicians articles and websites I came across. I found it quite difficult to come to my own conclusion. Both sides post very good arguments. I would love to see Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer and other diseases cured. It is not too far off to say that I have a good chance of seeing it happen in my life. However, it should be done in a moral manner. Who determines the morals? Everyones morals are the different. I was raised a Baptist until I was in sixth grade. Then we started attending a Word of Faith church.

My parents played a big role in how I was raised but yet I still do not have the same morals and ethics as them. So my final stance is that this is not an issue of right or wrong. Whoever said, You are either hot or cold, you can be luke warm definitely did not live in the year 2002 and if he is then he has retracted his previous statement. I have done hours of research and I still have not even came close to decision. I do know that in vitro patients would donate the only embryos I would want to be used, for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

The development of cloning

Bioethics, which is the study of value judgments pertaining to human conduct in the area of biology and includes those related to the practice of medicine, has been an important aspect of all areas in the scientific field (Bernstein, Maurice, M. D. ). It is one of the factors that says whether or not certain scientific research can go on, and if it can, under which rules and regulations it must abide by. One of the most recent and controversial issues facing our society today is the idea of cloning.

On February 23, 1997, Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, along with his colleagues at the Roslin Institute and PPL Therapeutics, announced to the world that they had cloned a lamb, which they named Dolly (Mario,Christopher). The two share the same nucleic DNA, but differ in terms of their mitochondrial DNA, which is vitally important for the regulation of the cell. The media and the press ignored this fact, and thus claimed that Dolly and her mother were genetically identical, which sparked a fury of outcry all around the world.

The technique of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg cell of which the nucleus had been removed, called nuclear transplantation, is an extension of research that had been ongoing for over 40 years. Up until now, scientists thought that adult cells could not be reprogrammed to behave like a fertilized egg and create an embryo, but the evidence obtained by Dollys success prove otherwise.

The issues of cloning have been around for a long time, starting with the publication of Joshua Lederbergs 1966 article on cloning in the American Naturalist. The publics interest has been perked by many sci-fi books, films, and movies including Aldous Huxleys 1932 novel Brave New World, 1973s Sleeper, the 1978 film The Boys from Brazil. Most recently, the movie Multiplicity dealt with replicating Billy Crystal over and over (Mario, Christopher).

The ethical, legal, and moral issues aroused by cloning have been raised by previous projects, and are now simply emerging again, with its focus on three major points: the shift from sexual reproduction with that of asexual replication of existing genes; the ability to predetermine the genes of a child; and the ability to create many genetically identical children (Report/Recommendations of the NBAC). The public responded to Dolly with a mixture of fear and excitement, questioning the benefits and the disasters that could happen in the future if research was to continue.

From a poll taken by Maurice Bernstein, M. D. , the results showed that 72% of the votes said that cloning should be prohibited by law. They believe that cloning for any reason would be an unethical and immoral thing to do. A common misconception of cloning is that it is the instantaneous creation of a fully-grown adult from the cells of the individual. Also, that an exact copy, although much younger, of an existing person could be made, reflecting the belief that ones genes bear a simple relationship to the physical and psychological traits that make up a person. This is one point that those against cloning are often worried about.

That the clone would have no soul, no mind, no feelings or emotions of their own, no say in how their life will be with their destiny predetermined for them, and that each individual clone would not be unique. They are also afraid that the clone will not be treated like a person, more like a worthless second copy, or a fill-in for what was there but now is lost. Although the genes do play an important part, its the interaction among a persons genetic inheritance, their environment, memories, different life experiences, and the process of learning that results in the uniqueness of each individual (Mario, Christopher).

The risks involved in cloning people as well as animals are of a much greater magnitude than many people realize. Our society needs to begin weighing in the dangerous consequences before making any solid conclusions, because cloning may wind up costing us much more than we bargained for. The most beneficial result that cloning can present is the ability to create organs. But, we must realize the risks involved as well. There would most likely be many failures before there were to be even one success, and there is no substantial evidence that this would even be possible. So, the risks seem to greatly outweigh any possible benefits.

Cons of Cloning

In this article Cons of Cloning by Andrea Castro, the point is made that there are many positive things about cloning; but there are also many bad things that could happen if men were to fool around with cloning. The main thing that was pointed out to be the negative part of cloning is that people would lose their individuality. Soon cloning the same people over and over and over and over again would create many problems. There would be less variety of people, or if there were more people than the world would be hard pressed to support the bigger population.

The world would have to go find new space, there would be a need for more jobs, more food, more housing places, etc. If there were a less variety of people cloned then soon everybody would almost look alike and when a crime is committed it would be hard to tell which clone did it. Another thing that is wrong with cloning is that it could cause the cloning scientists to be greedy and take advantage of the situation. A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientists to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc.

Then there is the religious factor. In the bible it said that God was the only creator. With scientists trying to recreate life they are treading the line and trying to play the role of God. The power to decide who can live, which people wit what qualities are allowed to survive on this earth, clearly or decisions that should not be made by humans. The main point made in this article is that the most the human race has to lose by playing around with cloning is that the genetic diversity would be lost.

Banning On Cloning Is Unjust

On February 24, 1997, the world was shocked and fascinated by the announcement of Ian Wilmut and his colleagues. A press release stated that they had successfully cloned a sheep from a single cell of an adult sheep. Since then, cloning has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed topics. The issue that gets the greatest focus is human cloning, and there has been an onslaught of protests and people lobbying for a ban on it. However, there is a real danger that prohibitions on cloning will open the door to inappropriate restrictions on accepted medical and genetic practices.

Therefore, the banning of cloning is unjust. The most popular objection to human cloning is the assumption that science would be playing God if it were to create human clones. This argument refuses to accept the advantage of biological processes and to view the changes of the world. Religious objections were once raised at the prospects of autopsies, anesthesia, artificial insemination, organ transplants, and other acts that seemed to be tampering with divine will.

Yet enormous benefits have been gathered by each of these innovations, and they have become a part of humans daily life. The issue of playing God has already arisen when a doctor selects a patient on a waiting list for transplant and leaves others to die, and when the doctor puts their patient under life support whenever they are in coma or they are near death. The moral issue of cloning is similar to the past issue faced by the society such as nuclear energy, recombinant DNA, and the computer encryption.

There have always been religious and moral objections to new technologies and changes merely because they are different and unknown to humans. The public not only worries about science playing God, but also fears that the cloned childs autonomy and individuality will be reduced because it will have the same DNA as another person. One of the more eloquently stated fears about the loss of uniqueness is a consideration for the rights of the clone to a unique and untried genotype. Moreover, the cloned individual will be saddled with a genotype that has already lived.

He will not be a fully surprise to the world, and other people are most likely to compare his performances in life with that of his clone source. But the child who results from cloning will not be the same person as the clone source, even if the two share many physical characteristics. Its uterine, early childhood, and overall rearing environment and experiences will be different. Given the importance for nurture in making a person who he is, the danger that the person cloned will lack a unique individuality is highly fanciful.

When Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced they had successfully cloned a sheep, president Clinton immediately banned federal funds from being used for human cloning research, stating that, Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry, it is a matter of morality and spirituality as well. Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science. However, president Clinton has failed to see the benefits of human cloning.

Cloning can directly offer a means of curing diseases or often a technique that can extend means to acquiring new data for the sciences of embryology. European researchers reported that they had developed a method using cloning technology that could help many infertile women to have babies; they do this by inserting the nucleus of one woman s egg into another womans egg. This would allow an older woman to have a baby that is genetically hers, but using the resources of a younger womans egg.

Human cloning can also enable couples in, which one party has a serious hereditary disease, to reproduce without transmitting the disease to their offspring. A baby girl is born free of the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease, even though both her parents are carriers. The reason? In the embryonic cell from which she was cloned, the flawed gene was replaced with normal DNA. Two years after Ian Wilmut has announced his discovery, a group of European scientists reported that they had cloned six calves using a new technique that allowed the animals to start life biologically younger than the aged cells from which they were derived.

Like Dolly, the claves are clones of the original DNA donor, exact genetic copies rather than individual mixtures of male and female DNA. But the cattle also differ from the sheep in one subtle but fundamental way. In Dolly the sheep, scientists found that cloned cells retained the age of the donor. This time, using cow egg cells, researchers modified donor cells in such a way that the egg rejuvenated the new cells and gave them traits of youthful cells. Such techniques might eventually be used to create long-lived body parts from a patients own cells.

This is one of the many ways in which human cloning can be beneficial to mankind. Dr. Richard Seed, one of the leading proponents of human cloning technology suggests that Cloning can help reverse ageing by teaching us how to set our age back to 20. This is possible because each time a cell is cloned it is treated as a new cell with the age of zero. Therefore, cloning will enable human beings to copy their cells and have the new ones with the age of zero implanted into them when they are older. This will allow humans to live to any age they wanted and eliminate the fear of old age.

Contrary to scientists expectations, the birth of Dolly shows that it is possible to reprogram the cell of an adult so that it begins to develop all over again. This newly discovered flexibility means it may have the ability to produce organs or tissues to repair the damaged ones; this will prove an invaluable resource, as there are not enough organs to supply the demand at present. A report has shown that an elderly man develops macular degeneration, a disease that destroys vision. To bolster his failing eyesight, he receives a transplant of healthy retinal tissue cloned from his own cells and cultivated in a lab dish.

Not only can the cloned cell repair damaged vision, it can also provide an infusion of fresh bone marrow, and grafts of brand new skin. Unlike cells from an unrelated donor, these cloned cells will incur no danger of rejection; patients will be spared the need to take powerful drugs to suppress the immune system. By combining the technology behind embryonic stem cells and cloning, skin for burnt victims, brain cells for the brain damaged and spinal chord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics can be grown.

Also, conditions such as Alzheimer disease, diabetes, heart failure, degenerative joint disease, and other problems can be made curable as a result of human cloning. At this early stage in the development of cloning, it is essential to continue the debate about potential uses and harms of cloning, and not hastily enact legislation. A true democratic society should not pass laws outlawing something before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. Though cloning research does present some dangers, it also has many potential benefits and should not be banned simply out of fear of its possible misuses.

In such a situation of ongoing debate, Congress should be very slow to restrict the uses of cloning, because they are so intimately involved with personal decisions about family, reproduction and curing diseases. A federal criminal prohibition on human cloning risks depriving infertile couples of a potentially legitimate way of forming families, threatens established practices in medicine and genetic screening. Nothing that is known about human cloning is likely to be used to justify such a step.

Human Cloning Should Be Illegal

Cloning captured the publics attention when Scottish scientists startled the world in July of 1996 when they announced the birth of a sheep named Dolly which they had cloned from the nucleus of an adult mammary cell and a sheep egg. Ever since this spectacular event occurred people have been thinking about the possibility of cloning humans. What would a clone be like? His/her physical appearance would be the same as the person he/she was cloned from, but depending on the society it would be brought up in its personality would be totally different.

Many people in this decade believe that human cloning should be illegal for many different reasons, but there are many people who think it should be legal. Human cloning is a very sensitive subject with its advantages and disadvantages. Strictly speaking embryo cloning is a technique used by researchers and animal breeders to split a single embryo into two or more embryos that will have the exact same genetic information (Wall 1117). The procedures used in cloning human embryos are very similar to the cloning of animal embryos, except for the zona pellucida.

The zona pellucida is a protective protein and polysaccharide membrane that covers the internal contents of the embryo, and provides the necessary nutrients for the first several cell divisions that occur within the embryo. Several sperm cells and mature egg cells are gathered from donors at fertility clinics, and are combined in a petri dish using in vitro fertilization procedures to form an embryo. In an alternate process, already produced embryos are gathered from fertility clinics. The acquired embryo is placed in a petri dish and is allowed to develop into a mass of two to eight cells.

Next a chemical solution is added to the zona pellucida that covers the embryo. After the zona pellucida is dissolved, the cells within the embryo are freed. These two to eight cells are collected by researchers and put in separate petri dishes (Hale 83). The cells are then coated with an artificial zona pellucida. The individual cells are then considered new embryos, all of which share the same exact genetic information. In effect at this point the science has produced multiple copies of life that could have never before existed (Fackelmann 276). In time and given the right conditions these cells will divide and form a human being.

Why clone human embryos? There are many legitimate reasons for investigating cloning. Embryologists believe that the research could help improve the lives of further generations. Cancer research is possibly the most important reason for embryo cloning. Oncologists believe that embryonic study will advance the understanding of the rapid growth of cancer cells. Cancer cells develop at approximately the same phenomenal rate as the embryonic cells do. By studying the embryonic cell growth, scientists may be able to determine how to stop it, and also stop cancer growth in turn (Watson 66).

Another important reason for embryo cloning is to remove genetic diseases out of the embryos DNA and replace it with regular DNA, but this procedure is only theoretical. This is another reason cloning should be allowed to find out if this procedure is possible. Also, doctors hope that by being able to study the multiple embryos developed through cloning, they can determine what causes spontaneous abortions. Contraceptive specialists also believe that if they can determine how an embryo knows where to implant itself, then they can develop a contraceptive that would prevent embryos from implanting in the uterus (Watson 66).

One questionable procedure is cloning an embryo to use the bone marrow of the clone for a critically sick child. these are many reasons human cloning should be allowed. There are many reasons cloning should be allowed. There are also many reasons cloning should not be allowed. Religious groups say it is Taking the work of God into our own hands. To many religious groups believe cloning is morally wrong because there is no mention of cloning in the Bible and because of this they think that if God wanted us to clone he would have mentioned it. Another thing that has people worried is that cloning would take away the individuality in the world.

This is a big issue that most people over look in human cloning. If the issue of cloning humans was legalized, then many families would want to freeze cloned cells of family members, so if they were to die they could give birth to the same family member and have him/her back. The problem with this is if this were to happen the child/family member would be different. Its physical qualities would be the same but its mental and emotional states would be totally different. The new person would be growing up in a totally new time period and its personality would be different.

So technically the person would be the same physically but everything else would be different. The only way for that family member to be the same as it was, which is virtually impossible, it would have to be brought up the exact same way he was before with the same sports, music, politics, ect. Another big issue is what the mental and emotional problems would result if a clone were to find out that he/she was cloned. To many people this would be a devastating blow to that person. There is also a debate as to the moral rights of clones. Some say this will occur because there is no birth of newness.

They say this wouldnt be as exciting giving birth to a clone then if the baby was naturally conceived. We would already know what the baby would look like, so it wouldnt be as exciting. They say cloning would deprive any human to have its own perception of uniqueness. Now that Dolly has been cloned by Scottish scientists, scientists and people all over the world have gone clone crazy. It now seems as if there is a race to see who can clone the first human. But before that happens there are many questions about this subject for and against cloning that need to be answered.

As of now, before scientists go any further with cloning, there should be a lot more research done to answer those many questions and a lot more debates over the moral and ethical aspects of human cloning. Cloning is a delicate subject that can not be ignored. It has become a part of our lives through Dolly and pretty soon will be through many of the people we know in our daily lives. Cloning will be a big issue in the future kind of like the way abortion is now. Cloning is a very sensitive subject with its advantages and disadvantages.

Human Cloning Report

To consider the cloning of another human being forces me to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make us all human. Until the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be successfully cloned, it was thought that the ability to clone an adult human was impossible or would only be possible somewhere in the distant future! But that has all changed with the birth of Dolly and the explosion of advances in the field of Embryology and genetic screening.

These advances are leading the way forward for the cloning of an adult human, which brings up many new ethical and complicated questions that I feel must be addressed by the scientific community and the public, before these advances can reach there full potential. As with any scientific or technological advance, it brings around questions that I feel must be answered: Do the pros out weight the advantages, and more importantly; is it right? Will Human Cloning become a brave new step in fighting disease and improving the quality of life, or will it lead to dehumanisation and a new genetic underclass?

People say and strongly believe that biologists are cloning human embryos only to see how far they can push the scientific barriers. However not all things are corrupt, I believe, as do the leaders of Great Britain, that it is possible that the reasons behind Human Cloning, Embryology and genetic screening may be legitimate. Cloning could help improve the life of future generations.

Although I still prefer the idea of these scientists spending all this money and their effort on finding a cure for a disease that has or will affect many of us in one way or another: cancer! I still keep an open mind about this subject as most of the embryologists and biologists claim that they are doing this as they feel that they have a duty to the improvement of our society, or even perhaps a moral obligation.

To this end the techniques have been offered to society as an option for the improvement of humanity. The human race is in the early stages of defining human cloning and what it means. The human race is defining it as a science as opposed to an art or religion, specifically a kind of science that is called Biotechnology.

Biotechnology is the study into the design and manufacture of the human body. I believe that we must all ask ourselves what this mean. Should it be allowed and is it right? A Time Magazine poll (March 10th, 1997) reported that 74% of those asked believe that it is against Gods will to clone humans. However, thinking that cloning humans is playing God is not actually true as no one can actually prove what God’s intentions were when crating the earth and the creatures on it?

There is substantial disagreement as to what God’ s will is, but what I find interesting in this argument is something I read in an article “Cloning: Will They Soon Clone Human Beings? ” by Garner Ted Armstrong who wrote: ” Anyone who has truly proved God exists; that God isn’t only Creator, but Life giver, Designer, Sustainers, and Ruler over all his creation, knows that the human family began with one man, and that a wife, miraculously created form his own body and as unique and original a creation as Adam himself, formed the first family.

Though God’s miraculous creation of Eve was far from cloning, it is interesting to note in passing that God’s own Word says He used Adam’s rib-physical bone and tissue – to create Eve. ” This shows, to me, that God had to clone Adam to create Eves body structure, which could be argued that is what biologists and embryologists are only doing following in Gods foot steps and not playing God. I firmly believe, after taking all this information in and weighting the positive and negative aspects of human cloning, that it is a decision of difficulty.

Human cloning and cloning research shouldn’t be made illegal because it may provide a cure for cancer, it probably will provide a valuable basic research and possible spin off technologies related to reproduction, development, and cures for deadly diseases, and finally prohibiting it would violate the fundamental freedom of scientific inquiry and for the human species to advance. Which would only cause controversy and confusion of what is really at stake.

Yes sure it is good as it leads on for new developments and helps improve human life. As always there are the negative aspects: with genetic engineering and human cloning it is possible to use these in the arsenal of ethnic cleansing creating inequality in our society which would be the beginning of many wars, and thats some thing that the scientits, biologists and embryologists, as well me, dont want to see. All I can say is is it right? I say yes, but that is not for me to decide that is up to the individual.

The legal aspects of Human Cloning

The legal aspects of Human Cloning are quite simple and straight forward, and I will outline them for you in the next few minutes and explain to you what they mean. It is quite evident though, that you will not be able to understand these laws if you dont know what human cloning technically means! So let me begin by defining for you what our government defines as human cloning. Human cloning, or better termed as Human Embryo Cloning is defined as to replicate a human being. In other words, a clone of someone is just a time delayed identical twin of that person!

Now that we know what human cloning eans, we can discuss the prohibition on federal funding for cloning for human beings. President Clinton first addressed this issue in December of 1994. He directed the National Institutes of Health not to fund the creation of human embryos for research purposes. Then, congress extended this prohibition in Fiscal year 96 & Fiscal year 97 appropriation bills (which are simply bills for funds set aside for a specfic purpose), barring the Dept of Health and Human Services from supporting certain human embryo research. The President then went on to address this issue for one last time on March 4th. 1997.

After eciding that this law had too many loopholes, he laid down the law and issued a directive that banned the use of any federal funds for any cloning of human beings. He stated the reason for his prohibition in a press conference in the oval officeon March 4th. He believes that it is not just a matter of of scietific inquiry, rather that it is a matter of morality, as you will understand better as you listen to the other speakers in my group. He states each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond lab sciences. He also states that I believe we must respect this profound gift and respect its origin.

The Cloning Advantage

The first successfully cloned mammal was created on February of 1997. It was a breakthrough in scientific research when the Scottish scientists cloned a sheep by the name of Dolly. The method of cloning requires the extraction of DNA from anywhere on a subject’s body and inserting that DNA into a woman’s egg. Worldwide attention was turned to the prospect of human cloning and with a push for sweeping prohibition (Tribe 459) legislatures around the world banned any research related to cloning because of its nature. To get rid of cloning research would be very harmful and detrimental to society.

If cloning humans is allowed then it will benefit us all because of the medical advances and understands that can be obtained from cloning technology which will help everyone improve and prolong their lives. Cloning is beneficial because the technology will give us a better understanding of the way our bodies work. It will end many diseases and prevent new unforeseen ones. Also, couples unable to bear children will be able to via cloning. Organs can be cloned reducing the long waiting lists that many people in need of organs suffer. To get rid of cloning research would be very harmful and detrimental to us all.

One of the main arguments concerns the immorality of cloning. Many state that cloning debases the essence of humanity. The cloning of oneself will in no way reduce the value of what it is to be human. Cloning is just another way of reproducing. Alt5ernative methods of fertilization and surrogate motherhood have gained moral status so why not cloning? There were cries of immorality when birth control pills and heat transplant surgery were introduced. These innovations have gained widespread acceptance. This is to say that banning something before its potential is examined is a huge mistake.

A cloned person is just like a twin, only years apart. A cloned person has its own personality because it is the environment and experiences that make the person. Any beliefs that clones are mindless human beings are wrong. Many assume the worst that the worst could happen. People always assume the worst, recall The Boys From Brazil, a story of identical offspring of Adolf Hitler being raised in order to further his horrible work (Wilson 463). The prevailing belief that people will start cloning a master race or clone Hitler is unrealistic.

The cloning of humans will not depreciate humanity. Instead it will be a bonus to mankind. Even if Hitler were to be cloned, it wouldn’t mean that the clone would be like or even succeed in continuing the original Hitler’s plan. Another concern and the strongest of the arguments that many have is that it goes against Gods will (Wilson 463). Since reproduction through copulation is the norm everything that goes against that is wrong, many assert. There was similar criticism of the aforementioned birth control pills and organ transplant surgery but they have radually gained acceptance.

When revolutionary advances occur there are always those who oppose it because it disrupts the normality of things. Another primary argument is the fact that as of now the cloning technology is too risky. Dolly was the only lamb to emerge out of 277 attempts, and we still do not know how long she will live or what diseases, if any, she might contract (Wilson 463). I concede the procedure of cloning such advanced mammals as sheep let alone humans is painstaking and complex. Many things have to go just right in order for the procedure to be successful.

This calls for further research not a banning of cloning. Through more research we will be able to clone more efficiently than the Scottish scientists did with Dolly. Mistakes will be made and there will be casualties. Those things go along with progress. In vitro fertilization wasn’t successful the first time around. Neither was organ transplant surgery. A premature ban on any scientific effort moving in the direction of cloning could well impede on useful research (Wilson 463). Further research will help us better understand the technology and how to apply it effectively.

Current cloning projects on monkeys, which are very similar to humans, will better help us understand how to clone humans. Sure the technology is not up to par as of yet but with hard work and perseverance it will be in a few years. The medical advances that cloning will bring to humanity is incredible. For years countless people have died from infirmities and disease because their vital organs failed on them. Many techniques have been tried to solve this common dilemma. Centuries ago people bleed patients by cutting the skin to allow blood to drain out. This was done in hopes of getting rid of bad blood.

As one may guess, this method was not very successful. Not until the 20th century have doctors been able to transfer organs fro one body to another. This has saved many lives but there are still many who die because of a shortage in the organ supply. Cloning will solve that problem. In the near future technology will improve so that medical scientists will be able to clone organs wholly outside of a human body. To be able to clone human cells and tissues is seen as vital to medical progress. We will be able to duplicate a carbon copy of a healthy strong organ without a person having to donate one of his or her own organs.

Another important reason to legalize cloning is to enable couple unable to bear children to be able to. Suppose the father cannot provide sperm or the mother is unable to produce a fertilizable egg (Wilson 465). In this case a couple would be incapable of conceiving children even with the aid of fertility drugs. In Vitro fertilization also may at times be unsuccessful and many couples wont consider adoption. Cloning technology will increase the possibility of a barren couple conceiving. No longer will a couple not be able to experience the natural feeling of having their own children.

Another benefit that cloning will bring to us is a better understanding of our bodies. Through cloning we will be able to grasp how cells behave and why they die. In addition to the aforementioned organ-cloning asset, cloning will also allow us to learn about the predisposition of certain cells to maladies such as cancer and tumors. Thus, cancer can be prevented. Also, previously incurable diseases and undiscovered diseases can find that their cure originated in cloning related technology. This advantage will be an enormous boost to mankind because it will prolong the life of many who would have died early.

Fear of having a life threatening familial genetic trait will be eradicated. Another way life can be prolonged is through the study of the lifespan of the body’s cells. Through research in cloning, scientists might one day be able to prolong the lifespan of our own cells. In conclusion, cloning will have enormous beneficial repercussions around the world. Everyone will find himself or herself benefiting. Thanks to cloning, one might lead a robust and extended life. The benefits of cloning are so great that it is a must that it becomes allowed.

Cloning should be allowed for any non-threatening reason. The only objection that stands up under analysis is that the technology has not been perfected. This is justification for further research, not a prohibition. The end product, the actual cloned person, will feel unique and special rather than oppressed and ostracized. It will be a testament to the willpower and intellect of mankind. People who are in desperate need of organs will benefit by getting those organs at a fraction of the time it would usually take. To ban cloning is to cheat the world out of a very valuable service.

Leave Human Cloning to Mother Nature

It’s been three years since the birth of Dolly, the world’s first successfully cloned animal. The announcement of her birth brought about much ado and sparked many debates concerning the morality of cloning. In the three years since Dolly was created, the debate over cloning has swelled and receded, but has never been put to rest. A compelling issue that has come into focus in the past several years is the idea of human cloning. Many scientists believe that it is inevitable because the technology is there, and anything that can be done eventually will be done.

They preach the value of human clones, dropping phrases like ‘cure for disease’ and ‘prolonged life’ to entice the public into supporting their cause. Though these concepts seem beguiling, the notion of human cloning, when looked at as a whole, has serious repercussions and should not be entertained lightly. From a strictly scientific point of view, we are just not ready to attempt the cloning of a human being. Our scientific knowledge of cloning has been compared to Mr. Ford’s knowledge of the automobile just after the introduction of the Model A.

The dangers of producing human clones with disabilities and disfigurements are high because of our low level of understanding of cloning and of human genetics in general. Even if the probabilities of disfigurement were low, human cloning could not be justified. What rationalization could be given to a child who would spend the rest of his life in horrible disfigurement? Even one person forced to spend his life in pain should be reason enough to avoid human cloning. An area that has apparently been overlooked by the scientific community in their race for the gold is world population.

This is an issue that they have been screaming over for years, and yet scientists are looking the other way where the issue of cloning is involved. Many countries are overflowing with people, and the United States, among others, becomes the nurturing nipple from which these distressed countries suck the much-needed funds to support their starving citizens. China has for years placed a one child per couple rule on its populace, and there are many out there who think it is a good practice. At present, there are nearly 5. 4 billion people on this planet.

With all of the uproar concerning over-population, why make more? Of course, from a less technical standpoint, the issues with human cloning are endless. The most chilling of all is the idea that cloning humans can save lives. Though on the surface this seems to be a bright spot in the sea of darkness that surrounds the human cloning issue, in reality it could be the darkest point of all. The reason being that cloning in order to save lives gives rise to visions of human farms where people will be made and used for parts, or research.

Though there may be legitimate instances of organs cloned, the most obvious and easy way to ensure longevity would be to clone your self for spare parts. Black market operations would surely ensue, and add yet another dimension to the already versatile world of crime that our society must endure. If the practices were made illegal, it would merely add to our already overflowing court system. This brings about another point rarely discussed by either side of the cloning issue: the clones. Has anyone bothered to think of these poor individuals?

We can’t even get together as a society and accept the humans we already have. It seems incredibly brazen of us to assume that we could accept these new additions to society as equal. It could be a horrible stigma carried like a dark secret throughout the clone’s life. The effects would be devastating. Why would we want to put someone through that just to satisfy our own narcissistic goals? Finally there is the one thing that most people opposed to cloning agree on; our intuition says “NO”.

This may seem like an unfounded reason to argue for the banning of human cloning, however when inspected more closely, the idea can be supported. The reason that the idea of cloning creates such a disturbance within us is that at a very deep level, cloning challenges the theory of what it means to be a human being. The concept of manufacturing humans assumes that we are little more than the sum of our genetic parts. If it were possible to make carbon copies of humans, perhaps even limitless copies, how would we continue to uphold the idea that humans are individual and therefore deserve absolute respect?

What thread would we rely on as a society to tie us together? Cloned human beings already exist in nature in the form of identical twins. Though the individuals share the same genetic makeup, they are still just that: individuals. The genetic map that our bodies follow is there merely to lay the groundwork. It is life, and life’s experiences that make us human. Therefore, it stands to reason that science should not set out to do something that nature has already accomplished so well.

What is a Clone

A clone is a group of genetically identical cells. For example, tumors are clones of cells inside an organism because they consist of many replicas of one mutated cell. Another type of clone occurs inside a cell. Such a clone is made up of groups of identical structures that contain genetic material, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. Some of these structures, called plasmids, are found in some bacteria and yeasts. Techniques of genetic engineering enable scientists to combine an animal or plant gene with a bacterial or yeast plasmid.

By cloning such a plasmid, geneticists can produce many identical copies of the gene. Uses of Cloning: Researchers said the cloning of animals, especially those that have been genetically modified in certain ways, could have a number of medical, agricultural, and industrial applications. For example, cloning could result in the mass production of genetically modified cattle that secrete valuable drugs into their milk. But the cloning of animals indicated that it might also be possible to clone humans. Much of the public expressed revulsion toward the prospect of human cloning, and some politicians vowed to outlaw it.

Its proponents, however, saw human cloning as a way to help people, such as by allowing infertile couples to have children. Early Scientific Experiments of Cloning: Scientists have long been intrigued by the possibility of artificially cloning animals. In fact, people have known since ancient times that just just cutting them into two pieces can clone some invertebrates, such as earthworms and starfish. Each piece grows into a complete organism. The cloning of vertebrates (animals with back bones) is much more difficult to clone.

The first step in the cloning the complex organisms (vertebrates) came in the 1950’s with experiments done on frogs. In 1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas King, biologists at the Institute for Cancer Research (now the Fox Chase Cancer Center) in Philadelphia, developed a cloning method called nuclear transplantation, or nuclear transfer, which was first proposed in 1938 by the German scientist Hans Spemann. In this method, the nucleus–the cellular structure that contains most of the genetic material and that controls growth and development–is removed from an egg cell of an organism, a procedure known as enucleation.

The nucleus from a body cell of another organism of the same species is then placed into the enucleated egg cell. Nurtured by the nutrients in the remaining part of the egg cell, an embryo (an organism prior to birth) begins growing. Because the embryo’s genes came from the body cell’s nucleus, the embryo is genetically identical to the organism from which the body cell was obtained. In their experiments, Briggs and King used body cells from frog embryos. From these cells, they were able to produce several tadpoles.

Animal Cloning: Wilmut and his colleagues took mammary-gland cells from an adult sheep and placed them in a solution that essentially starved them of nutrients and caused them to stop growing for a few days. Then, with a spark of electricity, they fused each mammary cell with an enucleated egg cell. The resulting cells were allowed to grow into embryos, which were then transplanted into surrogate mother ewes (female sheep) to complete their development. Nearly 300 attempts at this technique resulted in failure for the scientists.

Some eggs did not accept mammary cell nuclei, embryos that were produced died, and lambs that were born were abnormal and died. But one lamb, apparently healthy, survived the procedure: Dolly, who was born in July 1996. Mouse Cloning: At the University of Hawaii they created more than 50 mice using adult cells in a variation of the cloning procedure used with Dolly (the first clone). There were two major differences between this mouse technique and the Dolly technique that allowed the Hawaii scientists to achieve such remarkable success.

The first difference was that the Hawaii researchers used naturally dormant cumulus cells (cells that surround eggs in ovaries) in their procedure. Because these cells were not growing, they could be easily reprogrammed inside enucleated egg cells without starving them in a special solution, as was necessary with the udder cells used in the Dolly procedure. Secondly, instead of electrically fusing a body cell with an enucleated egg cell, as was done in the Dolly technique; the Hawaii researchers used an extra-fine needle to inject the nucleus from a cumulus cell into an enucleated egg cell.

Because this technique did less damage to the egg than did electrical fusion, it increased the chance that the resulting cell would develop into a healthy embryo. Human Cloning: The same procedures used to clone sheep and cattle could theoretically be used to clone humans. However, human cloning would probably be more difficult than sheep or cattle cloning, because the cells of human embryos start producing proteins at a relatively early stage.

Thus, there would not be as much time for the egg cytoplasm to reprogram a transplanted nucleus. However, the successful 1998 cloning of mice, which also start producing proteins at an early embryonic stage, strongly indicated that this problem could be overcome in humans. Practical Purposes of Cloning: The mass production of animals engineered to carry human genes for the production of certain proteins that could be used as drugs; the proteins would be extracted from the animals’ milk and used to treat human diseases.

The Ethics Of Human Cloning

The ethics of human cloning has become a great issue in the past few years. The advocates for both sides of the issue have many reasons to clone or not to clone. This is an attempt to explore the pros and cons of human cloning and to provide enough information of both sides of the arguments in order for the reader to make their own informed decision on whether human cloning is ethical or not. Cloning will first be defined. Then a brief explanation of why questions concerning cloning humans have arisen will be presented. Some things cannot be known for sure unless it is tested, i. e. , human cloning is allowed.

Followed by that, a discussion of the facts and opinions that support cloning will be presented and then the same against cloning. Please remember that not all of this has proven true nor is able to be proven yet, but has simply been argued as a scientific hypothesis. Finally, my own personal opinion will be stated. Defining Human Cloning When speaking of human cloning, what is meant? Different groups and organizations define it differently. To use a specific definition, the American Medical Association (AMA) defined cloning as “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer’ refers to the process which the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing organism is transferred into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed” (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 1). In other words, cloning is the method of produce a baby that has the same genes as its parent. You take an egg and remove its nucleus, which contains the DNA/genes. Then you take the DNA from an adult cell and insert it into the egg, either by fusing the adult cell with the enucleated egg, or by a sophisticated nuclear transfer.

You then stimulate the reconstructed egg electrically or chemically and try to make it start to divide and become an embryo. You then use the same process to implant the egg into a surrogate mother that you would use with artificial insemination. (Eibert) However, many groups have used a broader definition of cloning. They include the production of tissues and organs through growing cells or tissues in cultures along with the actual producing of embryos to be born. This is done with the use of stem cells. When an egg is fertilized and begins to divide, the cells are all alike.

As the cells divide, certain cells differentiate and become the stem cells that produce certain tissue and then organs. Research in this very active. There is still much for scientists to learn about cell differentiation and how it works. To a clone an organ, a stem cell must be produced and then used to a clone that specific organ. For the sake of this paper, both definitions will be used in order to cover all opinions. One must understand that cloning does not produce an exact copy of the person being cloned.

What cloning does, is that it copies the DNA/genes of the person and creates a duplicate genetically. The person will not be a Xerox copy. He or she will grow up in a different environment than the clone, with different experiences and different opportunities. Genetics does not wholly define a person and the personality. How It All Started In February 1997, when embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at Roslin Institute in Scotland were able to clone a lamb, named Dolly, the world was introduced to a new possibility and will never be the same again (Nash).

Before this, cloning was thought to be impossible, but now there is living proof that the technology and knowledge to clone animals exist. Questions began to arise within governments and scientific organizations and they began to respond. Are humans next? Is it possible to use this procedure to clone humans also? Would anyone actually try? What can we learn if we clone humans? How will this affect the world? These are only a few of the questions that have surfaced and need answered. A whole new concept in ethics was created when the birth of Dolly was announced.

There are a great number of possible medical benefits and disadvantages to cloning and its technology. They include the following: Potential Medical Benefits The possibility that through cloning technology we will learn to renew activity of damaged cells by growing new cells and replacing them. The capability to create humans with identical genetic makeup to act as organ donors for each other, i. e. , kidney and bone marrow transplants. The benefit of studying cell differentiation at the same time that cloning is studied and developed.

Sterile couples will be able to have offspring will have either the mother’s or father’s genetic pattern. Potential Harms and Disadvantages The possibility of compromising individualities. Loss of genetic variation. A “black market” of fetuses may arise from desirable donors that will want to be able to clone themselves, i. e. , movie stars, athletes, and others. Technology is not well developed. It has a low fertility rate. In cloning Dolly, 277 eggs were used, 30 started to divide, nine induced pregnancy, and only one survived to term (Nash). Clones may be treated as second-class citizens.

Unknown psychosocial harms with impacts on the family and society. The Governments Make a Move The governments went to work shortly after the cloning of Dolly. They wanted to take control and make laws before anything drastic could ever happen. Several ethics committees were asked to decide whether scientists should be allowed to try to clone humans. Many of the committees found the data displayed above. In the United States, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended a five-year moratorium on cloning a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 1).

In the state of Michigan, Governor Engler signed a law last year making human cloning illegal with harsh penalties if it is attempted (“Governor Engler… “). In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGEC) have approved human cloning for therapeutic purposes, but not to clone children (“HFEA supports Human Cloning in U. K. “). Many organizations have come out and stated their opinions also. Amongst all this ethical defining, many people are being ignored by the governments.

People are speaking out about what they want done. Let Us Clone After a couple has had their first child, to their disappointment they become infertile and cannot have more children. Cloning would enable such a couple to have a second child, perhaps a younger twin to the child they already have. This example has a very good argument. Many couples have difficulties having children, and sometimes it is impossible for couples to have children because they are infertile. Cloning would allow these couples to have children.

Also, occasionally a woman is born without a uterus or has other complications and cannot produce eggs, then with the help of a surrogate mother, she can have a child of her own using her own DNA or her husband’s. This and the example at the beginning are both arguments that some have made in promoting cloning. It is hard to tell someone that they cannot use cloning to have children when no other possible ways to produce offspring are available. This is one reason why it is difficult to decide if cloning is ethical or not.

The following are some of the reasons why cloning should be allowed. As just discussed, cloning can be used to help benefit those that are sterile and cannot have children through the normal, natural way. It is the desire of most couples to have children and when it is impossible to bare children of your own, some are willing to do anything to have a child. Cloning will allow them to have a child or many children that have the genetic pattern of one of the parents. Through cloning, research can progress. It is hard to say what we can learn from cloning if cloning is not allowed.

We possibly can learn more about cell differentiation. We can learn enough to produce human organs without having to produce human beings. We may develop technology to allow easier genetic testing and fixing problems such as spinal cord injuries, cancer, Tay-Sachs disease, and many more. Cloning organs for organ transplants is one of the major practical reasons that cloning should be allowed. There is always a high demand for organs. Some argue for the cloning of humans to create spare body parts. Others talk of just wanting to clone an organ to replace a defective organ.

Rejuvenation is also a key argument for advocates of cloning. Human cloning may one day reverse heart attacks. Some scientists believe that by injecting cloned healthy heart cells into damaged heart tissue will lead to healing of the heart (Human Cloning Foundation). By combining the technology for cloning and the technology for growing human stem cells, conditions like Alzheimer=s disease, Parkinson=s disease, and degenerative joint disease may be curable. The possibilities are endless and may be left undiscovered if human cloning is banned.

Thou Shalt Not Clone One of the main goals of the government is to protect human life. Some people want the government to regulate cloning and not allow it. Michigan=s government believes this and became the first government to place a ban on cloning. As mentioned before, the governor signed laws that prohibit engaging or attempting to engage in human cloning. A Michigan state senator, Mr. Bennett said, “This legislation boils down to one thing: Prohibiting the creation of human life for scientific research.

Human cloning is wrong; it will be five years from now; and wrong 100 years from now! ” (“Governor Engler… “) Producing clones for research or to use their parts is unethical. It would be against the code of ethics of a doctor to harm a clone (i. e. , use it for an organ transplant). The clone would be a human being and deserve all the rights and privileges that a non-cloned human has. A clone should not be a second-class citizen. It is speculated that they would be considered as such. The American Medical Association holds four points of reason why cloning should not take place.

They are: 1) there are unknown physical harms introduced by cloning, 2) unknown psychosocial harms introduced by cloning, including violations of autonomy and privacy, 3) impacts on familial and societal relations, and 4) potential effects on the human gene pool (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 4-6). We just simply do not know the harms that will come from cloning. Cloning would lead to the loss of individuality because one=s genetic predispositions and conditions would be known. If raised by a clone-parent or as a sibling to the cloned, one may have great expectations to live up to.

However, the human clones could differ greatly in personality and even grow up with different conditions than the cloned. Even monozygotic twins differ. This could be a great stress to the clone and possibly even the loss of ability to chose for itself (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 5). The long term genetic effects of cloning may cause more problems than can be imagined. The question of what can go wrong in cloning needs to be discussed. In an evolutionary standpoint, cloning is not good. Evolution relies on a continual mixing and matching of genes to keep the gene pool alive (McCormack).

With cloning, the natural process of selection of genes would be bypassed and evolution would be impaired. The Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs for the AMA stated the following concerning possible problems with mutations and clones: Since the somatic cell from which clones originate likely will have acquired mutations, serial cloning would compound the accumulation that occurs in somatic cells. Although these mutations might not be apparent at the time of cloning, genetics problems could become exacerbated in future generations. (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 6)

We can see that cloning can possibly change the gene pool from how we now know it. Most likely, it would not be a good change. Technology as we presently know it will not effectively support the cloning of humans. As mentioned before, the success rate was quite low when cloning Dolly. Only one of the 277 tries succeeded, see chart 1. The same problems of the difficulty of having the fertilized egg implant parallels with that in in vitro fertilization. Technology has not yet been able to provide an answer to this problem. The fear that clones will be treated as second-class citizens is also present.

If a clone is created to act as bone marrow or kidney donor, the question arises if they would be treated like the first child? Would the parents even love this child the same? If not, this would lead to negative self-esteem and/or other physiological problems. There is also the fear that some would want to clone people to create large armies of the same soldier or even produce large amounts of workers. This would also lead to the creation of a second and lower class for clones. From a Latter-day Saint point of view, the Proclamation on the Family clearly does not agree with cloning.

The Proclamation states: “We . . . declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s plan. ” (Italics added) In other words, the power to create humans is only to be used in a marriage between husband and wife. Cloning only involves one parent, therefore it is not following God’s plan in which a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg are needed to create life.

Is Cloning of Humans Just

Recently there was a major breakthrough in the scientific research the mapping of all DNA in a human gene is complete. Couple of years ago, this seems an impossible task for scientist to triumph over. All this revolution in science leads us to believe that the day, when the human being will be cloned, is not far away. Human cloning has always been an issue of controversy, be it in terms of ethically or religiously. Taking a look at why cloning might be beneficial, among many cases, it is arguable that parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic defect to a child could make use of cloning.

A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for the disease or disorder. If the clone was free of genetic defects, then the other clone would be as well. The latter could be implanted in the woman and allowed to mature to term. Moreover, cloning would enable infertile couples to have children of their own rather than using sperm of another man. Cloning humans would also mean that organs could be cloned, so it would be a source of perfect transplant organs.

This, surely would be immensely beneficial to millions of unfortunate people around the world that are expected to lose their lives due to failure of single (or more) organ(s). It is also arguable that a ban on cloning may be unconstitutional and would deprive people of the right to reproduce and restrict the freedom of scientists. Arguments against cloning are also on a perfectly viable side. Primarily, I believe that cloning would intervene with the normal cycle of life.

There would be large number of identical genes, which minimizes the chances of mutation, and, in turn, evolution the fundamental reason how living things naturally adapt to the ever-changing environment. Life processes failing to do so might result in untimely extinction. Furthermore, cloning would eliminate the uniqueness that each one of us posses. Thus, leading to creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes and, chances are, that those individuals would be regarded as objects rather than people in the society in grand scale.

Scientist havent 100 per cent guarantee that the first cloned humans will be normal. Thus, this could result in introduction of additional defects in the human gene-pool. Regarding such controversial issues in black or while approach seems very nave to me personally. We should rather endeavor to look at all shades of the issue. I believe that cloning is only justifiable if its purpose is for cloning organs; not humans. Then we could regard this issue as for saving life instead of creating life. I believe cloning humans is morally and socially unacceptable.

Cloning and Nuclear Cell Division

The societal issue being addressed in this article is the cloning of humans and nuclear cell fusion. This question lingering into every householdShould we be playing God? This question has substantial points on each side. Some people think that we shouldnt be manipulating natures creations ,and we should leave things the way they are because that is the way things are meant to be. Others oppose that jurisdiction and state that we can rid the world of cancers and tumors and quite possibly save lives.

Others dont believe strongly either way, though believe in restricted means of distinguishing forms of cloning using safe and well-tested means. Research on human embryos has been minimal over the past few years because of the lack of money from the government to perform sophisticated experiments in this area. In the 1980’s and early 90’s this research was banned by both the Ronald Reagan and Bush administrations due to pressure from the pro-life factions of the Republican party.

The societal issue addressed is expressed from all point of views, and the following will further strengthen and help you understand their points. The procedures used in human embryo cloning have been around for many years, and have been used in the cloning of cattle and sheep embryos, for the production of animals with known genetic traits. The news of human embryo cloning did not surprise many people in the scientific community, but it shocked the general public. (psu. edu) Many biologists believe that they have a personal duty to the improvement of society, perhaps even a moral obligation.

To this end the techniques of embryonic cloning and alteration have been offered to society as an option for the improvement of humanity. Doctors hope that by being able to study the multiple embryos developed through cloning, they can determine the causes of spontaneous abortions. Contraceptive specialists believe that if they can determine how an embryo knows where to implant itself, they can develop a contraceptive that would prevent embryos from implanting in the uterus. This all means that cloning would help our future and help us further understand our human bodies.

A defensive statement for this would be that these scientists are creating genes and are pushing the scientific envelope. How much further can they go? What if they create something that evolves to withstand forces of nature and science? Anything is possible when you play with something you fully dont understand. Cancer research is possibly the most important reason for embryo cloning. Neuro-Oncologists believe that embryonic study will advance understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer.

Cancer cells develop at approximately the same speed as embryonic cells do. By studying the embryonic cell growth, scientists may be able to determine how to stop cancer growth in turn. Some ask is it worth the risk? Others oppose this question with, is it worth the risk to not know its full potential and how it can help us. These questions are few of the hundreds now argued throughout the world in courts and legislatures. The whole article I read was basically about the world verses cloning and nuclear genetic fusion.

In other words building life out of other living things. When we play with items we dont understand we risk a lot and it can mean moral or physical disaster if something goes wrong. Imagine those who die daily because of lack of donors of organs, we could create donors. We can better understand cancer cells and spontaneous abortion and further understand nature and oneself. Understanding cloning will take awhile but the potential of such would be great. I feel this article helped me understand cloning even more than I did.

I feel that cloning has a future and will take part in our lives. Yet what we dont understand can be dangerous. My analysis of cloning is, it may develop more ideas than we think were ever possible, but we should be careful and take respectful means of precaution. Government oppression will be anarchisticly opposed and science will run its course and in a few years the government will have little part in cloning and the people who worked for it will receive the credit they deserve. Cloning is the future of science and the answer many have longed for.

Cloning Process Essay

Cloning, the process of creating a copy of a plant or animal that is genetically identical to the original through asexual means, has sparked some interesting moral and ethical debate. For years, cloning has been used to produce a greater number of a specific type of plant, such as the Macintosh apple trees, which have all been derived from single mutated plant . Now, however, upon the discovery of a method to clone animals, even humans, people are beginning to become aware of the benefits and consequences of cloning, as well as the ethics involved.

Cloning has had a fairly long history. In 1952, the first successful cloning experiment took place. Scientists Robert Briggs and Thomas King successfully removed the nucleus from a frog egg and replaced it with the nucleus of an undifferentiated cell from another frog. The egg, then placed in a nutrient solution, eventually developed into a healthy tadpole. In 1962, ten years later, a similar experiment took a differentiated intestinal cell and allowed the tadpole created to develop into a healthy, fertile toad.

Later, in 1981, a scientist from Cambridge University then combined two embryos, one of a heep and the other of a goat, making the first “mosaic” animal ever artificially createdthe “geep,” with the body of a goat covered with patches of sheeps wool. Then 1984, the first cloned mammals were produced from embryonic nuclei transplanted into unfertilized sheep eggs. Soon after, cloned calves and rabbits, both from embryonic nuclei, and just recently, the first mammal cloned from a fully differentiated adult sheep cell was created. The process of cloning an animal, especially a mammal, is not an easy one.

In fact, there are multiple ways to go about accomplishing the task, depending on he source of the DNA used for cloning. If a differentiated cell, one that has certain genes expressed or unexpressed, is used, certain genes must first be forced to “turn on” in order for the cell to divide and then its offspring to differentiate again. In both cases, whether using a differentiated or undifferentiated cell as the original, the nucleus must be isolated and extracted from the cell and then placed into an embryonic cell from which the nucleus has been removed.

Then, that cell must be forced to begin to divide without fertilization. At this time, there is no better way to accomplish the task than a steady hand, a slew of enzymes, and a imperceptibly tiny pipette, yet what process will be developed in the future is still unknown . Still, it is not the procedure that causes ethical debate, but instead the uses of this relatively new biotechnology. Some believe these uses outweigh any sort of moral restraints, yet others are shocked and even horrified by them. And such varying types of applications for cloning often cause many varying opinions as well.

Cloning can theoretically be used for the mass production of medications, by diting the genes of cloned animals, forcing them to produce these medications in their milk, thereby increasing the availability and decreasing the cost of such drugs . Couples who wish to have children but for some reason have difficulty doing so can make multiple copies of a womans egg which can then be fertilized artificially, through in vitro fertilization, increasing the possibility of fertilizing an egg which may come rarely from about 10% to about 50%.

In another case, a women who is at a high risk of becoming sterile through chemotherapy or the like may be able to have an embryo cloned for future use. Or, since researches have developed tests for screening for genetic diseasestests which often kill the embryo, embryos can be cloned to eliminate the risk of damaging such cells in the process . On another extreme, however, are the ideas of body farming. Cloning could theoretically be used to create a duplicate of a person, removing its higher brain functions early in development, so that the clone can be used to provide vital organs in case the person damages one.

In this way, there would be no danger of rejection either, since the body part would be identical in genetic make up to the damaged one. Even more extreme are some other ideas. Entire populations could be created through cloning, isolating specific desirable traits, thereby creating the ultimate in artificial selection. In addition, entire armies, genetically identical, could be created at will, and even clones of long dead personalities of the likes of Hitler and Einstein could be created .

Or how about replacing a lost family member with a clone? Or selecting the child you want from a catalog of embryos available to be cloned? While these ideas may seem far fetched, certain events already occurring ead one to believe that such things could actually happentake for example the father who had a vasectomy reversed to impregnate the mother, a 39 year old woman, in order to produce a child for the sole purpose of creating a donor of bone marrow the ill first child .

While some of these possibilities may seem extreme or entirely plausible, everyone seems to have a different opinion. While increasing the chances of artificial fertilization may seem like a good idea to some, others worry about what will happen to left over embryos, still carrying he possibility of life, when the parents die or when the genetic screening or in vitro fertilization is complete. No one yet knows the answer, for a committee discussing these concerns has yet to be formed.

And while the availability of extra organs may be useful in shortening the organ-donor waiting lists, some believe that creating a brain dead class of humans used only to provide body parts is no better than slavery or the suppression of a people. In addition, the production of societies based on clones frightens people afraid of losing their individuality. At the same time, it has also been argued that the best advances come from a variation of people and ideasthe theory that variety causes change.

And, the idea of replacing a family member with a clone seems just morally unethical to some . No matter what a persons view, anyone can be certain that society, religion, and upbringing play a definite role in the decision. Views on abortion and when life begins, for instance, can have an effect on the importance of an embryo. And, with so many different possibilities for the use of cloning, it is no wonder that a gradient exists between those ntirely against cloning and those entirely for it.

To illustrate this, a study done of 500 adult Americans, taken by TIME/CNN showed some interesting results (see attached file). It is difficult too to decide on a legal policy governing cloning experiments because of this reason and because of the multiple government agencies that could possible by involved in such a decision. In all, it is a confusing debate which seems to have no answers, for now holding back a ripe area of scientific discovery. It will be interesting to see what finally does develop of this issue.

Human Cloning Paper

Many people have already heard about the first cloned sheep. It was a breakthrough to the whole world. Many scientists saw the benefits lying ahead for humankind. With this discovery, the possibility of human cloning was speculated. Many governments were eager to ban human cloning. To ban the research “will just push it underground and into unscrupulous hands” Human cloning and its technology are necessary and should be continued because the cures to diseases may be found, the infertility problem may be solved, and more geniuses may be produced.

First, high hopes in developing new cures treatments, and for serious, and unmet medical needs. Some diseases are inborn and cause permanent defects on an individual. This suffering may end soon if cloning is allowed. Parents worried about their child being born deformed can be rest assured that cloning is actually genetically safer than normal sexual reproduction because it bypasses the most common form of birth defect having the wrong number of chromosomes. In Addition, hundreds of people die all over the world, because it is impossible to find a transplant donor wit atching tissue.

Human cloning would solve the problem of finding a transplant donor whose organ or tissue is an acceptable match and would eliminate or drastically reduce the risk of transplant rejection from the host. The benefits of human cloning and its technology are necessary and should be continue. Secondly, In vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, embryo manipulation, surrogate motherhood, and more were once strongly opposed to but we have grown accustomed to them and have accepted them as forms of reproduction. Cloning is one of many high-technology methods of reproduction.

For example, those who are attracted to the idea of “selective breeding” will prefer cloning because it involves a smaller genetic gamble than does a combination of sperm and egg of even highly desirable strangers. In addition, it is a chance for some people to have what they thought they never could have, a child of their own. Banning human cloning is an equivalent to disallowing life. Cloning technology, once perfected, will allow the conceiving of a genetically related child sing any cell from the body.

Another example, Cloning will give to infertile or homosexual couple a chance to have a biological child. Therefore, we should continue the research on human cloning and not ban it so quickly. Finally, Clones will have their own soul and identity like any other human being. They will be a distinct individual not a replica of another person. Each clone would be like an identical twin, very similar in intelligence, manners, and alike. The clone will never be a duplicate in personality.

The importance of the environment with respect to any ndividual is a major factor affecting one’s behavior and character. Genes are another essential factor, which greatly affect an individual. For example, social identity and social ties of relationship and responsibility are widely connected. Many people still think that cloning Hitler will also mean repeating what he did. Scientists reassure to the public that this is not possible, as for such historical events to be repeated, all the circumstances that allowed Hitler to be what he was would have been repeated as well.

If Hitler was cloned and brought up in a well-to-do, appy family which he enjoyed being in, this clone will not follow the footsteps Hitler as his background is no longer the same. However, he might become one who can speak incredibly well and eventually become a well- respected leader. Still, human cloning and its technology have their benefits and research work should be continued. In conclusion, many terminally ill patients in hospitals are waiting for a solution to end their suffering. Leukemia patients need a healthy bone marrow that matches their bodies, or they will die.

AIDS and other diseases are still incurable. Many doctors and scientists see cloning as a very conceivable way of solving these problems and freeing these suffering people soon. All research and technology will someday cure diseases, prevent the deaths of people who wait unceasingly for an organ for transplant, give hope to people who otherwise cannot have their own child, and allow more people with extraordinary traits to be born into this world. Thus, the continuation of human cloning and its technology are major benefits to the human race. Human cloning is a possibility in playing a big role in our future.

The Cloning Of Any Species

The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly.

No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results n harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly.

Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, “the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage” (Logic: Kluger 1997).

Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, “the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong” (Expert Opinion). The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there! are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self.

Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well hen he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He states that “children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them… To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children” (Expert Opinion). Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas.

He suggests that humans have an inherent “right to ignorance” or a quality of “separateness. Hum! an cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twin, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of the effect of one’s genes on one’s future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and the cloned child.

It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). Western culture and tradition has long held the belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary.

But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human? If a primate was cloned so that it grew human lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart. , what would it then be? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship?

And if humans were to arry non-human transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them(Deductive Logic: Kluger 1997)? Also, if the technology were to be so that scientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice-versa, that would heighten the danger of developing zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans. It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop (Potential Risks). In conclusion, the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support or advocate it.

What Is A Clone

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. li, 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 gave up and went into other fields. However, some persisted and were rewarded for their efforts. In 1984, Dr. Steene Willadsen announced that he had successfully transferred nuclei from embryos of sheep to produce clones (Kolata 1). He also was successful with cows and even monkeys.

He advanced his methods, and began cloning embryos that were in the 64-128 cell-stage. This suggested that perhaps nuclear transfer was possible with differentiated cells. More exciting was when Dr. Neal First produced cows by nuclear transfer from more developed embryos in 1994 (Kolata 3). Dr. First produced four calves. Two years later, Dr. Ian Wilmut and Dr. Keith Campbell, of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, produced for the world Megan and Morag, the first cloned sheep from embryo cells. Their new technique involved the starving of the donor embryo.

This would put the cell in the right moment in the cell cycle, thus allowing the genetic material to integrate more successfully with the egg cell. This was the integral step of nuclear transfer. Dr. First had executed the same step, but a laboratory staff member did it accidentally, and First did not realize the significance of his staff member’s blooper (Kolata 3). Dr. Wilmut and Dr. Campbell became world famous. Their fame was not finished yet however. On July 5 at 4:00 P. M. lamb number 6LL3 (Campbell 812), or Dolly, was born in a shed down the road from the Institute. She weighed in at 14 pounds and was healthy.

Scientists accomplished this by using frozen mammary cells taken from a six-year-old pregnant ewe and fusing them with an enucleated egg. The trick to fusing the cells is giving a small electric current to the petri dish on which the egg cell is. This stimulates the egg much like a sperm would, and usually takes the genetic material from the cell and becomes a zygote. They let this zygote grow into an embryo, and then transplanted the embryo in a recipient ewe, acting as a surrogate mother. This procedure occurred late in January of 1996. This was the day of fusion date for Dolly, which is the natural equivalent to a conception date.

An interesting note is that three different sheep were involved in producing Dolly, versus the usual two or one (in-vitro fertilization). Furthermore, the Roslin scientists used three different breeds for each sheep to prove that the experiment was a success. (Kolata 3) The reporter who described Wilmut as “Dolly’s laboratory father,” could have very well shined a light on a modern day Frankenstein. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was also his creature’s father and god; the creature told him, “I ought to be thy Adam. ” As in the case of Dolly, the “spark of life” was infused into the creature by an electric current.

Shelley’s great novel explores virtually all the noncommercial elements of today’s debate of whether to allow human cloning. The naming of the world’s first cloned mammal has great significance. The sole survivor of 277 cloned embryos, the clone could have been named after its sequence in that group, C-137, but this would only have given the sheep another similarity to Frankenstein. Instead, the first cloned mammal was given a name to suggest the sheep’s uniqueness as an individual rather than a number. Victor Frankenstein never named his creature, this was his way of disregarding his duties as a parent.

The creature evolved into a monster when he was rejected not only by his creator, but also by society in general. Naming the world’s first mammal clone Dolly was done to remove all possibilities of similarity between her and the Frankenstein myth, by making her seem like a doll and by accepting parental responsibility for her. After Dolly came other sheep, cows and even rhesus monkeys cloned using similar techniques, but with slight variations. These cloned animals came from Roslin and many universities from across America. They even produced clones, which had genes that would produce certain proteins.

For instance, at Roslin, scientists are trying to produce sheep that produce milk with beneficial proteins for Cystic Fibrosis patients. (Kolata 24) The goals and purposes for researching cloning range from making copies of those that have deceased to better engineering the offspring in humans and animals. Cloning could also directly offer a means of curing diseases or a technique that could extend means to acquiring new data for embryology and development of organisms as a whole. Scientists foresee the cloning of pigs to produce organs that humans will not reject (Wills 22).

Also, as mentioned earlier, livestock can produce biological proteins helping people who have diseases including diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Cystic Fibrosis (Kolata 2). Cloning also provides better research capabilities for finding cures to many diseases. There are also possibilities that nuclear transfer could provide benefits to those who would like children. For instance, couples who are infertile, or have genetic disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. Equally important, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of in-vitro fertilization.

Nuclear transfer could also provide children who need organ transplants to have a clone born to donate organs. Cloning could also provide a copy of a child for a couple whose child had died. Cloning does offer some negative affects it could have to life. The biggest problem with asexual reproduction is that genetic diversity becomes limited. If a population of organisms has the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe out the population. This is because not one organism has an advantage of fighting the disease over the other. The technique of nuclear transfer is also early in its developmental stages.

Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out the procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and Roslin scientists produced many lambs with abnormalities (Wilmut 811). This is the main reason science is holding out on cloning humans. I also believe we should not attempt nuclear transfer to produce an adult human until the technique is perfected. Other arguments for cloning include if we are taking nature into our own hands by cloning. Religious organizations consider nuclear transfer to cause men to be reproductively obsolete (Post 19).

Religious groups claim that cloning defies the rule or their belief that humans have souls. They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. People question when we will draw the line for getting involved in natural events (Bruce 1). There is also a debate as to the moral rights of clones. Some say this will occur because there is no birth of newness (Post 19). We would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple that conceived naturally. If natural reproduction were to occur, genetic variation would occur.

They say cloning would deprive someone to have any perception of uniqueness. They argue that identical twins are not unique from each other. However, they are new in genetic variation and unique from anything that came before them. People also wonder what mental and emotional problems would result if a clone were to find out that he or she was cloned. So anyone who argues that cloning disregards the laws of God and the souls of humans, they should reconsider their views. Cloning does not artificially produce copies of adult humans. Nuclear transfer is the artificial making of an embryo that will develop into an identical twin.

No machine that can produce carbon-copy humans when performing nuclear transfer is involved. At this point, I believe we should not use cloning. However, if we are to venture into cloning we must make many precautions. I think the best way to do this is to research the consequences. Yet, I do not believe cloning of animals is acceptable. Thus, I do not think we should conduct cloning experiment on animals. In summary, cloning is ethical, unless there is lack of respect for the lives of animals and humans, and for the ongoing inhabitation of life on earth.

Cloning – Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team of scientists

In February 1997, when Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team of scientists in Scotland astonished the world by announcing that they had successfully cloned a sheep, it sparked an international debate. Since the invention of Dolly, scientists have been faced with the imminent technology to clone human beings. This has raised questions about what it means to be human and what restrictions should be placed on scientific research. Scientists should use methods of cloning of individual human cells because it provides benefits of curing diseases and regrowth of damaged organs or tissues.

However, scientists should not clone whole adult human beings because of the violation of moral, ethical, and religious concerns. Hence, scientists must separate making spare body parts from making whole people. Cloning is defined as: The production of duplicate copies of genetic material, cells, or entire multicellular living organisms. The copies are referred to as clones. Cloning occurs naturally and is also engineered by human beings. The possibility that people might be cloned from the cells of a single adult human had long been a subject primarily of fantasy and science fiction but became very definite at the end of the 20th century.

This possibility stemmed from the successful cloning of lower mammals, leaving little doubt in many scientists’ minds that humans could and would one day be cloned. In nature, and even in the lives of humans, clones are present. A clone is an organism that has the same genetic information as another organism. Cloning occurs with all plants, some insects, algae, and even humans. Identical twins are clones of each other. They have the same exact genetic information due to the division of an embryo in early development, which produces two identical embryos.

Thus, natural cloning already exists. Cloning is currently a technology that many people could use. The benefits that cloning could offer range from improving conventional animal breeding to eliminating any undesirable genes in humans. Scientists are also pondering the idea of cloning endangered species to increase their population. The possibilities are endless. However, scientists are doing much of the research to benefit human life. Agriculture may benefit greatly from cloning research. Livestock breeders could utilize the cloning techniques to produce more consistent products.

For example, a cow that has very tasty meat could be cloned so that a farmer or corporation would have a whole herd that produces very tasty meat. Therefore, a more consistent product might stabilize prices farmers receive for their meat, which would benefit small farms. This type of benefit could be extended to most livestock. It might be possible that animals could carry out genetic alterations that could remove some hereditary human diseases. These animals would then produce human proteins in milk.

Cloning could also improve the agricultural industry as the technique of nuclear transfer improves, livestock can produce biological proteins helping people who have diseases including diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Cystic Fibrosis” (Kolata). Cloning could offer a means of curing diseases or offer a technique that could provide healthy organs and tissues for people who need them. “An elderly man develops macular degeneration, a disease that destroys vision. To bolster his failing eyesight, he receives a transplant of healthy retinal tissue – cloned from his own cells and cultivated in a lab dish”(Nash).

Or, “a baby girl is born free of the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease, even though both her parents are carriers. The reason? In the embryonic cell from which she was cloned, the flawed gene was replaced with normal DNA” (Nash). Cloning could offer new hope for couples who aren’t able to have children. Also cloning could provide a new alternative for single women who would like to have children. Some scientists are already exploring these avenues of research. For example, a scientist by the name of Richard Seed plans to clone babies for infertile couples.

Seed, who is not a medical doctor, says he has already assembled a group of doctors willing to work with him and has four couples who have volunteered to be cloned. Seed plans to use the same technique utilized by Scottish scientists in 1996 to clone the adult sheep Dolly. If he is barred from pursuing his work in the United States, he plans to go to another country. He said he has talked with officials in Mexico, and also was considering the Bahamas. ” Also, “cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God” (Flock). Starting in Chicago, Seed plans to set up profitable human clone clinics nationally.

Whatever the Seed brothers are telling their human clients, they are certainly not able to tell them what the risks might be, since no one yet knows the range or magnitude of risks to humans. All of these are good reasons for cloning, but who is to say that this technology should be used in the first place? There are several reasons for banning cloning and numerous dangers associated with the cloning of humans. It’s much easier to clone sheep or goats than humans, and according to the facts, it took over two hundred tries to produce one cloned sheep; the unsuccessful attempts were simply discarded.

An experiment to clone humans would require repeated efforts, with the possibility of many failures in “test” cases leading to success. Dolly the sheep took 277 tries, with a number of ugly mistakes, before a healthy and complete sheep was born. Experiments with humans could take between 100 and 1,000 tries, some geneticists speculate” (Marquands). Are scientists to place this kind of value on human life? If this is true, they have crossed the line in scientific experimentation. Even the scientist who created Dolly, Dr.

Wilmut and his coworkers believe that it would be unethical to try and clone humans. The House Majority leader Dick Armey submitted a statement to the House Commerce Committee in support of a permanent ban on human cloning. “Cloning humans is wrong. It should be banned permanently, without loopholes, throughout the United States. ” He continues, “the international destruction of living human embryos is unethical and unacceptable. If an embryo is dividing and developing, it is a member of the human family and deserves our respect.

And destroying it is repugnant to the American public” (Armey). The United States lags behind many other nations that have already placed bans on human cloning. Nineteen European nations have signed an agreement to prohibit the genetic replication of humans, some of these nations include: Britain, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain. Bills were introduced to Congress in 1997 that would prohibit cloning humans and outlaw federal funding for research in human cloning, but several scientists have urged Congress to delay action until the commission makes its recommendations.

Clinton established the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in 1995. It’s chaired by Princeton University President Harold Shapiro, and includes experts from science, law, philosophy, theology and industry. Two years after the Commission was created, they were faced with intense public debate to address the issues of human cloning. Despite the arguments from scientists who urged the commission not to rush judgment with bans that could prevent human cloning and research, the commission approved The Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act.

This bill prohibits federal funds from being used for research that includes the use of a human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an embryo; in other words, it bans federal funding of human cloning. “Their proposal would make it a crime to create human embryos by swapping DNA in a process called somatic cell transfer. Violators would be subject to up to 10 years in prison and fines as high as $250,000. There are moral and ethical reasons for banning human cloning. Humans are a treasured life form and should protect the dignity of human life.

It is wrong to use cloning to experiment with the creation of human life. Cloning is an insult to religious beliefs. It seems like scientists are playing God, and cloning interferes with the natural process that God has mapped out for people. Religious organizations consider nuclear transfer would cause men to be reproductively obsolete. This claim was drawn from the gathering of information that cloning requires only any cell and a woman to develop in. They also claim that cloning does not respect the fact that humans have souls.

Cloning and genetic engineering both attempt to take the gene pool out of the hands of natural selection and into the hands of humans. Genetic engineering adds a new dimension into the picture. It would allow scientists not only to duplicate humans, but to perfect them as well. This seems beneficial when trying to destroy genetic diseases, but it quickly turns into serious moral and social conflicts. When people decide what genes to place into the population, and which to leave out, then they are in a sense playing God.

Human cloning and genetic engineering would inevitably turn into the search for the perfect human. Throughout history mankind has been full of societies and cultures in which one type of race is valued over another. In China, for example the killing of baby girls was a common practice because of a law, which permitted only one child. Males where more valuable in their culture, so females were selectively exterminated. Also, Nazi Germany killed Jews, homosexuals, and other imperfect people in order to create the perfect Aryan race. Eugenics such as these would have been even easier by cloning and genetic engineering.

Instead of exterminating people who didn’t fit the standards of perfection, entire populations could be made to fit the mold. The problem with this perfect society in mind is the decline of genetic diversity. Diversity makes life and human interaction interesting. People were given different genetics for a reason. One reason may be the likely hood of a disease or virus that could result in destroying an entire population. Another reason that cloning could interfere with the process of natural evolution. It is essential that other areas of genetic research and non-human cloning research continue.

Scientists are making great strides in understanding the underlying causes of diseases, developing potential cures, and pursuing other promising areas of research. Because of the moral, ethical, and religious concerns raised by the cloning of humans, it would be beneficial to explore the direct use of individual human cells to produce tissues or organs for transplantation into patients. As of yet, there has been no potential good use for the cloning of humans, so maybe scientists should consider holding off on human cloning. There is more important scientific research that these talented scientists could be working on.

The Controversial Topic Of Cloning

In many controversial topics around the world, such as abortion, gun control, legalized drugs, the death penalty, and cloning (to name a few), we can find differing positions, and opinions. Many of these arguments, can be narrowed down to two different views, or constructs: individualistic and communitarian (an image of collectivism). An individualistic viewpoint “stresses the rights of the individual as a unique being” (class review). A communitarian viewpoint is more concerned with the good for the greatest number, “even if an individual must suffer or sacrifice” (class review).

These different elements do not necessarily label the people as opposed to, or in favor of the topic here. They just show where your motivations lie, is your involvement for self fulfillment or for the good of society? Within the contents of this paper, I will analyze the elements of individualism and collectivism that exist in the controversial topic of cloning. When Dr. Ian Wilmut, a 52-year-old embryologist at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh announced on that he had replaced the genetic material of sheep’s egg with the DNA from an adult sheep, and created a lamb (Dolly), the opic of cloning “created” many new questions of its own.

None were as controversial as: Will they apply this to humans as well? According to Dr. Wilmut, the answer was “there is no reason in principle why you couldn’t do it”(clone humans), but he added, “All of us would find that offensive. “(Wilmut as quoted by NYTimes, Daniel Callahan, 02/26/97). From an individualistic viewpoint, those in favor of cloning human beings, do not see it as morally, or ethically wrong. Many see it as an opportunity to have children, or possibly to “re-create” a child who is dying from a terminal illness.

Using a deterministic argument, many infertile couples are worried that any “government restrictions on human cloning might hurt their chances some day for bearing children through new medical technology” ( Newsday, Thomas Maier, 03/14/1997). In a form of expressive individualism, Tom Buckowski, from Studio City, California said, “It’s my body, my choice, right? But what if I want my body cloned and warehoused for spare parts? Upon what basis can government decide what I can or cannot do with my body? “(Los Angeles Times, 3/07/1997).

In both examples, the predominant voice is that of the first anguage of individualism. The first language refers to the “individualistic mode that is the dominant American form of discourse about moral, social, and political matters” (Bellah et al, Habits of the Heart, pg. 334). Anita Manning, a writer for USA TODAY revealed another individualistic argument in favor of cloning. In her article “Pressing a “right” to clone humans,” Manning interviews a group of gay activists, who see “breakthroughs in animal cloning technology as a path toward same-sex reproduction.

With their argument of genetic determinism, many individuals tate that now that the technology is available, its use is inevitable. Randolfe Wicker, a New York businessperson, founded the Clone Rights United Front after reports of the successful cloning. He said “we’re fighting for research . . . and we’re defending people’s reproductive rights. ” These examples show a very individualistic language use in favor of cloning, ironically many people who fight for the rights of individuals, form collectives to do so. In his Tuesday, February 25, 1997 article Should We Fear Dolly?

James K. Glassman, a writer for the Washington post has more of a “republican” voice hen discussing his favorable views on cloning. A republican voice, or second language is one that sees the benefits for society as a whole, over the consideration of the individual, though not exclusively. He points out “treatments to cure human diseases,” and the ability to produce organs for transplanting as benefits for all of society. Also, with a deterministic voice, he points out that while cloning people is against the law in other countries, it is not in the United States.

He said “I don’t think it should be –certainly not at this stage . . . Trying to stop intellectual progress, in any form, is a terrible mistake. ” Furthermore, “the technology is not, in principle, policeable. In other words, you couldn’t really stop research on human cloning if you wanted to. ” Glassman’s language is distinctively more communitarian than my previous examples, though they all favor the technique of cloning. Most of the “scientific community” (a collective) favors the cloning of animals. Many, including Dr.

Wilmut, argue that the potential for medical and scientific advances to be enormous. He said any rush to judgement could lead to overly restrictive limits on related but less controversial areas of research” (The Washington Post, Technique’s Use With Humans Is Feared, By Rick Weiss, Monday, February 24, 1997). With an appeal to higher authority Dr. Wilmut, and other supporting scientists argue that society as a whole can benefit from the techniques involving animal cloning.

These include improved livestock herds, opportunities for research on disease, and production of protein enriched pharmaceuticals. When discussing the cloning of animals, the language of the “scientific community” is ultimately communitarian. Yet when the discussion shifts to the possibility of cloning humans, the water becomes a little “muddier. ” Through my readings I got the impression that the topic of cloning is a little too hot for scientists in favor of human cloning to say so (for now anyway). By contrast to favoring cloning (human or animal), those who oppose it, mainly have communitarian concerns. The most prominent collective opposition to cloning was from the religious community.

Evoking biblical and republican themes (second language, Bellah et al), many said, “who has the right o play God by creating life, and what are the moral obligations of the creator? ” (Albany Times Union, CLONING BOTH LAMB AND TYGER, by William Safire 02/27/97). Religious authorities, including Pope John Paul II have completely denounced human experiments. The Pope said “the temple merchants of our age who make the marketplace their religion, until they trample the dignity of the human person with abuses of every kind. We are thinking . . . about the lack of respect for life, which has become at times the object of dangerous experiments. (Pope John Paul II as quoted by Associated Press Monday, 3/03/1997).

Moral theologian Gino Concetti, who is close to Pope John Paul II, said “the creation of human life outside marriage goes against God’s plan . . . a person has the right to be born in a human way and not in the laboratory. ” (Associated Press Monday, 03/03/1997). “One may not, even for a single instant, even for a good purpose, use a technique that is morally flawed,” declared the Rev. Albert Moraczewski, a theologian with the National Council of Catholic Bishops. “Cloning exceeds the limits of the delegated dominions given to the human race.

By appealing to a higher authority and voicing the biblical language, the concerns of the religious community are clearly societal, and not individualistic in nature. They use paternalistic, degenerative and guilt by association arguments to condemn the possibility of human cloning. Although many religious collectives condemn human cloning, some favor it. An article on the TIME magazine web site stated, “the Jews and Muslims maintain that cloning of people was not only permissible, but might even be a moral obligation to help infertile couples have children.

Another interesting uotation was from Rabbi Moses Tendler, a Talmudic scholar and biologist at New York’s Yeshiva University. He argued with a quotation from Genesis. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. ” Then he continues, “and master it. ” These arguments, come from religious groups, with emphasis on individual and communitarian gains. Both use a biblical voice, and an appeal to a higher authority, but the first example is more individualistic in nature and the ensuing more communitarian. In America, President Clinton has imposed a ban on federal funding for human cloning experiments.

Using a biblical voice he argued that he was trying to stop “people from playing God. ” He said “there is much about cloning that we still do not know. But this much we do know: any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry, it is a matter of morality and spirituality as well. ” Everyone in government did not share President Clinton’s communitarian concern over the cloning of humans.

Sen. Tom Harkin expressed his deterministic views when he said that he opposed any limits on cloning. “What utter, utter nonsense to think that we can stop cloning . human cloning will take place in my lifetime and I welcome it” (USA TODAY ). Although president Clinton and Senator Harkin hold political positions (for the people), both use dissimilar language when discussing cloning. The president’s concerns are communitarian. He uses biblical and republican languages (ssecond language), when arguing his position. Senator Harkin is clearly more individualistic, and uses the first language of Americans. In a country where there is so much diversity, we learn quickly that personal, familial and social views will always differ.

One benefit of living in democracy is that we allow our different voices to be heard. The controversy over cloning humans or animals is no exception. Your voice may be individualistic, arguing for your right at the chance of having a child, or communitarian, claiming it is the hand of God that should create humans. The important thing to keep in mind is that we need to be willing to take responsibility for our decisions, no matter what they may be. Ultimately, what we need, is to figure out a way to balance our individualistic tendencies with our collective ones. If we can do that, we are being fair to ourselves, and society as well.

The Cloning Of Humans

The cloning of humans is now very close to reality, thanks to the historic scientific breakthrough of Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in the UK. This possibility is one of incredible potential benefit for all of us. Unfortunately the initial debate on this issue has been dominated by misleading, sensationalized accounts in the news media and negative emotional reactions derived from inaccurate science fiction. Much of the negativity about human cloning is based simply on the breathtaking novelty of the concept rather than on any real undesirable consequences.

On balance, human cloning would have overwhelming advantages if regulated in a reasonable way. A comprehensive ban on human cloning by a misinformed public would be a sorry episode in human history. Fear is one of the main arguments against human cloning, but perhaps this knee-jerk reaction is not at all appropriate for the situation. These negative reservations can be compared to those directed against Galileo and his monumental discoveries in astronomy. Arrested as being a heretic, he was forced to renounce his discoveries under threat of death.

One is also reminded of the scientist Listerine who was ridiculed for his theories on germs. These may seem to be accepted facts now, but at the time of their discoveries, they were seen to be dangerous and sometimes even evil. This new research, far from being inherently evil, could revolutionize modern medicine, as we know it. The Bible and the holy texts of other major religions do not explicitly prohibit human cloning. Consequently, religious opposition to human cloning is not firmly based.

There will nevertheless be many who think that cloning humans is “wrong” for religious reasons. These people should of course not participate in cloning. Religious leaders who believe human cloning is wrong are entitled to preach their beliefs and persuade whom they can. They discredit themselves when they propose to jail people that they cannot persuade. Jesus never advocated force to compel people to live according to Christian beliefs. Legal enforcement of religious beliefs is a very poor idea and also a violation of the US Constitution.

In contrast with abortion, which involves the termination of the life of a fetus, cloning involves the creation of new life. Consequently, opposition to human cloning is not based on established moral principles. It is also possible to argue that if God had not wanted us to clone mammals or people, he would not have created Dr. Wilmut. By all means remain true to your own beliefs, but don’t tell me what to do with my DNA. I personally wouldn’t want to clone myself, but free people should be free to make that choice without compulsion from society.

The accusation of “playing God” is a vague but recurring criticism. We hear it every time there is a major advance in medicine. At one time birth control pills, in vitro fertilization, and heart transplants were criticized on the same grounds. God often performs good deeds, which we should try to imitate. If playing God by cloning humans can have bad consequences, the critics are obliged to specify precisely what those bad consequences might be. So far they have not done so. Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs.

We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. Many people have suffered accidental medical tragedies during their lifetimes. People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time.

For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children.

At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life. Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.

Freedom sometimes means having tolerance for others and their beliefs. In America, some people believe in gun control and some don’t. Some people believe in one religion and others in another. In a free society, we know that we must tolerate some views that we don’t agree with so that we all may be free. For this reason human cloning should be allowed. It is clear that human cloning has enormous potential benefits and few real negative consequences. As with many scientific advances of the past, such as airplanes and computers, the only real threat is to our own narrow mental complacency.

In the areas of scientific advancement and cultural achievement, human clones can make major contributions. In specific cases where abuse of cloning is anticipated, these abuses can be prohibited by targeted legislation. With a little common sense and reasonable regulation, human cloning is not something to be feared. We should look forward to it with excited anticipation, and support research that will hasten its realization. Exceptional people are among the world’s greatest treasures. Human cloning will allow us to preserve and eventually even recover these treasures.

Human Cloning is Wrong

I bet many of you have seen Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Multiplicity, or many of the other movies that describe cloning. Most of what you see in these movies is false. What you don’t know if that cloning could be dangerous, to the clone and to our society as a whole. It’s unethical to have a human clone. What about identity? Humans are guaranteed the right to their own personality. What would happen if we overrode those rights by giving them someone else’s genetic identity? True, personality is not bounded in someone’s genes, but the clone would share any physical appearance or genetic defect of the cloned.

Also, there is a large power struggle here. Cloning involves a degree of power and control over another person’s physical identity and that violates their rights and degrades their unique individuality. The person doing the cloning would have more power than any parent would have. Cloning would also deal with killing embryos. You might not have known, but Dolly, the sheep that was cloned in 1996, was one of over 200 sheep embryos and hers was the only embryo that survived. The rest died or were thrown away. Imagine if the failure rate was that high when we started to clone humans.

More than 200 embryos, the start of 200 human beings, would die for the sake of just one embryo that would have the same DNA as some one else. Cloning someone, at this present time, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. In studies done on cows, 4 out of 12 birth mothers died. There is also a very high abnormality rate for the clone. There is a very high failure rate, which is showed in the cloning of Dolly. Even if you had a few good embryos, miscarriages have been prominent in animal tests. So, should we forge ahead in the world of cloning? I say no. The risks outweigh the benefits.

It’s dangerous to the clone and to the birth mother. We would be killing innocent human lives in the process as well. It would also be a violation of the clones right to its own genetic identity and individuality. Morals and Ethics of Cloning Cloning is the process of taking cells from a donor, placing them in a culture dish where the nutrients are minimal, so the cells stop dividing and switch their “active genes”. The cells are then put next to an unfertilized egg. The nucleus is sucked out of the egg leaving an empty egg cell containing all the cellular machinery necessary to produce an embryo.

An electric shock is used to fuse the egg and cell together. A second shock is then used to mimic the act of fertilization and help begin cell division. After the egg has successfully moved to the stage of an embryo it is then placed in to the uterus of a surrogate mother. When born, all the genes are the same as the donor of the cell. In 1997 Dr. Ian Wilmut, a British scientist successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. This turned the scientific world upside-down. The success of the experiment is considered by all as an amazing achievement in science. However, ethics and morals must surface to regulate cloning.

It is understood that individuality is the most important part of life. Individuality is given to a person at birth and considered a right they will have for rest of their life. There is also a fear that the clone may only be produced to live the life of the clone, thus causing severe emotional damage as well pain and suffering for the clone. The progression of the clone may be limited, the advance in idea development will slowly die off. Evolution could come to a halt, because with clones, diversity will be limited and there will not be as many advances in society.

The cells, in all humans, will all be the same and there will not be a process of natural selection and diversity. Another controversial question facing the cloning process is: How will the clones be treated? The emotions of the clones need to be taken in to consideration, after all they are humans too. “What is common to these various views, however, is a shared understanding that being a ‘person’ is different from being the manipulated ‘object’ of other peoples desires and expectations”(Biomedical Ethics). People, as clones, will be studied, prodded, and poked which in turn will cause much unwanted anxiety and emotional distress.

There will also be problems with relationships between parents and the clone for understandable reasons. It will bring up a lot of unwelcome stress for the clone when one “parent” is an anonymous donor of an egg and the other is Dr. Frankenstein. Some may argue that a child is a child and the parents should love their child unconditionally. However, the bond between the clone and the parents who care for the clone may have awkward encounters. The love and affection that is provided for most children will not be the same due to the fact that the clone is considered to be more of an experiment rather than a child.

Another argument may be that artificial insemination has already took the step of engineering babies. However, artificial insemination is used for parents who can not have children but feel they could provide a loving environment for them. Despite the abundant differences and backgrounds of the world today all most people agree that coitus (sex), is the naturally preferred way to conceive a child. With the cloning process the necessity to have coitus will not be needed. “Is there something about the individual that is lost when the mystical act of conceiving a person becomes standardized into a mere act of photocopying one” (Time)?

The parent’s will not have to conceive a child, just order one from a catalog and have it arrive next day air. It will take away the personal feeling and romance that having “a child of your own” creates. Part of the bliss of having a child is the mystery behind it. Is it a boy? A girl? Who does it look like? Cloning will take away from the pleasures that have been happening for countless years and the elements of surprise will fade in to mail order babies. Another very touchy issue is the question of, is the medical world taking to much control?

It is stated by scientists that if they are allowed to clone people, one won’t have to worry about organ donations or blood drives in order for people to survive. The scientists will simply clone an organ and replace the faulty one in the human. As simple as this seems, the issue of who they can use to clone comes up. Finding the ideal person to clone is hard enough, now try to get one with the right blood type, size, and gender. The numbers decrease and it seems as if the scientists would have to clone someone for each person.

If this is true, would the clones be stored somewhere, or able to roam around the world until they were needed to fill their role? Once again the rights of the clones come up and the thought of clone farms creates a sort of “yuck” factor for everyone. According to Time Magazine, “Out of 277 tries, the researchers eventually produced only 29 embryos that survived longer than six days” out of the remaining 29 only one survived and was born. The percentage is very low leaving people wondering if it is even worth the time and effort put in. “Some clones may indeed be growing old before their time”(U.

S. News). The research states that the clones will not live a whole life due to the one cell that has been cloned is older and effects the rest of the clones cells making them advance prematurely. Instead of using science to lengthen the life of a human cloning will decrease the length of life by half. Scientists need to reconsider how they are manipulating the world. Based on the information provided through the research, doctors should step back and take a look at the morals and ethics of cloning humans and evaluate if it is really worth the risk doctors are taking.

How Much Of An Influence Cloning Can Be In The Future

Imagine it is the year 2008. As you pick up your daily issue of the New York Times, you begin to read some of the interesting articles on the front page. The top story of the paper reads, “Germany Wins All Gold Medals at the Olympic Games: Is Cloning in Competitive Events Fair? ” Other interesting articles reported on the front page include: “Rock Star Stacy Levesque and Lovers Nuclear Transplanted Child is Born” and “Former President George Bushs Cloned Heart Transplant A Success.

These articles are examples of how much of an influence cloning can be in the future. Although these articles would have seemed cience fiction several years ago, the idea of cloning became a reality in 1997. On February 27, 1997, it was reported that scientist produced the first clone of an adult sheep, attracting international attention and raising questions of whether cloning should take place. Within days, the public called for ethics inquires and new laws to ban cloning. The potential effects of cloning are unimaginable.

What would life be like with women who are able to give birth to themselves, cloned humans who are used for “spare parts”, and genetically superior cloned humans? Based on the positive advances f cloning versus the negative effects, one must ask his/herself whether cloning humans should be banned entirely. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, cloning is “to reproduce or propagate asexually. ” This definition means that cloning enables the creation of offspring without any sexual action or sexual contact.

There are several methods for cloning: separating the embryo and making twins with the same genetic make-up, taking a cell from a fertilized ovum when the cell begins to split and replace it in another females ovum, or nuclear transplantation. In the 10 March 1998 issue of Time, J. Madeleine Nash explains one example of how a clone of an adult ewe is “born” from nuclear transplantation. First, a cell is taken from the udder of an adult ewe and placed in a culture with very low concentrations of nutrients.

As the cells starve, they stop dividing and switch off their active genes, and go into hibernation. An unfertilized egg is then taken from another adult ewe and the eggs nucleus, along with its DNA, is sucked out, leaving an empty egg cell that still has the cellular machinery to produce an embryo. The empty egg and the culture of starved cells are then placed next to each other. Then an electronic pulse causes the egg and the cells to fuse together and a second burst is given to jump-start the cell division.

Six days later, the embryo is implanted in the uterus of another ewe. The result of this process will be the birth of a baby sheep, having identical genes as the first sheep from which the cells were extracted from the udder. Although scientist understand how cloning is possible and what the cloning methods are, exactly how the adult DNA changes once inside the egg still remains a question. Whichever method is used to create a clone, the outcome remains the same cloning is duplicating an exact opy of another life form.

The term “cloning” was first introduced in 1903 by Herbert John Webber as a new horticultural term and was first applied to manmade populations of cultivated plants. In the early 1980s, scientists developed a procedure called nuclear transfer that enabled scientists to replace the DNA-containing nucleus of an egg cell with a nucleus from another cell. At Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, scientists raised a crop of tadpoles from the red blood cells of adult frogs; however, this experiment failed when the tadpoles died halfway through metamorphosis.

Last year in the 27 February issue of Nature, Mr. Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland successfully created a clone of an adult ewe and named her Dolly. Dolly was “born” by taking genetic material from cells in the mammary glands of a 6 year-old ewe and putting the acquired cells into an unfertilized ovum. Out of 277 tries, researchers eventually produced only 29 embryos that survived longer than 6 days, of these 29, all died before birth except Dolly. Since Dolly was born, scientists have made additional advances in cloning, and now harbor the concept of cloning humans.

Those who support cloning argue that cloning can enefit the human race and society by contributing to medical and psychological studies, allowing infertile mothers to have biological children, and cloning animals or humans to attain needed organs. Many medical researchers can utilize cloned genes to diagnosis many genetic diseases. By cloning genes, scientists can create hundreds of identical genes and diagnose mutations that result in the disease. By being able to work with identical genes, it would allow scientists to experiment with trial and error and compare the results of their experiments.

By using cloned genes for medical research purposes, it is possible to find cures to AIDS, cancer, and other biological diseases much more quickly. Other researchers who could benefit from cloning are psychologists. Last year, in my high school Psychology class, we debated whether a persons personality was predetermined by his genetic makeup, or if his/her environment shaped his/her personality. This debate could easily be solved with the help of clones. For example, psychologists could take several genetically identical clones and raise them in various families with varied social statuses and lifestyles.

As these clones grow in their respective environments, psychologist would be able to onitor their respective personalities and draw conclusions to answer the debate. Another group of people who would benefit from cloning is infertile women. Many woman throughout the world cannot become pregnant because they are infertile. Although these women have the option to adopt, the fact remains that their adopted child is not biologically their own. However, by cloning the infertile womans DNA and transplanting the DNA into another womans ovum, the baby will be born as the biological child of the infertile mother.

Another fact that I found in my research was the fact that there are approximately 50,000 eople on the National Waiting List for an organ transplant and out of these 50,000 people, only 20,000 will actually receive a transplant. If scientists could clone human organs, thousands of people who are awaiting an organ transplant could be saved. By cloning humans, surgeons could reap the organs of cloned individuals, without actually killing a human being. This process of growing human life as material is called “organ farming.

Through my research I have found that the majority of people who support the applications of cloning have been from the medical or science communities. However, there are also many ndividuals outside of science and medicine who also support cloning. For example, Nicholas Coote, assistant general secretary of the Roman Catholic Bishops Conference in England, defends cloning humans by stating, “If I have a clone of me, I am still unique as my clone has a consciousness that is not mine. ” On the other side of the debate, those who advocate the ban on cloning argue that cloning is immoral and against Gods will.

Many people feel that scientist should not have the power to “play God under any circumstances. In many religious articles, the authors were appalled with the notion hat scientists were creating life. For thousands of years, religion has taught that the only human creations were Adam and Eve, and that only God and heterosexual reproduction could create life. Advocates of the ban on cloning believe that cloning is immoral and sinful. Another viewpoint against cloning, as E. V. Kontorovich said in his National Review article, “Cloning would take the humanity out of human reproduction.

Gary Bauer, President of the Family Research Council also stated, “Human cloning should be banned because it transforms procreation into production where human children are the customized products. Kontorovich and Bauer both imply that cloning humans would destroy the concept of humanity. Many people who support the ban on cloning feel that cloning is manufacturing human lives as if they were objects and not living beings. Another consequence of cloning humans is the fact that if offspring are identical to their parents, they cannot evolve to adapt to their environment.

E. V. Kontorovich pointed this out in his National Review article by stating, “It is necessary for species to respond to environmental changes so that the human species can evolve. ” Although scientist would be able to create genetically uperior humans at the moment, in the long run humans may become less diverse and unable to adapt to changing climates or other changes in their environment. Also, many supporters of the ban on cloning are worried that cloning could replace the “average human” with genetically superior clones, thus making the human race obsolete.

If Adolf Hitler would have had todays cloning technology he might have been able to clone an army of genetically superior clones and have taken over the world. Today, if a scientist, who is capable of cloning humans, joins terrorist organizations and clones a massive army of ilitary Generals, these organizations could succeed where Hitler failed. To begin my research to answer my thesis, I visited the United States Military Academy Library and looked through reference books to get facts about human cloning and its possible effects of society.

My next step was to look through scientific magazines to find published articles concerning cloning. These articles provided much information about cloning and the process of cloning. To find as much information as I could, I searched through articles on the librarys catalog online, through scientific magazines, and even though magazines on microfilm. When I felt that I understood the facts concerning cloning, I began to look through general magazines, articles on the Internet, and Internet web pages.

These articles provided mostly opinions of the controversial issue of cloning and I was able to understand how different people viewed the issue of cloning and why they felt the way they did. After I gathered all of my information from photocopying articles and taking notes, I organized my information to match my outline and began writing my research paper. Cloning has become a very important issue that is affecting our world. What would the world be like ith a superior race, such as the hypothetical German Olympic teams of 2008 or with armies of cloned humans conquering every continent on Earth?

Even if cloning is limited to medical research, there will always be scientists who will find ways to use cloning to their own personal benefit. Consequently, even if cloning is limited to medical research, there is still the risk of cloning humans. We simply cannot play God and create life because it is morally wrong and sinful, and most importantly, dangerous. The only answer to the cloning issue is to sacrifice the medical and biological gains of cloning and put an absolute ban on all cloning.

The Morality Of Cloning

Today, the topic of cloning generates more argument then it has ever created before. The controversy over cloning is based, in part, on the fact that there are extreme opposing viewpoints on the subject. Also a major factor in the debate over cloning is a fear of new technology. Throughout history, man has always been slow to adapt to a new technology, or a new way of doing things. People go through all the trouble to adapt to one method, why uproot ourselves and change everything just to do it a different way.

This attitude has been evident in the recent past, with inventions such as the automobile and the television. Nuclear power is a prime example of an advanced technology essentially abandoned out of fear. There are very few nuclear power plants left in operation, and there are no new plants being built. This is mainly due to fear of an accident, or to the long lasting effects of this technology. As with everything, including cloning, there is a negative side. With television, the negative is that children often watch it instead of doing homework, subsequently causing lower grades.

It is also believed that television violence influences children into more violent tendencies. A negative to automobiles is the massive pollution a large number of them cause. Entire cities have been put on pollution alert due to toxic smog created, in part, by the automobile. Nuclear poweras major downfall is, aside from the immense destruction caused by an accident, the long-lasting effects of the spent nuclear fuel. Sometimes the negatives outweigh the positives, and the technology is rightfully abandoned, but in mostly this is not the case .

First off, cloning is not just the photocopying of a living breathing human being. It takes a great deal of time and effort to clone a living being (Petit 2001). Also, the clone would not have the memories and experiences that the original has. That technology does not yet exist. There are many things that can be cloned; single cells, plants, organs, animals, and eventually entire human beings. The technology to clone a human exists, but we have not moved into that area of cloning yet. This is due mainly to the fact that some people believe cloning violates their morals.

Another extremely useful application of the cloning technology would be the acloning of organs or tissues for the bodya (Maniatis 1982). With this, we could not only cure our suffering and dying, but we could prolong our life-span by decades. It wouldnat be uncommon for people to live to one hundred and fifty years old, or older. If a kidney fails in old age, take the few good cells left and clone a brand new kidney. If someone suffers a massive heart attack, clone a new heart. After more development of cloning, athere is even the possibility to repair brain and spinal column damagea (Kass 1998).

These life-prolonging procedures wouldnat be reserved for the rich and famous, they could be used on everyone. Take, for example, a man who has drank all of his life. He is now in his 40as and has severe liver cirrhosis. Without a liver transplant, he will die. And even if he gets a liver transplant, there is no guarantee that it will save him; his body could reject it. If the man gets a liver, and if it doesnat get rejected, he then has to live out the remainder of his life on rejection medicine, and even a simple cold could kill him.

Now if cloning was a common practice, the doctors would simply take a few healthy liver cells and clone a brand-new liver for the man. Since the liver is a clone of the original, the liver cells have exactly the same DNA and there is no chance for rejection. So he is guaranteed a liver that will not be rejected, and he wonat have to spend his life on rejection drugs. Now there is the subject of cloning an entire human being. It is this side of cloning that generates the most controversy of all. People believe that it is not ethical to clone a human being.

These beliefs are based on the premise that God created humans in his image, and their soul is given to them by Goda (Chapman 1999). Therefore, it is not our place to be aplaying Goda (Gushee 2001). In their view, we would be playing God, and this should not happen. But science does not recognize that a god created the universe, science believes that the universe created itself out of a abig banga. From this point of view, God did not create man, and there is no moral boundary to cloning a human being. However, the benefits of cloning a living human being are questionable.

The question asked is, awhy clone a humana (Arnst 2001)? The advocates of human cloning would say that they want to aweed outa genetic faults in people (Berg 1992). This is a viable answer, since we want as few problems as we can have. Also, a great number of people want an image of them to live on forever. A clone would best serve this purpose, since it will look completely identical to the original. There are people that believe that cloning will cure the problem caused by infertile couples. Cloning would allow someoneas image to live on, and they would have a son or daughter to live with.

Now, with the positives and gains by cloning and genetic engineering established, there are of course the few negatives that always slow a technology’s progress. The first such potential negative is that asome unscrupulous person might acquire the genes of a monsteraa, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein for example (Kass 1998). However this is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons. First, the amount of DNA that is recovered would be unable to be decoded. If this small amount of DNA was able to be recovered, chances are it would be heavily damaged or deteriorated, so a clone of this person might not be at all like the original.

If, by some far stretch, the DNA was able to be recovered, and was in good enough condition to clone that person, the clone would not turn out like the original. The genetics of a person plays only a small role in the development of that person. Memories, experiences, parents, upbringing, and environment all play a key role in the development of a human being. If Hitler was a monster in the 40as, chances are that his clone in a whole new millenium wonat be. The way that he was brought up plays more of a role on his actions and attitudes than his genetics does. Moral implications exist on both sides of the issue.

Would it be fair to clone a historical monster such as Hitler? Even though the clone didnat kill millions of Jews, his original did, so a great number of people would discriminate against him. He could be attacked for crimes he never committed, he might be ridiculed for reasons he does not know. The mental torment of such a childhood would destroy him. Would it be moral to do this to a human? The answer is no. The cloning of a normal person, one who does not stand out, would be perfectly acceptable, since there is no reason for that person to be acted against unfairly.

Through all of this proof, we now have the information to say that cloning must not be banned. The potential that this technology has is unparalleled. This single technological break-through may be responsible for saving millions of lives in the future. Even if entire human cloning is banned, one can not deny the endless possibilities of cloning organs or body tissue or even muscle. People must find a way to adapt to this technology and not be afraid of it but instead embrace it knowing that it will do more good for humanity than bad.

The Issue of Human Cloning

With the recent discovery of the ability to clone an adult sheep, ignites numerous questions concerning the ethical and moral issues in light of eventually cloning a human being. The controversity surrounding the eventual possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however, the ethical concerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because they are based on erroneous views about what genes are and what they can do. The danger, therefore, lies not in the power of the technology, but in the misunderstanding of its significance.

Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to reating a “carbon copy”-an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. It would be more like producing a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separate people-biologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically-so a clone is a separate person from his or her non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism-the view that genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are utterly insignificant.

The overwhelming consensus among geneticists is that genetic determinism is false. As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which genes operate, they have also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects their “expression. ” The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits, such as height and hair color, is significantly mediated by environmental factors. And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply, from intelligence to compassion, is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect.

Indeed, we need only appeal to our ordinary experience with identical twins-that they are different eople despite their similarities-to appreciate that genetic determinism is false. Furthermore, because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably always be riskier-that is, less likely to result in a live birth-than in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts before the researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloning methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF techniques typically have a success rate of less than 20 percent.

So why would anyone go to the trouble of cloning? There are, of course, a few reasons people might go to the rouble, and so it’s worth pondering what they think they might accomplish, and what sort of ethical quandaries they might engender. Consider the hypothetical example of the couple who wants to replace a child who has died. The couple doesn’t seek to have another child the ordinary way because they feel that cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost child. But the unavoidable truth is that they would be producing an entirely different person, a delayed identical twin of that child.

Once they understood that, it is unlikely they would persist. But suppose they were to persist? Of course we can’t deny that possibility. But a couple so persistent in refusing to acknowledge the genetic facts is not likely to be daunted by ethical considerations or legal restrictions either. If our fear is that there could be many couples with that sort of psychology, then we have a great deal more than cloning to worry about. Another disturbing possibility is the person who wants a clone in order to have acceptable “spare parts” in case he or she needs an organ transplant later in life.

But regardless of the reason that someone has a clone produced, the result would nevertheless be a human eing with all the rights and protections that accompany that status. It truly would be a disaster if the results of human cloning were seen as less than fully human. But there is certainly no moral justification for and little social danger of that happening; after all, we do not accord lesser status to children who have been created through IVF or embryo transfer. There are other possibilities we could spin out.

Suppose a couple wants a “designer child”-a clone of Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Taylor-because they want a daughter who will grow up to be as attractive as those women. Indeed, suppose someone wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to enjoy the notoriety of having one. We cannot rule out such cases as impossible. Some people produce children for all sorts of frivolous or contemptible reasons. But we must remember that cloning is not as easy as going to a video store or as engaging as the traditional way of making babies.

Given the physical and emotional burdens that cloning would involve, it is likely that such cases would be exceedingly rare. But if that is so, why object to a ban on human cloning? What is wrong with placing a legal barrier in the path of those with esires perverse enough or delusions recalcitrant enough to seek cloning despite its limited potential and formidable costs? For one thing, these are just the people that a legal ban would be least likely to deter. But more important, a legal barrier might well make cloning appear more promising than it is to a much larger group of people.

If there were significant interest in applying this technology to human beings, it would indicate a failure to educate people that genetic determinism is profoundly mistaken. Under those circumstances as well, however, a ban on human cloning would not only be ineffective ut also most likely counterproductive. Ineffective because, as others have pointed out, the technology does not seem to require sophisticated and highly visible laboratory facilities; cloning could easily go underground.

Counterproductive because a ban might encourage people to believe that there is a scientific basis for some of the popular fears associated with human cloning-that there is something to genetic determinism after all. There is a consensus among both geneticists and those writing on ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic research, that genetic determinism is not only false, but pernicious; it invokes memories of seudo-scientific racist and eugenic programs premised on the belief that what we value in people is entirely dependent on their genetic endowment or the color of their skin.

Though most members of our society now eschew racial determinism, our culture still assumes that genes contain a person’s destiny. It would be unfortunate if, by treating cloning as a terribly dangerous technology, we encouraged this cultural myth, even as we intrude on the broad freedom our society grants people regarding reproduction. We should remember that most of us believe people should be llowed to decide with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce and how many children they should have. We do not criticize a woman who takes a fertility drug so that she can influence when she has children-or even how many.

Why, then, would we object if a woman decides to give birth to a child who is, in effect, a non-contemporaneous identical twin of someone else? By arguing against a ban, I am not claiming that there are no serious ethical concerns to the manipulation of human genes. Indeed there are. For example, if it turned out that certain desirable traits regarding intellectual abilities or character could be realized hrough the manipulation of human genes, which of these enhancements, if any, should be available?

But such questions are about genetic engineering, which is a different issue than cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait selection: It simply takes a pre-existing, unengineered genetic combination of traits and replicates it. I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have raised regarding the broad range of assisted reproductive technologies. But we should acknowledge that those concerns will not be resolved by any determination we make regarding the specific acceptability of cloning.

Cloning, The Process Of Creating A Copy Of A Plant Or Animal

Cloning, the process of creating a copy of a plant or animal that is genetically identical to the original through asexual means, has sparked some interesting moral and ethical debate. For years, cloning has been used to produce a greater number of a specific type of plant, such as the Macintosh apple trees, which have all been derived from single mutated plant . Now, however, upon the discovery of a method to clone animals, even humans, people are beginning to become aware of the benefits and consequences of cloning, as well as the ethics involved.

Cloning has had a fairly long history. In 1952, the first successful cloning experiment took place. Scientists Robert Briggs and Thomas King successfully removed the nucleus from a frog egg and replaced it with the nucleus of an undifferentiated cell from another frog. The egg, then placed in a nutrient solution, eventually developed into a healthy tadpole. In 1962, ten years later, a similar experiment took a differentiated intestinal cell and allowed the tadpole created to develop into a healthy, fertile toad.

Later, in 1981, a scientist from Cambridge University then combined two embryos, one of a sheep and the other of a goat, making the first mosaic animal ever artificially createdthe geep, with the body of a goat covered with patches of sheeps wool. Then 1984, the first cloned mammals were produced from embryonic nuclei transplanted into unfertilized sheep eggs. Soon after, cloned calves and rabbits, both from embryonic nuclei, and just recently, the first mammal cloned from a fully differentiated adult sheep cell was created. The process of cloning an animal, especially a mammal, is not an easy one.

In fact, there are multiple ways to go about accomplishing the task, depending on the source of the DNA used for cloning. If a differentiated cell, one that has certain genes expressed or unexpressed, is used, certain genes must first be forced to turn on in order for the cell to divide and then its offspring to differentiate again. In both cases, whether using a differentiated or undifferentiated cell as the original, the nucleus must be isolated and extracted from the cell and then placed into an embryonic cell from which the nucleus has been removed.

Then, that cell must be forced to begin to divide without fertilization. At this time, there is no better way to accomplish the task than a steady hand, a slew of enzymes, and a imperceptibly tiny pipette, yet what process will be developed in the future is still unknown . Still, it is not the procedure that causes ethical debate, but instead the uses of this relatively new biotechnology. Some believe these uses outweigh any sort of moral restraints, yet others are shocked and even horrified by them. And such varying types of applications for cloning often cause many varying opinions as well.

Cloning can theoretically be used for the mass production of medications, by editing the genes of cloned animals, forcing them to produce these medications in their milk, thereby increasing the availability and decreasing the cost of such drugs . Couples who wish to have children but for some reason have difficulty doing so can make multiple copies of a womans egg which can then be fertilized artificially, through in vitro fertilization, increasing the possibility of fertilizing an egg which may come rarely from about 10% to about 50%.

In another case, a women who is at a high risk of becoming sterile through chemotherapy or the like may be able to have an embryo cloned for future use. Or, since researches have developed tests for screening for genetic diseasestests which often kill the embryo, embryos can be cloned to eliminate the risk of damaging such cells in the process . On another extreme, however, are the ideas of body farming. Cloning could theoretically be used to create a duplicate of a person, removing its higher brain functions early in development, so that the clone can be used to provide vital organs in case the person damages one.

In this way, there would be no danger of rejection either, since the body part would be identical in genetic make up to the damaged one. Even more extreme are some other ideas. Entire populations could be created through cloning, isolating specific desirable traits, thereby creating the ultimate in artificial selection. In addition, entire armies, genetically identical, could be created at will, and even clones of long dead personalities of the likes of Hitler and Einstein could be created .

Or how about replacing a lost family member with a clone? Or selecting the child you want from a catalog of embryos available to be cloned? While these ideas may seem far fetched, certain events already occurring lead one to believe that such things could actually happentake for example the father who had a vasectomy reversed to impregnate the mother, a 39 year old woman, in order to produce a child for the sole purpose of creating a donor of bone marrow the ill first child .

While some of these possibilities may seem extreme or entirely plausible, everyone seems to have a different opinion. While increasing the chances of artificial fertilization may seem like a good idea to some, others worry about what will happen to left over embryos, still carrying the possibility of life, when the parents die or when the genetic screening or in vitro fertilization is complete. No one yet knows the answer, for a committee discussing these concerns has yet to be formed.

And while the availability of extra organs may be useful in shortening the organ-donor waiting lists, some believe that creating a brain dead class of humans used only to provide body parts is no better than slavery or the suppression of a people. In addition, the production of societies based on clones frightens people afraid of losing their individuality. At the same time, it has also been argued that the best advances come from a variation of people and ideasthe theory that variety causes change.

And, the idea of replacing a family member with a clone seems just morally unethical to some . No matter what a persons view, anyone can be certain that society, religion, and upbringing play a definite role in the decision. Views on abortion and when life begins, for instance, can have an effect on the importance of an embryo. And, with so many different possibilities for the use of cloning, it is no wonder that a gradient exists between those entirely against cloning and those entirely for it.

To illustrate this, a study done of 500 adult Americans, taken by TIME/CNN showed some interesting results (see attached file). It is difficult too to decide on a legal policy governing cloning experiments because of this reason and because of the multiple government agencies that could possible by involved in such a decision. In all, it is a confusing debate which seems to have no answers, for now holding back a ripe area of scientific discovery. It will be interesting to see what finally does develop of this issue.

Cloning Today Essay

A clone is a group of organisms that are genetically identical. Most clones result from asexual reproduction, a process in which a new organism develops from only one parent. The one process of cloning, called nuclear transfer, replaces the nucleus of an immature egg with a nucleus from another cell. Most of the work with clones is done from cultures. An embryo has about thirty or forty usable cells but a culture features an almost endless supply. When the nucleus has been inserted into the egg cell, the cell is given an electric shock to initiate the development. Traditionally this is the sperms role.

In this paper we will be discussing the advantages of different types of clones, such as they are useful for research. We will also be discussing the disadvantages and different techniques that result from the cloning of different organisms. First lets start with the history of cloning. The modern era of laboratory cloning began in 1958 when F. C. Steward cloned carrot plants from mature single cells placed in a nutrient culture containing hormones. The first cloning of animal cells took place in 1964. John B. Gurdon took the nuclei from tadpoles and injected them into unfertilized eggs.

The nuclei containing the original parents genetic information had been destroyed with ultraviolet light. When the eggs were incubated, Gurdon discovered that only 1% to 2% of the eggs had developed into fertile adult toads. The first successful cloning of mammal was achieved nearly twenty years later. Scientists from Switzerland and the U. S. successfully cloned mice using a method similar to Gurdons, but required one extra step. After the nucleus was taken from the embryos of one type of mouse, they were transferred into the embryos of another mouse who served as the surrogate mother.

This mouse went through the birthing process to create the cloned mice. The cloning of cattle was achieved in 1988, when embryos from prize cows were transplanted to unfertilized cow eggs whose own nuclei had been removed. In 1993 the first human embryos were cloned using a technique that placed individual embryonic cells (blastomeres) in a nutrient culture where the cells then divided into 48 new embryos. These fertilized eggs did not develop to a stage that could be used for transplantation into a human uterus. Cloning can do many good things for our wild life and for our economy.

The process of cloning can save us a lot of money. A crop that is imported to our country can instead be cloned here. It would also make the product cheaper. Cloning would also develop stronger plants, resistant to disease, parasites, and insect damage. With better plants, cloning could lead to more profit for farmers and we could clone an abundance of trees. This would help the ecological health of our planet. Cloning is good for out wildlife because with cloning it is easier for us, as a nation and a world, to save many different types of endangered species.

We would also be able to keep a type of animal from overpopulating its environment. We would be able to keep an animal within a controlled number. Another possibility for cloning would be the creation of new organs for someone who is in need of a transplant. The organ could be cloned from someone matching the persons type. This way people would not need to wait for someone to die to find a replacement organ. These ideas have not been put into effect yet, but that does not mean that they are far away in the future. The ideas for cloning are infinite. There is no telling what the possibilities an be.

Edward Squires, an equine reproduction biologist at Colorado State, says, “You could blow your mind thinking about the possibilities. ” These are just a few of the awesome possibilities in the world of cloning. Now we will discuss some of the disadvantages of cloning. Cloning of certain crops will increase the yield and quality. However this will also increase the danger of a disease being able to destroy the entire crop. Cloning destroys the genetic diversity of life. When everything is the same genetically then it is more likely that the entire population will be wiped out by either isease or predator.

Ian Wilmut, a researcher in Roslin Scotland says, “The more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong. ” Is cloning ethical? That is a question that will be with us for a long time. Are there benefits of cloning? The answer to that is a resounding yes. Is there a bad side to cloning? This is Another irrefutable affirmative. Should we Clone? This is where things start to get a little shaky. The answer is more of a yea kind of, answer. Most scientists agree that we ought to do more research on lones and even use some of the benefits that come through cloning.

However, most scientists also agree that lines should be drawn. Where should we raw those lines? Everyone has an opinion in this category and they are all different. The ability is there, at conception, to clone a human. Should this person be allowed to grow and be a genetic backup for the “real” person. So if the “real” person was to need a transplant of some organ there would be an exact copy ready and waiting. This is just one of the ethical questions that need to be answered. The question of cloning is no longer can we but should we.

Cloning Of Humans Should Be Forbidden

Imagine the world as only beautiful people. Everywhere you look is a Cindy Crawford look-a-like: 59, brown hair, brown eyes, and the perfect smile. A Master Race. Do we really want to reenact Adolf Hitlers plan of seeking world domination killing million upon millions as a final solution? Instead of killing, wed be reproducing millions, going against nature. Say we went and got one of Princess Dianas cells and implanted that in an egg that was then placed into a surrogate mother. Nine months later, we would have a baby Princess Diana.

Only trouble is, this baby would only resemble Princess Diana in looks, not personality, character, or individuality. Her whole life wouldnt be what it had been; she wouldnt be her. What if your newborn son died? Just think; you could have a second chance. Is this morally or ethnically right? Cloning of humans should be forbidden, but cloning of human body parts for medicinal purposes should be allowed. Cloning hasnt been a big issue or ever thought to have actually been made to work until 1997 with the successful birth of a lamb named Dolly.

Out of 277 eggs implanted in different sheep mothers, Dolly was the only lamb successfully born. The method used to clone Dolly was scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland took a cell out of the mammary gland. They then used an electrical pulse to coax an adult cell into merging with a host egg whose nucleus had been removed (Hoon). This method being very unsuccessful brought on a new one where scientists used mice, injecting just the adult nucleus into a nucleus free host instead of using an electrical pulse. They also had let it set for two hours before stimulating it to start dividing.

The success rate was 2-3 in 100. Now knowing that we could clone sheep and mice, scientists were up to the possibility and challenge of cloning humans. As soon as it became public knowledge that cloning was really happening and becoming more successful, President Clinton imposed a ban on federal funding for human-cloning research. Several states have established restrictions, some even banning cloning completely (Masci 420). Cloning is not morally or ethnically right. Morally, scientists would be taking the role of God. If a clone dies, where would they go?

In religious beliefs, clones would have no souls because God didnt create them. Cloning would alter the definition of ourselves. To clone a dead person with their DNA would only make another person that would look exactly the same minus their personality, character, talents, memories, scars, and life. Can you imagine raising a cloned child? As he/she grew up it wouldnt be the same. They would be though of as a special child, that is if they were even born correctly. The odds of even having a human clone born with out defects are very, very slim.

The child would go through grade school probably all right until it come time for family life. He or she comes home and it is now your time to explain the birds and bees speech. Are you going to explain that he/she is different that all other kids and is a big scientific study or are you going to lie? Either way, youre going to have to live with the consequences. Dolly was cloned from a sheep cell that was about six years old, a middle age for an ewe. So this means that when Dolly was born she was technically six years old.

This would mean that she would only be expected to live for five years, which would in truth be shorter than the normal lifespan of eleven years. If this was true, and humans were cloned, their lifespan would be shorter also. This was proved wrong, but if Dolly was born being six years old, shed be about ten years old right now, and old age. Does this mean that she is only going to live two more years or nine more? Life isnt a toy; its a very serious thing. You were brought on to this planet for a reason and cloning doesnt seem to be a good enough one. Cloning would deplete genetic diversity.

It is diversity that drives evolution and adaptation (religious website). Each person is born with a mixture of chromosomes from a mother and father sexually with the egg and fertilization from sperm. The new cell is called a zygote, which then multiplies, creating new cells all with that same DNA (Stonebarge). Cloning would be creating a person non-sexually. The baby would only possess the DNA of one person. As you look around, do you see everyone looking exactly the same? No, and this is variety, except for the few exceptions where about 1/1000 births are identical twins.

Identical twins are each others clones, they happen because a single cell, for no reason splits and permits to separate embryos to form such a cell called a zygote. Identical twins are, therefore know as monozygotic (Ebon 95). One of the arguments for human cloning is that it would help science to find out whether heredity or environment has a great influence of individual development. We already have clones, look around: twins! Also, if cloning a human were to occur, no sperm would be need. If cloning became into general usage, there would be no genetic need for men.

This shows that all human males could die off (Robinson). The bottom line is, cloning a person would change the definition of what it means to be a human, said George Annas, a professor of heath laws at Boston Universitys School of Public Health (Masci 409). George Annas is right. If you want a clone you have a 1/1000 chance with twins, almost more successful than a human clone, and youll have a lot better chance than having a baby with defects. Human cloning is too expensive for general use. If someone were to want a clone, it would far too expensive to even want to risk it, with the chances of it surviving being so low.

Nobodys sure right now, but it looks like it could be anywhere from thousands and even millions of dollars to have a clone. I dont think Bill Gates is ready for a clone right now, so were probably not going to have one right away. Theres already a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Would you want to stand out that much? Not only is money a big factor in cloning, theres only ten laboratories in the world that have the technology to clone humans according to Cornell University biologist Bruce Currie (Stoller).

Instead of trying to spend our money on research for bringing back loved ones of diseases such as cancer, shouldnt we be spending it on the cure for cancer to help prevent the death in the first place? The world already has a booming population of 6,157,400,560 and a birthrate of 1 every 8 seconds and a death rate of 1 every 14 seconds. Would we want to add to all of these numbers? If we did actually try cloning humans, we wouldnt want to add to the birth rate and the death rate in just one birth would we? I do support cloning used for medicinal purposed only.

People are always waiting on a new liver or heart, sometimes until its too late to help. This would never be a problem if scientists cloned body parts for medical distribution. Pigs have almost the same organs as humans, so we could clone them, never having to clone even a part of a human (Stonebarge). Scientists are also interested in cloning or adding genes to cows to make them produce more milk and to sheep for better wool. Also, the idea of transgenic lambs and calves would be to add genes from a different species.

For example, scientists have already trued adding two extra human genes to the sheep genes. Proven to work, they could add human genes such as insulin to cow genes and when that clone grows up to produce milk, it would also be creating insulin. We could then separate the insulin from the milk and have the cure to diabetes. Also, according to biologist Richard Seed, transgenic sheep have been altered to produce alpha-1-antitrypism, a drug that is used to treat cystic fibrosis. Cloning of animals and human body parts for research will hopefully soon lead to many new cures and saving of lives.

According to scientists at the University of Hawaii, three generations of mice have been produced indicating that cloning will be an indispensable tool to the research biologist. In a survey on March 10, 1997, in Time magazine, 74% of those asked believe its against Gods will to clone humans (Masci 411). In a recent interview with Lee Silver, a biologist at Princeton University, he was asked about his most controversial claim: Will genetic engineering ultimately lead to two or more human species that would not be able to interbreed?

His response was, I believe this could happen because engineering of embryos is inevitable. I can see ways in which genetic engineering will be made safe and efficient, and there will be a market for it- Parents who want their children to have advantages in life (Stoller 3). Is that what anyone wants? Identical twins are the best clones, and the only ones that are going to be legally allowed in the United States. Cloning human should remain science fiction and continue to be made into good movies, and be outlawed.

The definition of life is very strong: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. Sure a clone would be living, but as someone else. Cloning would ruin the definition of an individual life. They would have an identity crisis, not being defined as a real human being. Each person is unique, whether its their looks, personality, character, or the way they tie their shoes. Dolly was only referred to Dolly for the public to suggest an individual, or at least a pet or a doll, not for the scientific article (in which shes referred to as 6LL3) (Masci 423).

A clone would have no real parents which would be worse on a child than being adoptive with that thought always in the back of their mind about who their real mother was. In most peoples mind, Cindy Crawford could live on forever, at least the Revlon face. Most people cant say that they know her; so having a look-a-like would be no harm to their eyes. Cindy and close friends on the other hand would probably offend someone looking exactly like Cindy and living on as a highly respected model. Why dont we just watch her son, Presley, grow up and dismiss the idea of a child growing up to look exactly like her.

The Rapid Development Of The Technology For Cloning

The rapid development of the technology for cloning has led to moral debates around the world on whether or not to ban creating human clones. With the advancement of clone technology two states, California and Michigan have already banned the cloning of humans. “Everybody who thought it would proceed slowly and could be stopped was wrong, said Lee Silver, a professor from the University of Princeton (McFarling 1) . . . ” Without proper research on behalf of the politicians of California and Michigan, the premature ban should be reconsidered and appealed.

Cloning could provide a way for infertile couples to produce children genetically similar to themselves, a method of creating spare organs for transplants, and a cure for genetic disease. Human cloning may provide numerous benefits to mankind and should not be banned. Cloning is the Creation of another person that is an exact copy of another person (Clarke 1); this leaves too much to the imagination and leads to misunderstanding of the methods scientists use in cloning. In more clear terms, cloning is the process in which DNA of a female egg is replaced with different DNA from another cell.

This process is referred to as the Nuclear Transfer or Nuclear Substitution. DNA molecules are the strings of protein that hold genetic coding. In this operation, the nucleus, which is the part of the cell that contains the DNA, are carefully removed from an unfertilized female egg then replaced with the DNA from the cell of another person (Harris 4). The egg with the DNA from another person is then manipulated into believing it has been fertilized and is implanted into the womb of the mother just as is done in the process of vitro fertilization.

Afterwards the fetus develops and is born after nine months, just like a natural baby (Dumesic 1). What this means is that the clone shares only the same DNA as the person from which it was cloned. It shares none of the same memories, knows none of the same people, and it will experience completely different things. The clone is like a much younger identical twin. The person and the clone of the person share the same genetic structure, which means the clone will look the exact same as the original.

Studies have shown that identical twins who are raised apart often share similar personalities and intelligence, even though possessed of entirely different experience and background (Vere 3). A mixture between two people’s genetic structure could provide a way for infertile couples or homosexual couples with a way to create a genetically related child. There are many couples in the world of which one of the partners is unable to naturally donate his/her genes for the purpose of procreation.

Only through cloning technology will they be able to give birth to a child that is related to them genetically. Ensuring that the families genes are passed on to future generations would be more appealing to parents than adoption or using sperm and eggs from an unrelated donor. In late 1997 Richard Seed announced that he would attempt to create a child using cloning technology, and his post menopausal wife would be carrying the child. “Seed, with no medical credentials or funding, is not expected to succeed (McFarling 2).”

It is possible to create a full human being by cloning, but the clone does not have to develop into a full human. Inhibitors can be injected into a growing clone so that only certain or….. gans will be produced. This process does not require a mother to carry the child for 9 months, and can be done in a laboratory petri dish. This gives doctors a way to create “spare parts” to be used in transplants. The major problems with transplants today are organ rejections; it is important to find a donor that matches certain criteria so that the immune system does not destroy the organ.

For example, a liver can be grown outside the body using the patients own DNA and used in a transplant without fear of rejection. This will eliminate the need for anti-rejection drugs and provide for a healthier recovery (Nash 1). Simple tissues such as skin cells have already been cloned in laboratories for use in skin grafts for burn victims. Other things that have been cloned include blood clotting factors for hemophiliacs, and plans to create specialized nerve cells to repair brain damage have begun (McFarling 2&3).

Another possible medical advance that could be developed further through cloning research is the early diagnosis and even the curing of genetic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. A method called gene therapy is being developed by where a solution is injected into the patient; Once inside, the solution alters the area of the DNA where the disease is and fixes the problem (Blaese 1). Diabetes is a disease in which the cells cannot accept sugars from the blood without the help of insulin from either injection or oral pills.

Diabetics could undergo gene therapy, and insulin could start being produced naturally again. Other products that are needed by humans, could be artificially produced by animals through cloning and genetic engineering. Genes from humans that produce necessary proteins, for example, could be included in the animal DNA so that the animal would produce that protein in its milk or blood. The protein could then be extracted and used in human treatments for various diseases or disorders (Dumesic 2).

This could also lead to a prevention and or cure for AIDS and cancer. A few people have successfully continued to live with AIDS or cancer, and in some cases the disease has gone away. Part of their genetic structure has strengthened the immune system to the point that it rids the body of these diseases. Their genes could be used in gene therapy, and help to strengthen peoples immune systems so they too can rid their bodies of these diseases. Genetic defects could also be cured with cloning technology.

A genetic defect is a mutation in which the DNA has been altered and caused an abnormality in the body. People who wish to have a child, could be tested for possible mutations in the DNA, and a genetic solution could be created and injected into the still developing egg (Blaese 1). Mutations are natural, but when it causes an abnormality it is a hard thing for a person to live with. Through cloning technology, genetic defects could be treated to the point where the person affected could live a normal life.

Cloning, the process of Manipulating a cell

Cloning, the process of Manipulating a cell from an animal so that it grows into an exact duplicate of that animal is the forbidden fruit of biology. (Begley 54). The word clone, derived from the Greek word Klon, meaning twig or slip, refers to asexual reproduction. Also known as vegetative reproduction. Cloning became known to the public about 30 years ago. This idea of cloning about his time resulted in an experiment of the successful asexual reproduction. This experiment took place in England, where a whole bunch of tadpoles was cloned by the technique of nuclear transplantation.

Nuclear ransplantation refers to the process of moving a nucleus from one cell to another. (Mckinnel 28) The person responsible for this introduction of cloning was Joshua Lederberg, a noble laureate geneticist. (Kass, Winters 9) Scientists have known for a long time what it took to clone, and many had found themselves believing that it was biologically impossible. One problem was the way the embryo develops. Every cell in the body comes from the same fertilized egg therefore, every cell in the body contains the same genes.

But animal and human cells are specialized and different, so that a heart cell acts s a heart cell and a liver cell acts as a liver cell. This specialization starts when the fetus is formed, and once a cell reaches its final state, it never changes. A brain cell will always be a brain cell as long as a person is living, it would never change into a liver cell although it contains the same genes. (Kolata 24) Frogs were the first multicellular animals to be cloned in the 1950s. A thorough cloning experiment produces a frog asexually.

No gamete nucleus, sperm or egg, participates in the development of a frog that is truly a clone. (Mckinnel 3) The cloning procedure in frogs, toads, and salamanders is very difficult. In order to start this cloning process, the ability to obtain eggs and sperm from frogs had to be introduced. Also the process of vitro fertilization, removal of maternal chromosomes from eggs, and the splitting of embryos into individual cells. (140) To obtain frog eggs, the eggs have to grow to their maximum size and the frogs are ready for hibernation under the ice of lakes and streams.

Ovulation can be induced from September to or past the time of natural ovulation. Eggs leave the ovary, move to the reproductive tubes, and become available to the embryologist when the female frog is injected with pituitary lands or a combination of pituitary glands and the hormone progesterone. The eggs can be removed from the female after this treatment by gently squeezing the abdomen. (41) Frog sperm can be obtained by cutting the testes of the frog into small pieces in a diluted salt solution. The testes are dissected from the male, which usually requires sacrifice of the frog donor.

Then, a commercially available hormone present in pregnant humans, is injected into a mature male frog. Within one hour, millions of sperm are released from the testes of the frog and found in the frogs urine. This sperm is then capable of fertilizing frog eggs. (41-42) Eggs and sperm can be combined in a glass dish at a precise time. By caring for the fertilized eggs at a particular temperature and time, donor embryos of predetermined stages can be obtained. Using glass dishes is a simple and efficient way of producing the frogs since frog eggs are very large and contain an immense amount of stored food. 42)

The next step to the cloning of frogs is to prepare the frog eggs to receive a transplanted nucleus. Freshly ovulated eggs have the same amount of DNA as an ordinary body cell. That amount of DNA is twice the amount found in a sperm; so it is called diploid. A sperm contains the haploid amount of DNA. The fact that the ovulated eggs are diploid, helps with the experiment greatly. If diploid eggs could combine with diploid sperm, than the amount of DNA in the offspring would become enormous in only a few generations, but this does not happen.

What happens is that the frog egg becomes haploid as the sperm already is, after it is released from the ovary and at that time it is activated by the penetration of the sperm. This results in an egg devoid of any genetic material in the form f chromosomes. This egg only has to be removed from the jelly envelope that surrounds it by cutting it with scissors, in order for it to be ready to be transplanted in to a nucleus. (42-43. ) After the jelly envelope is removed from the egg it is placed in a solution that separates each individual cell of the egg.

The surgery that is needed to be performed involves using micropipettes, microinjection apparatus, and micromanipulation equipment. This micropipette is a glass tube that is positioned adjacent to the one cell selected from the many cells with the microinjection apparatus. The donor cell is then drawn into the micropipette with the microinjection apparatus, which is a machine that holds a tool very steady, and allows small precise movements of that tool. When the cell enters the opening of the micropipette, the cell membrane is ruptured and there is slight leakage of its cytoplasm.

The cell membrane is very thin but extremely important. (43-46) If the membrane is left on the inserted donor cell, the ovum with its donor cell cannot develop. However, a donor cell with its nucleus apart from the membrane can come together with the egg cytoplasm to start the evelopmental system-which sometimes results in the formation of a frog. (46. ) The process of cloning frogs took very long to do and was often very unsuccessful. (Cohen 13) Twenty years ago, when only the lowly tadpoles had been cloned, bioethicists raised the possibility that scientists might someday advance the technology to include human beings as well. Woodward 60) In 1978, the infertility revolution began.

Louis Brown, who was born in England, was the worlds first test-tube baby. Scientists had learned to fertilize womens eggs outside their bodies, allowing human life to start and take place in a petri dish in a laboratory. Kolata 11) In 1993, embryologists at George Washington University cloned human embryos, they took cells from 17 human embryos, (defectives ones) they then teased apart the cells, grew each one in a lab dish and got a few 32-cell embryos, a size that could be implanted in a woman. Begley 55) One of the greatest cloning experiments ever accomplished was the production of Dolly.

Scientist Ian Wilmut used several techniques learned from his research group and others to clone a sheep and make Dolly. Keith Campbell, his colleague, sucked the nucleus out of an egg that was taken from an ewe. This created an egg ith the absence of genes that would die without its nucleus. So he began the process of putting the nucleus of an udder cell in to the egg. (Kolata 21) He slipped the udder cell underneath the outer membrane of the egg. Next, he hit the egg for a few small seconds with bursts of electricity.

This opened the pores of the egg and the udder cell so that what was in the under cell, including chromosomes would go into the egg and remain there. Now the egg had a nucleus shared by the udder cell. The electricity made the egg act as if it were fertilized. ( 27) After 21 times of repeating this experiment, Wilmut and his olleagues had managed to create this frisky little lamb name Dolly. Dolly does not resemble her biological mother, she is an exact copy or replica of her mothers identical twin. (Nash 62). Dolly was born on July 5, 1996 at 5:00 p. m. he was the most famous lamb to enter the world and a creation that would change the world forever. She was born in a shed, just down the road from the Roslin Institute, in Scotland where she was created.

She weighed 6. 6 kilograms, or 14. 5 lbs. (Kolata 1-2) Although the cloning of Dolly was a great success, it was a very frightening ask, but it soon became a question on everyones mind. (Kolata 10) Roslin researchers struggled for 10 years to achieve their breakthrough. Finally, political and religious leaders around the world grasped the concept that if scientists can clone sheep, they can probably clone humans too. Nash 62). Many different concepts of cloning have been considered since it is such a very controversial issue. Some views discuss why cloning would serve the world with answers to the questions asked and possibilities thought of, while others feel cloning is just a way of making the world even more confusing than it lready is.

The ability to clone adult mammals, in particular, opens up numerous exciting possibilities; from propagating endangered animal species to producing replacement organs for transplant patients. Nash 63) The government could put a restraint on the cloning of human beings and they can also issue regulations that limit the work researchers can do. But the government cannot stop people or groups of people that want to clone humans. Now the cloning of humans is within reach and society as a whole is caught with its ethical pants down. (Woodward 60) Muslim Scholar Aldulaziz Sachdina, a medical thicist at the university of Virginia, asks Imagine a world with no need for marriage. 61)

The study of cloning can give the world deep insights into such puzzles as spinal cords, heart muscle & brain tissue that wont regenerate after injury, or cancer that reverts to embryonic stage and multiplies Uncontrollably. (60) Its a horrendous crime to make a Xerox of someone, argues author and science critic Jeremy Rifkin. Youre putting a human into a genetic straitjacket. For the first time, weve taken the principle of industrial design quality control predictability and applied then to a human being.

Cloning Humans Essay

Cloning humans has recently become a possibility that seems much more feasible in today’s society than it was twenty years ago. It is a method that involves the production of a group of identical cells or organisms that all derive from a single individual (Grolier 220). It is not known when or how cloning humans really became a possibility, but it is known that there are two possible ways that we can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves and creating many new individuals from that embryo.

The second method of cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human eing and cloning them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular person. With these two methods almost at our fingertips, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: Can we do this, and should we? There is no doubt that many problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future.

Cloning presents as much a moral problem as a technical problem. Cloning is an affront to religious sensibilities; it seems like “playing God,” and interfering with the natural process. There are, of course, more logical objections, regarding susceptibility to disease, expense, and diversity. Others are worried about the abuses of cloning. Cloning appears to be a powerful force that can be exploited to produce horrendous results. Cloning may reduce genetic variability, Producing many clones runs the risk of creating a population that is entirely the same.

This population would be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population. One can easily picture humans being wiped out be a single virus, however, less drastic, but more probable events could occur from a lack of genetic diversity. For example, if a large percentage of an nation’s cattle are identical clones, a virus, such as a particular strain of mad cow disease, could effect the entire population. The result could be catastrophic food shortages in that nation.

Cloning may cause people to settle for the best existing animals, not allowing for improvement of the species. In this way, cloning could potentially interfere with natural evolution. Cloning is currently an expensive process. Cloning requires large amounts of money and biological expertise. Ian Wilmut and his associates required 277 tries before producing Dolly. A new cloning technique has recently been developed which is far more reliable. However, even this technique has 2-3% success rate. There is a risk of disease transfer between transgenic animals and the animal from which the transgenes were derived.

If an animal producing drugs in its milk becomes infected by a virus, the animal may transmit the virus to a patient using the drug. Any research into human cloning ould eventually need to be tested on human. The ability to clone humans may lead to the genetic tailoring of offspring. The heart of the cloning debate is concerned with the genetic manipulation of a human embryo before it begins development. It is conceivable that scientists could alter a baby’s genetic code to give the individual a certain color of eyes or genetic resistance to certain diseases.

This is viewed as inappropriate tampering with “Mother Nature” by many ethicists. Because clones are derived from an existing adult cell, it has older genes. Will the clone’s life expectancy be shorter ecause of this? Despite this concern, so far, all clones have appeared to be perfectly normal creatures. A “genetic screening test” could be used to eliminate zygotes of a particular gender, without requiring a later abortion. Cloning might be used to create a “perfect human,” or one with above normal strength and sub-normal intelligence, a genetic underclass.

Also, if cloning is perfected in humans, there would be no genetic need for men. Cloning might have a detrimental effect on familial relationships. A child born from an adult DNA cloning of his father could be considered a delayed identical twin of ne of his parents. It is unknown as to how a human might react if he or she knew he or she was an exact duplicate of an older individual. Supporters of cloning feel that with the careful continuation of research, the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences.

In their minds, final products of cloning, like farm animals, and laboratory mice will not be the most important achievement. The applications of cloning they envision are not nightmarish and inhumane, but will improve the overall quality of science and life. Cloning will help to produce discoveries that will effect the study of genetics, cell development, human growth, and obstetrics. Human cloning is not the issue, it is merely a threat to the continuation of cloning research. Their arguments for such research are displayed here.

Cloning might produce a greater understanding of the cause of miscarriages, which might lead to a treatment to prevent spontaneous abortions. This would help women who can’t bring a fetus to term. It might lead to an understanding of the way a morula (mass of cells developed from a blastula) attaches itself to the uterine wall. This might generate new and successful contraceptives. Cloning experiments may add to the understanding of genetics and lead to the creation of animal organs that an be easily accepted by humans.

This would supply limitless organs to those in need. The growth of the human morula is similar to the growth at which cancer cells propagate. If information derived from cloning research allows scientists to stop the division of the human ovum, a technique for terminating cancer may be found. Cloning could also be used for parents who risk passing a defect to a child. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for disease and disorder. If the clone was free from defects, then other would be as well. The latter could be implanted in the womb.

Damage to the nervous system could treated through cloning. Damaged adult nerve tissue does not regenerate on its own. However, stem cells might be able to repair the damaged tissue. Because of the large number of cells required, human embryo cloning would be required. In in-vitro fertilization, a doctor often implants many fertilized ova into a woman’s uterus and counts on one resulting in pregnancy. However, some women can only supply one egg. Through cloning, that egg could be divided into eight zygotes for implanting. The chances of pregnancy would be much greater.

Cloning would allow a women to have one set of identical twins instead of going through two pregnancies. The women may not want to disrupt her career, or would prefer to only have one pregnancy. With cloning it would be assured that they would be identical. Cloning could provide spare parts. Fertilized ova could be cloned into several zygotes, one would be implanted and the others would be frozen for future use. In the event the child required a transplant, another zygote could be implanted, matured, and eventually contribute to the transplant.

Some believe that if a parent wanted to produce talents in a child similar to his own, cloning using DNA from the cell of the adult may produce a child with the same traits. Many are skeptical about this possibility. 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 ow the main stand we need to take 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 very appealing in some aspects and very frightening in others. Barbara Ehrenreich makes a quite humorous pun commenting on coming possibility of cloning humans. She states,” When the technology arrives for cloning adult individuals , genetic immortality should be within reach of the average multimillionaire. Ross Perot will be followed by a flock of little re-Rosses” (86).

Human Cloning

Before we assume that the market for human clones consists mainly of narcissists who think the world deserves more of them or neo-Nazis who dream of cloning Hitler or crackpots and mavericks and mischief makers of all kinds, it is worth taking a tour of the marketplace. We might just meet ourselves there. Imagine for a moment that your daughter needs a bone-marrow transplant and no one can provide a match; that your wife’s early menopause has made her infertile; or that your five-year-old has drowned in a lake and your grief has made it impossible to get your mind around the fact that he is gone forever.

Would the news then really be so easy to dismiss that around the world, there are scientists in labs pressing ahead with plans to duplicate a human being, deploying the same technology that allowed Scottish scientists to clone Dolly the sheep four years ago? All it took was that first headline about the astonishing ewe, and fertility experts began to hear the questions every day. Our two-year-old daughter died in a car crash; we saved a lock of her hair in a baby book. Can you clone her? Why does the law allow people more freedom to destroy fetuses than to create them? My husband had cancer and is sterile.

Can you help us? The inquiries are pouring in because some scientists are ever more willing to say yes, perhaps we can. Last month a well-known infertility specialist, Panayiotis Zavos of the University of Kentucky, announced that he and Italian researcher Severino Antinori, the man who almost seven years ago helped a 62-year-old woman give birth using donor eggs, were forming a consortium to produce the first human clone. Researchers in South Korea claim they have already created a cloned human embryo, though they destroyed it rather than implanting it in a surrogate mother to develop.

Recent cover stories in Wired and the New York Times Magazine tracked the efforts of the Raelians, a religious group committed to, among other things, welcoming the first extraterrestrials when they appear. They intend to clone the cells of a dead 10-month-old boy whose devastated parents hope, in effect, to bring him back to life as a newborn. The Raelians say they have the lab and the scientists, and–most important, considering the amount of trial and error involved–they say they have 50 women lined up to act as surrogates to carry a cloned baby to term.

Given what researchers have learned since Dolly, no one thinks the mechanics of cloning are very hard: take a donor egg, suck out the nucleus, and hence the DNA, and fuse it with, say, a skin cell from the human being copied. Then, with the help of an electrical current, the reconstituted cell should begin growing into a genetic duplicate. “It’s inevitable that someone will try and someone will succeed,” predicts Delores Lamb, an infertility expert at Baylor University.

The consensus among biotechnology specialists is that within a few years–some scientists believe a few months–the news will break of the birth of the first human clone. At that moment, at least two things will happen–one private, one public. The meaning of what it is to be human–which until now has involved, at the very least, the mysterious melding of two different people’s DNA–will shift forever, along with our understanding of the relationship between parents and children, means and ends, ends and beginnings.

And as a result, the conversation that has occupied scientists and ethicists for years, about how much man should mess with nature when it comes to reproduction, will drop onto every kitchen table, every pulpit, every politician’s desk. Our fierce national debate over issues like abortion and euthanasia will seem tame and transparent compared with the questions that human cloning raises. That has many scientists scared to death.

Because even if all these headlines are hype and we are actually far away from seeing the first human clone, the very fact that at this moment, the research is proceeding underground, unaccountable, poses a real threat. The risk lies not just with potential babies born deformed, as many animal clones are; not just with desperate couples and cancer patients and other potential “clients” whose hopes may be raised and hearts broken and life savings wiped out. The immediate risk is that a backlash against renegade science might strike at responsible science as well.

The more scared people are of some of this research, scientists worry, the less likely they are to tolerate any of it. Yet variations on cloning technology are already used in biotechnology labs all across the country. It is these techniques that will allow, among other things, the creation of cloned herds of sheep and cows that produce medicines in their milk. Researchers also hope that one day, the ability to clone adult human cells will make it possible to “grow” new hearts and livers and nerve cells. But some of the same techniques could also be used to grow a baby.

Trying to block one line of research could impede another and so reduce the chances of finding cures for ailments such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, cancer and heart disease. Were some shocking breakthrough in human cloning to cause “an overcompensatory response by legislators,” says Rockefeller University cloning expert Tony Perry, “that could be disastrous. At some point, it will potentially cost lives. ” So we are left with choices and trade-offs and a need to think through whether it is this technology that alarms us or just certain ways of using it.

By day, Randolfe Wicker, 63, runs a lighting shop in New York City. But in his spare time, as spokesman for the Human Cloning Foundation, he is the face of cloning fervor in the U. S. “I took one step in this adventure, and it took over me like quicksand,” says Wicker. He is planning to have some of his skin cells stored for future cloning. “If I’m not cloned before I die, my estate will be set up so that I can be cloned after,” he says, admitting, however, that he hasn’t found a lawyer willing to help.

“It’s hard to write a will with all these uncertainties,” he concedes. “A lot of lawyers will look at me crazy. As a gay man, Wicker has long been frustrated that he cannot readily have children of his own; as he gets older, his desire to reproduce grows stronger. He knows that a clone would not be a photocopy of him but talks about the traits the boy might possess: “He will like the color blue, Middle Eastern food and romantic Spanish music that’s out of fashion. ” And then he hints at the heart of his motive. “I can thumb my nose at Mr. Death and say, ‘You might get me, but you’re not going to get all of me,'” he says. “The special formula that is me will live on into another lifetime.

It’s a partial triumph over death. I would leave my imprint not in sand but in cement. ” This kind of talk makes ethicists conclude that even people who think they know about cloning–let alone the rest of us–don’t fully understand its implications. Cloning, notes ethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, “can’t make you immortal because clearly the clone is a different person. If I take twins and shoot one of them, it will be faint consolation to the dead one that the other one is still running around, even though they are genetically identical.

So the road to immortality is not through cloning. ” Still, cloning is the kind of issue so confounding that you envy the purists at either end of the argument. For the Roman Catholic Church, the entire question is one of world view: whether life is a gift of love or just one more industrial product, a little more valuable than most. Those who believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception think it is fine for God to make clones; he does it about 4,000 times a day, when a fertilized egg splits into identical twins.

But when it comes to massaging a human life, for the scientist to do mechanically what God does naturally is to interfere with his work, and no possible benefit can justify that presumption. On the other end of the argument are the libertarians who don’t like politicians or clerics or ethics boards interfering with what they believe should be purely individual decisions. Reproduction is a most fateful lottery; in their view, cloning allows you to hedge your bet. While grieving parents may be confused about the technology–cloning, even if it works, is not resurrection–their motives are their own business.

As for infertile couples, “we are interested in giving people the gift of life,” Zavos, the aspiring cloner, told TIME this week. “Ethics is a wonderful word, but we need to look beyond the ethical issues here. It’s not an ethical issue. It’s a medical issue. We have a duty here. Some people need this to complete the life cycle, to reproduce. ” In the messy middle are the vast majority of people who view the prospect with a vague alarm, an uneasy sense that science is dragging us into dark woods with no paths and no easy way to turn back.

Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly but has come out publicly against human cloning, was not trying to help sheep have genetically related children. “He was trying to help farmers produce genetically improved sheep,” notes Hastings Center ethicist Erik Parens. “And surely that’s how the technology will go with us too. ” Cloning, Parens says, “is not simply this isolated technique out there that a few deluded folks are going to avail themselves of, whether they think it is a key to immortality or a way to bring someone back from the dead. It’s part of a much bigger project.

Essentially the big-picture question is, To what extent do we want to go down the path of using reproductive technologies to genetically shape our children? ” At the moment, the American public is plainly not ready to move quickly on cloning. In a TIME/CNN poll last week, 90% of respondents thought it was a bad idea to clone human beings. “Cloning right now looks like it’s coming to us on a magic carpet, piloted by a cult leader, sold to whoever can afford it,” says ethicist Caplan. “That makes people nervous. ” And it helps explain why so much of the research is being done secretly.

We may learn of the first human clone only months, even years, after he or she is born–if the event hasn’t happened already, as some scientists speculate. The team that cloned Dolly waited until she was seven months old to announce her existence. Creating her took 277 tries, and right up until her birth, scientists around the world were saying that cloning a mammal from an adult cell was impossible. “There’s a significant gap between what scientists are willing to talk about in public and their private aspirations,” says British futurist Patrick Dixon. “The law of genetics is that the work is always significantly further ahead than the news.

In the digital world, everything is hyped because there are no moral issues–there is just media excitement. Gene technology creates so many ethical issues that scientists are scared stiff of a public reaction if the end results of their research are known. ” Of course, attitudes often change over time. In-vitro fertilization was effectively illegal in many states 20 years ago, and the idea of transplanting a heart was once considered horrifying. Public opinion on cloning will evolve just as it did on these issues, advocates predict. But in the meantime, the crusaders are mostly driven underground.

Princeton biologist Lee Silver says fertility specialists have told him that they have no problem with cloning and would be happy to provide it as a service to their clients who could afford it. But these same specialists would never tell inquiring reporters that, Silver says–it’s too hot a topic right now. “I think what’s happened is that all the mainstream doctors have taken a hands-off approach because of this huge public outcry. But I think what they are hoping is that some fringe group will pioneer it and that it will slowly come into the mainstream and then they will be able to provide it to their patients. All it will take, some predict, is that first snapshot. “Once you have a picture of a normal baby with 10 fingers and 10 toes, that changes everything,” says San Mateo, Calif. , attorney and cloning advocate Mark Eibert, who gets inquiries from infertile couples every day. “Once they put a child in front of the cameras, they’ve won. ” On the other hand, notes Gregory Pence, a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? , “if the first baby is defective, cloning will be banned for the next 100 years. ” I wouldn’t mind being the first person cloned if it were free. I don’t mind being a guinea pig,” says Doug Dorner, 35.

He and his wife Nancy both work in health care. “We’re not afraid of technology,” he says. Dorner has known since he was 16 that he would never be able to have children the old-fashioned way. A battle with lymphoma left him sterile, so when he and Nancy started thinking of having children, he began following the scientific developments in cloning more closely. The more he read, the more excited he got. “Technology saved my life when I was 16,” he says, but at the cost of his fertility. I think technology should help me have a kid. That’s a fair trade. ” Talk to the Dorners, and you get a glimpse of choices that most parents can scarcely imagine having to make. Which parent, for instance, would they want to clone? Nancy feels she would be bonded to the child just from carrying him, so why not let the child have Doug’s genetic material? Does it bother her to know she would, in effect, be raising her husband as a little boy? “It wouldn’t be that different. He already acts like a five-year-old sometimes,” she says with a laugh.

How do they imagine raising a cloned child, given the knowledge they would have going in? “I’d know exactly what his basic drives were,” says Doug. The boy’s dreams and aspirations, however, would be his own, Doug insists. “I used to dream of being a fighter pilot,” he recalls, a dream lost when he got cancer. While they are at it, why not clone Doug twice? “Hmm. Two of the same kid,” Doug ponders. “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I know we’d never clone our clone to have a second child. Once you start copying something, who knows what the next copies will be like? In fact the risks involved with cloning mammals are so great that Wilmut, the premier cloner, calls it “criminally irresponsible” for scientists to be experimenting on humans today. Even after four years of practice with animal cloning, the failure rate is still overwhelming: 98% of embryos never implant or die off during gestation or soon after birth. Animals that survive can be nearly twice as big at birth as is normal, or have extra-large organs or heart trouble or poor immune systems. Dolly’s “mother” was six years old when she was cloned.

That may explain why Dolly’s cells show signs of being older than they actually are–scientists joked that she was really a sheep in lamb’s clothing. This deviation raises the possibility that beings created by cloning adults will age abnormally fast. We had a cloned sheep born just before Christmas that was clearly not normal,” says Wilmut. “We hoped for a few days it would improve and then, out of kindness, we euthanized it, because it obviously would never be healthy. ” Wilmut believes “it is almost a certainty” that cloned human children would be born with similar maladies. Of course, we don’t euthanize babies.

But these kids would probably die very prematurely anyway. Wilmut pauses to consider the genie he has released with Dolly and the hopes he has raised. “It seems such a profound irony,” he says, “that in trying to make a copy of a child who has died tragically, one of the most likely outcomes is another dead child. ” That does not seem to deter the scientists who work on the Clonaid project run by the Raelian sect. They say they are willing to try to clone a dead child. Though their outfit is easy to mock, they may be even further along than the competition, in part because they have an advantage over other teams.

A formidable obstacle to human cloning is that donor eggs are a rare commodity, as are potential surrogate mothers, and the Raelians claim to have a supply of both. Earlier this month, according to Brigitte Boisselier, Clonaid’s scientific director, somewhere in North America, a young woman walked into a Clonaid laboratory whose location is kept secret. Then, in a procedure that has been done thousands of times, a doctor inserted a probe, removed 15 eggs from the woman’s ovaries and placed them in a chemical soup.

Last week two other Clonaid scientists, according to the group, practiced the delicate art of removing the genetic material from each of the woman’s eggs. Within the next few weeks, the Raelian scientific team plans to place another cell next to the enucleated egg. This second cell, they say, comes from a 10-month-old boy who died during surgery. The two cells will be hit with an electrical charge, according to the scenario, and will fuse, forming a new hybrid cell that no longer has the genes of the young woman but now has the genes of the dead child.

Once the single cell has developed into six to eight cells, the next step is to follow the existing, standard technology of assisted reproduction: gingerly insert the embryo into a woman’s womb and hope it implants. Clonaid scientists expect to have implanted the first cloned human embryo in a surrogate mother by next month. Even if the technology is basic, and even if it appeals to some infertile couples, should grieving parents really be pursuing this route? “It’s a sign of our growing despotism over the next generation,” argues University of Chicago bioethicist Leon Kass.

Cloning introduces the possibility of parents’ making choices for their children far more fundamental than whether to give them piano lessons or straighten their teeth. “It’s not just that parents will have particular hopes for these children,” says Kass. “They will have expectations based on a life that has already been lived. What a thing to do–to carry on the life of a person who has died. ” The libertarians are ready with their answers. “I think we’re hypercritical about people’s reasons for having children,” says Pence. “If they want to re-create their dead children, so what? People have always had self-serving reasons for having children, he argues, whether to ensure there’s someone to care for them in their old age or to relive their youth vicariously. Cloning is just another reproductive tool; the fact that it is not a perfect tool, in Pence’s view, should not mean it should be outlawed altogether. “We know there are millions of girls who smoke and drink during pregnancy, and we know what the risks to the fetus are, but we don’t do anything about it,” he notes. “If we’re going to regulate cloning, maybe we should regulate that too. ”

Olga Tomusyak was two weeks shy of her seventh birthday when she fell out of the window of her family’s apartment. Her parents could barely speak for a week after she died. “Life is empty without her,” says her mother Tanya, a computer programmer in Sydney, Australia. “Other parents we have talked to who have lost children say it will never go away. ” Olga’s parents cremated the child before thinking of the cloning option. All that remains are their memories, some strands of hair and three baby teeth, so they have begun investigating whether the teeth could yield the nuclei to clone her one day.

While it is theoretically possible to extract DNA from the teeth, scientists say it is extremely unlikely. “You can’t expect the new baby will be exactly like her. We know that is not possible,” says Tanya. “We think of the clone as her twin or at least a baby who will look like her. ” The parents would consider the new little girl as much Olga’s baby as their own. “Anything that grows from her will remind us of her,” says Tanya. Though she and her husband are young enough to have other children, for now, this is the child they want.

Once parents begin to entertain the option of holding on to some part of a child, why would the reverse not be true? “Bill” is a guidance counselor in Southern California, a fortysomething expectant father who has been learning everything he can about the process of cloning. But it is not a lost child he is looking to replicate. He is interested in cloning his mother, who is dying of pancreatic cancer. He has talked to her husband, his siblings, everyone except her doctor–and her, for fear that it will make her think they have given up hope on her.

He confides, “We might end up making a decision without telling her. ” His goal is to extract a tissue specimen from his mother while it’s still possible and store it, to await the day when–if–cloning becomes technically safe and socially acceptable. Late last week, as his mother’s health weakened, the family began considering bringing up the subject with her because they need her cooperation to take the sample. Meanwhile, Bill has already contacted two labs about tissue storage, one as a backup. “I’m in touch with a couple of different people who might be doing that,” he says, adding that both are in the U.

S. “It seems like a little bit of an underground movement, you know–people are a little reluctant that if they announce it, they might be targeted, like the abortion clinics. ” If Bill’s hopes were to materialize and the clone were born, who would that person be? “It wouldn’t be my mother but a person who would be very similar to my mother, with certain traits. She has a lot of great traits: compassion and intelligence and looks,” he says. And yet, perhaps inevitably, he talks as though this is a way to rewind and replay the life of someone he loves. She really didn’t have the opportunities we had in the baby-boom generation, because her parents experienced the Depression and the war,” he says. “So the feeling is that maybe we could give her some opportunities that she didn’t have. It would be sort of like we’re taking care of her now. You know how when your parents age and everything shifts, you start taking care of them? Well, this would be an extension of that. ” A world in which cloning is commonplace confounds every human relationship, often in ways most potential clients haven’t considered.

For instance, if a woman gives birth to her own clone, is the child her daughter or her sister? Or, says bioethicist Kass, “let’s say the child grows up to be the spitting image of its mother. What impact will that have on the relationship between the father and his child if that child looks exactly like the woman he fell in love with? ” Or, he continues, “let’s say the parents have a cloned son and then get divorced. How will the mother feel about seeing a copy of the person she hates most in the world every day? Everyone thinks about cloning from the point of view of the parents. No one looks at it from the point of view of the clone. If infertile couples avoid the complications of choosing which of them to clone and instead look elsewhere for their DNA, what sorts of values govern that choice? Do they pick an uncle because he’s musical, a willing neighbor because she’s brilliant? Through that door lies the whole unsettling debate about designer babies, fueled already by the commercial sperm banks that promise genius DNA to prospective parents. Sperm banks give you a shot at passing along certain traits; cloning all but assures it. Whatever the moral quandaries, the one-stop-shopping aspect of cloning is a plus to many gay couples.

Lesbians would have the chance to give birth with no male involved at all; one woman could contribute the ovum, the other the DNA. Christine DeShazo and her partner Michele Thomas of Miramar, Fla. , have been in touch with Zavos about producing a baby this way. Because they have already been ostracized as homosexuals, they aren’t worried about the added social sting that would come with cloning. “Now [people] would say, ‘Not only are you a lesbian, you are a cloning lesbian,'” says Thomas. As for potential health problems, “I would love our baby if its hand was attached to its head,” she says.

DeShazo adds, “If it came out green, I would love it. Our little alien… ” Just as women have long been able to have children without a male sexual partner, through artificial insemination, men could potentially become dads alone: replace the DNA from a donor egg with one’s own and then recruit a surrogate mother to carry the child. Some gay-rights advocates even argue that should sexual preference prove to have a biological basis, and should genetic screening lead to terminations of gay embryos, homosexuals would have an obligation to produce gay children through cloning.

All sorts of people might be attracted to the idea of the ultimate experiment in single parenthood. Jack Barker, a marketing specialist for a corporate-relocation company in Minneapolis, is 36 and happily unmarried. “I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t need a partner but can still have a child,” he says. “And a clone would be the perfect child to have because I know exactly what I’m getting. ” He understands that the child would not be a copy of him. “We’d be genetically identical,” says Barker.

“But he wouldn’t be raised by my parents–he’d be raised by me. Cloning, he hopes, might even let him improve on the original: “I have bad allergies and asthma. It would be nice to have a kid like you but with those improvements. ” Cloning advocates view the possibilities as a kind of liberation from travails assumed to be part of life: the danger that your baby will be born with a disease that will kill him or her, the risk that you may one day need a replacement organ and die waiting for it, the helplessness you feel when confronted with unbearable loss. The challenge facing cloning pioneers is to make the case convincingly that the technology itself is not immoral, however immorally it could be used.

One obvious way is to point to the broader benefits. Thus cloning proponents like to attach themselves to the whole arena of stem-cell research, the brave new world of inquiry into how the wonderfully pliable cells of seven-day-old embryos behave. Embryonic stem cells eventually turn into every kind of tissue, including brain, muscle, nerve and blood. If scientists could harness their powers, these cells could serve as the body’s self-repair kit, providing cures for Parkinson’s, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and paralysis. Actors Christopher Reeve, paralyzed by a fall from a horse, and Michael J.

Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s, are among those who have pushed Congress to overturn the government’s restrictions on federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research. But if the cloners want to climb on this train in hopes of riding it to a public relations victory, the mainstream scientists want to push them off. Because researchers see the potential benefits of understanding embryonic stem cells as immense, they are intent on avoiding controversy over their use. Being linked with the human-cloning activists is their nightmare.

Says Michael West, president of Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company that uses cloning technology to develop human medicines: “We’re really concerned that if someone goes off and clones a Raelian, there could be an overreaction to this craziness–especially by regulators and Congress. We’re desperately concerned–and it’s a bad metaphor–about throwing the baby out with the bath water. ” Scientists at ACT are leery of revealing too much about their animal-cloning research, much less their work on human embryos. What we’re doing is the first step toward cloning a human being, but we’re not cloning a human being,” says West. “The miracle of cloning isn’t what people think it is. Cloning allows you to make a genetically identical copy of an animal, yes, but in the eyes of a biologist, the real miracle is seeing a skin cell being put back into the egg cell, taking it back in time to when it was an undifferentiated cell, which then can turn into any cell in the body. ” Which means that new, pristine tissue could be grown in labs to replace damaged or diseased parts of the body.

And since these replacement parts would be produced using skin or other cells from the suffering patient, there would be no risk of rejection. “That means you’ve solved the age-old problem of transplantation,” says West. “It’s huge. ” So far, the main source of embryonic stem cells is “leftover” embryos from IVF clinics; cloning embryos could provide an almost unlimited source. Progress could come even faster if Congress were to lift the restrictions on federal funding–which might have the added safety benefit of the federal oversight that comes with federal dollars. We’re concerned about George W. ‘s position and whether he’ll let existing guidelines stay in place,” says West. “People are begging to work on those cells. ” That impulse is enough to put the Roman Catholic Church in full revolt; the Vatican has long condemned any research that involves creating and experimenting with human embryos, the vast majority of which inevitably perish. The church believes that the soul is created at the moment of conception, and that the embryo is worthy of protection.

It reportedly took 104 attempts before the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, was born; cloning Dolly took more than twice that. Imagine, say opponents, how many embryos would be lost in the effort to clone a human. This loss is mass murder, says David Byers, director of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ commission on science and human values. “Each of the embryos is a human being simply by dint of its genetic makeup. ” Last week 160 bishops and five Cardinals met for three days behind closed doors in Irving, Texas, to wrestle with the issues biotechnology presents.

But the cloning debate does not break cleanly even along religious lines. “Rebecca,” a thirtysomething San Francisco Bay Area resident, spent seven years trying to conceive a child with her husband. Having “been to hell and back” with IVF treatment, Rebecca is now as thoroughly committed to cloning as she is to Christianity. “It’s in the Bible–be fruitful and multiply,” she says. “People say, ‘You’re playing God. ‘ But we’re not. We’re using the raw materials the good Lord gave us. What does the doctor do when the heart has stopped? They have to do direct massage of the heart.

You could say the doctor is playing God. But we save a life. With human cloning, we’re not so much saving a life as creating a new being by manipulation of the raw materials, DNA, the blueprint for life. You’re simply using it in a more creative manner. ” A field where emotions run so strong and hope runs so deep is fertile ground for profiteers and charlatans. In her effort to clone her daughter Olga, Tanya Tomusyak contacted an Australian firm, Southern Cross Genetics, which was founded three years ago by entrepreneur Graeme Sloan to preserve DNA for future cloning.

In an e-mail, Sloan told the parents that Olga’s teeth would provide more than enough DNA–even though that possibility is remote. “All DNA samples are placed into computer-controlled liquid-nitrogen tanks for long-term storage,” he wrote. “The cost of doing a DNA fingerprint and genetic profile and placing the sample into storage would be $2,500. Please note that all of our fees are in U. S. dollars. ” When contacted by TIME, Sloan admitted, “I don’t have a scientific background. I’m pure business. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t here to make a dollar out of it.

But I would like to see organ cloning become a reality. ” He was inspired to launch the business, he says, after a young cousin died of leukemia. “There’s megadollars involved, and everyone is racing to be the first,” he says. As for his own slice of the pie, Sloan says he just sold his firm to a French company, which he refuses to name, and he was heading for Hawaii last week. The Southern Cross factory address turns out to be his mother’s house, and his “office” phone is answered by a man claiming to be his brother David–although his mother says she has no son by that name.

The more such peddlers proliferate, the more politicians will be tempted to invoke prohibitions. Four states–California, Louisiana, Michigan and Rhode Island–have already banned human cloning, and this spring Texas may become the fifth. Republican state senator Jane Nelson has introduced a bill in Austin that would impose a fine of as much as $1 million for researchers who use cloning technology to initiate pregnancy in humans. The proposed Texas law would permit embryonic-stem-cell research, but bills proposed in other states were so broadly written that they could have stopped those activities too. The short answer to the cloning question,” says ethicist Caplan, “is that anybody who clones somebody today should be arrested. It would be barbaric human experimentation. It would be killing fetuses and embryos for no purpose, none, except for curiosity. But if you can’t agree that that’s wrong to do, and if the media can’t agree to condemn rather than gawk, that’s a condemnation of us all. ” Here is what people are saying: At 11:50 AM John said: Whether you believe in a supreme being or not, it would be very stupid to let this gift go to waste by not using it.

It just needs to be monitered. At 11:52 AM George W. said: As long as we don’t ever clone antone in the Clinton family, this entire ordeal will be fine. At 12:00 PM Doug said: What is all the fuss about? Cloning is going to help us better our society. Who are we to say that a cloned baby has no soul? At 2:37 PM Who Knows said: There is no use regulating science. If you try to suppress it, it will maifest itself in the hands of some scientists who have evil intentions.

So is it not better that we investigate this phenomenon and know all about this stuff than sitting like lame ducks when this technology is used for an evil purpose (and beleive me, it will be). “Who Knows” whats going to happen… At 2:42 PM kevin said: It’s true that God said “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. “gen 1:28 However, He has given the rule by which we should do so. and the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him. “gen 2:18 Also true is that sin is a reality and because of it many disease and complications exist in the world today. So I very much understand the issue of not being able to produce a child because of ill, However, adoption is another choice. What better way to please the Heavenly Father than to adopt a lonely child needing parents, their by fulfilling His character of love. At 2:43 PM Dennis Fox said: God has been cloning babies already, we just call them twins.

A clone isn’t going to allow anyone to cheat death, it only allow someone to have an identical sibling years after the fact. At 2:49 PM Andrew Langdell said: Cloning, what an interesting subject. Unfortunately, most of the people in this article have not thought at all about the implications of their desires whatsoever. First, the people who talk of cloning their dead children. Their losses are grave, but should the child they plan on getting through cloning really have to grow up with the parents loving it as a memory of on passed on.

Seems like a bad way to live to me, as a living memory. Second, God, of any form you believe in, put us here for a certain amount of time, not forever. People shouldn’t be cloning their mothers, that’s just ludicrous! Don’t you think your mother has lived enough and should be able to pass on to a place better than the world we live in today? Cloning is just to big an issue for everyone to be spouting out all these “great” ideas they have already. See what really is going to happen before you start jumping to conclusions about what will be so great about cloning.

You say you’d love a baby with a hand sticking out of its hea At 3:22 PM Realist said: Does anyone think human cloning hasn’t already been done? Get with the human race, people, if it’s possible, and do-able, chances are someone out there has tried it and succeeded. By the way, wouldn’t it be delicious if all the fundamentalist christians out there had to eat crow and work and live with clones in their daily and professional lives? That is, if they don’t try to enforce some kind of segregation for clones(as some will no doubt try to do).

I’m all for cloning and the benefits it can provide, if only because it would send another rod up Pat Buchanan’s and Pat Robertson’s behinds. There’s nothing funnier than watching a hypocrite perform the dance of unease with the unfamiliar. At 4:52 PM Lori R. said: And then Pandora opened the box…………. At 6:27 PM Jones said: I’m a bit concerned about people trying to guess what God wants when it comes to cloning. There’s nothing about it written in the bible. Rather,why not ask yourself what it would be like to have a clone as a child, either of someone you know or not, when you can’t have a child any other way?

Or just sit back and think about how many medical advances will come from the creation of clones; not full grown 9 year old children, but rather clumps of 50 cells or so… this clump of cells could be used to treat your grandmother’s parkinsons or your brother’s cancer or your daughter’s bone disease. Not allowing this research is killing people you know and love, and that is something God does care about! Rather than murdering loved ones with inaction everyone should be supporting cloning as a means to save them.

Cloning, Let’s Do It

Imagine if a new procedure were developed that could lead not only to a cure for cancer, but would provide an unlimited source of organ donors and could lead to the first effective treatment of nerve damage. Now adding to this scenario, imagine our government was taking action to ban this new procedure because of a few myths and exaggerations. This scenario is true and is taking place with human cloning at this very moment. If action is not taken, this crowning achievement of medical science could be lost forever. It all began with the team from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland led by Dr. Ian Wilmut. Wilmut and his colleagues wanted to see if specialized cells could be reprogrammed into thinking that they were not specialized and develop all over again, thus creating a clone (Wilmut et al. 810). Cloning, as defined by the Cloning Prohibition Act of 1997, “means the production of a precise genetic copy of a molecule (including DNA), cell, tissue, plant, animal, or human” (4). Before this experiment, it was known that once an egg cell from a mammal was fertilized, it would begin to divide and differentiate, first into an embryo, and then into other specialized cell types like skin and organs.

Once specialized, scientists assumed that the cell could never become anything else. For example, skin cells could never divide and turn into organ cells (Wilmut et al. 810). To answer their question, Wilmut’s team took a test cell from an ewe and starved it of nutrients to the point where the cell stopped dividing and making DNA. In effect, all the cell’s functions, except those necessary for life, stopped. Dubbed G0, this state is the genetic equivalent of suspended animation and the heart of Wilmut’s procedure. The team then extracted the cell’s nucleus and transplanted it into an unfertilized egg with no nucleus using electrical pulses.

Finally, the egg was transplanted into a surrogate mother so it could develop. A few months later, Dolly was born. Thus, Wilmut and his team proved that cells that had already been specialized could be reprogrammed and made to develop all over again (Wilmut et al. 810-813). Not everyone is thrilled about Dr. Wilmut’s discovery, though. During the past two years, various commentators – scientists and theologians, physicians and legal experts, talk-radio hosts and editorial writers – have been busily responding to the news, some trying to calm fears, while others fuel the controversy.

One argument against cloning comes from animal rights groups who say that animal experimentation or anything that causes “unnecessary distress to animals is inhumane” (Cunningham 92). Other arguments against cloning involve humans. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission wonders if a cloned human will be “regarded as less of a person” and treated as a scientific specimen rather than a human being (29). The media makes “inflated claims” and talks of so-called “superhumans” which will take over the world (Allen B2).

Others relate to the days of slavery and hypothesize that if humans can be cloned, it makes them property, items that can be sold. The main arguments against cloning stem from the idea of eugenics, founded by Francis Galton (1822-1910). He believed that the human species could be improved by mating with those who have desirable traits and leaving those with undesirable traits alone (Gray 84). Nazi Germany advocated eugenics in a horrifying way. In the beginning, Hitler targeted Germans, not Jews. The handicapped, mentally ill, and others with undesirable traits were sterilized so as not to reproduce.

When Hitler turned on the Jews, one man’s view of the perfect society threatened the world (Gray 84-85). Because cloning offers parents the prospects of genetically altering their children, eugenics of this caliber leads into another argument against cloning. Princeton University biologist Lee Silver envisions a future world broken into two classes: the “gen-rich” and the “gen-poor” (Lemoick 66). Silver holds that these different classes of humans will not be allowed to have sexual relations with each other.

He theorizes that the two classes will become so dissimilar that the “gen-rich” will evolve into a totally new species and oppress the “gen-poor. ” Illustrating his idea, Silver compares humans to monkeys. Although monkeys are extremely intelligent and the closest genetically to humans, they are still kept in zoos and experimented on because, after all, they are still not like us (Boyce 37). On the other side of the coin, proponents of cloning declare that studying cloned animals and humans will enhance our understanding of genetics.

In this light, cloning should be practiced because the potential benefits for the human species, non-medical and medical, outweigh the consequences. For example, cows will be genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk (Coghlan 5). That means that shots and pills will be notions of the past. Babies could be brought up immune to diseases by simply mixing their formula with milk. Imagine the possibilities in third world countries like Somalia. With a few gallons of drug enriched milk, whole villages could be made healthy and immune to disease. But why stop with milk?

Simple foods like bread could be fortified with essential vitamins and minerals to cure malnutrition forever. Once cloned into an endless supply, hunger will also be cured. Children and families in these countries will never have to worry about food again. In fact, no one will. Another non-medical benefit from cloning is the potential for immortality. Cloning essentially means taking DNA and reversing its age back to zero. Dr. Richard Seed, a physicist who graduated from Harvard University with three degrees, hopes that cloning will help us understand how to reverse DNA back to age 20 or whatever age we want to be.

He ultimately wants to reprogram his DNA to become immortal (Cole 77). Could cloning be the long sought after fountain of youth? The area that stands to benefit most from cloning is medicine. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a better treatment for heart attacks. Doctors will be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged. Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States and several other industrialized countries.

If heart disease can be cured, then human life expectancy will increase. In addition to better treatments for heart attacks, cloning may be able to ensure that we no longer suffer because of “defective genes” that cause cancer (Allen B2). Although scientists do not know exactly how cells differentiate into specific kinds of tissue, nor understand why cancerous cells lose their differentiation, cloning, at long last, could answer how to switch cells on and off, thus curing cancer. Cloning also has the power to cure infertility.

Infertile men are made to feel like they are not “not holding up their part of the bargain,” while women are made to feel as if they are “useless barren vessels. ” The current options for infertile couples are inefficient, painful, expensive, and heart breaking. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. Cloning could make it possible for many more infertile couples to have children than ever before by boosting efficiency through nuclear transfer, the same process created by Dr. Wilmut, rather than in in-vitro fertilization (Cohen, “Infertile” 6).

Sperm from the father could be transferred into the mother’s egg, thus creating a unique child, not a clone. Because of cloning and its technology, organ transplants and cosmetic procedures, like silicone breast implants, that may cause immune disease should soon cease to exist. Instead of using materials foreign to the body for such procedures, doctors will be able to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that match the patient’s tissues exactly, thus ensuring that the needed tissue will be free of rejection by their immune system (Cohen, “Organs” 4).

Victims of terrible accidents that deform the face and body should now be able to have their features repaired with new, safer technology. Limbs for amputees will be able to be regenerated easily. Anyone will be able to have their appearance altered to their satisfaction without the leaking of silicone gel into their bodies or the other problems that occur with present day plastic surgery. Because cloning will insure acceptance by the body, those in desperate need of organ and other transplants will one-day have their prayers answered by cloning.

Using one’s own cells to grow whole organs will eliminate the need for organ donors and waiting lists (Cohen “Organs” 4). Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, and hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys for the needy could all be produced. Cloning could be the tool used to grow nerves or the spinal cord back again after severe injuries. Those who suffer from such injuries, like Christopher Reeve, might one day be able to get out of their wheelchairs and walk again. Are not these reasons enough to encourage cloning?

The above list only scratches the surface of what cloning technology can do for mankind. The suffering that can be relieved is staggering. This new technology heralds a new era of unparalleled advancement in medicine if people will release their fears and let the benefits begin. Why should another child die from leukemia when, if the technology is allowed, we should be able to cure it in a few years time? Until recently, cloning was an idea found in science fiction; now, it is a reality. History is full of similar stories.

Two men by the name of Wright had the crazy idea of a machine that could fly; they never imagined rockets and satellites going into space and men walking on the moon. In 1860, the great English physicist James Clerk Maxwell found that the laws of electricity and magnetism could be summarized in four simple equations. Less than forty years later, the world was filled with radios, automobiles, trains, light bulbs, and factories. Maxwell never envisioned personal computers. Similarly, the power of cloning lies not only in what we imagine will be, but even more exciting, those things that we cannot at this time imagine.

Human cloning

The biological definition of a clone is an organism that has the same genetic information as another organism or organisms (“Cloning”, 1997). Is cloning the gateway to the future or the door to disaster? From this definition and from information about the science behind cloning on cloning, it seems ethical. This statement ignores information about how we can misuse cloning and what consequences occur when the procedure is unsuccessful. Cloning should not be used until it is perfected.

It is doubtful however that we will allow cloning to be misused, and most people probably have this same opinion on cloning, but their lack of knowledge on cloning, or their beliefs that cloning would be misused, is the reason for the differences of opinion. Thus, an elaboration on the history, techniques, ethics, and reasons for researching the technology of cloning is necessary. 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 cutting, bulbs, tubers, fission, or parthenogenesis reproduction (“Cloning” 1997).

Parthenogenesis unfertilized ovum, seed or spore (“Parthenogenesis”, 1997). Hence, cloning, biologically speaking, is any process in which production of a clone is successful. Thus, the biological term is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an organism. However, people can use the term 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 organism 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 (“Cloning” 1997). 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 multicellular 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 (Economist, 1997). About eight million identical twins are alive in the world; thus, already eight million human clones inhabit the earth.

In unicellular organisms, a cell will produce two daughter cells that only have the same genetic material. 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 cell differentiation, the use of stem cell, 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 genetic disorders. That is the current work with cloning. It is becoming a part of our society already. Cloning is currently a technology that many people could use. It is believed that it will become more popular as prices for the technique decrease, and as the use of cloning becomes increasingly popular. That is if we humans consider cloning acceptable technology, and that we would like to use for the twenty- first century.

Cloning has progressed so quickly, few of us know if we should be even fooling with this once the pros outweigh the cons. A good place for us to find that information is to look at the past and current research results with cloning and why scientists research it. Amazingly, the first attempts at artificial cloning were as early as the beginning of this century. The most well known clone arrived on July 5 at 4:00 P. M. lamb number 6LL3 (Economist 1997), or Dolly, was born. She weighed in at 14 pounds and was healthy.

Scientists accomplished this by using frozen mammary cells taken from a six-year-old pregnant ewe and fusing them with an enucleated egg. The trick to fusing the cells is giving a small electric current to the petri dish on which the egg cell is. This stimulates the egg much like a sperm would, and usually takes the genetic material from the cell and becomes a zygote. The fertilized zygote was then placed in another ewe acting as a surrogate mother. The experiment was a success and Dolly became the first successfully cloned mammal.

Scientists also foresee the cloning of pigs to produce organs that humans will not reject (Wills, 1998). Cloning also provides better research capabilities for finding cures to many diseases. There are also possibilities that nuclear transfer could provide benefits to those who would like children. For instance, couples who are infertile, or have genetic disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. Equally important, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of in-vitro fertilization. Cloning does offer some negative affects it could have to life.

The biggest problem with asexual reproduction is that genetic diversity becomes limited. If a population of organisms has the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe out the population. This is because not one organism has an advantage of fighting the disease over the other. The technique of nuclear transfer is also early in its developmental stages. Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out the procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly. This is the main reason science is holding out on cloning humans.

It is also believed that we should not attempt nuclear transfer until the technique is perfected. Other arguments for cloning include if we are taking nature into our own hands by cloning. Religious groups claim that cloning defies the rule or the belief that humans have souls. They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. People question when we will draw the line for getting involved in natural events (Bruce, 1998). They say cloning would deprive an individual of uniqueness. They argue that identical twins are not unique from each other.

However, they are new in genetic variation and unique from anything that they came from. People also wonder what mental and emotional problems would result if a clone were to find out that he or she was cloned. Scientists even say identical twins are not identical as we thought. Scientists also predict that dizygotic twins, or fraternal twins, would maintain more similarities than clones. The reason seems that fraternal twins grow a bond grow a bond during their first nine months (Wills, 1998). This is an example that genetics does not fully contribute to the personality of a person.

Time spent intrauterine for nine months has a greater effect than genetics is a good example. So anyone who argues that cloning disregards the laws of God and the souls of humans, they should reconsider their views. Cloning does not artificially produce copies of adult humans. Nuclear transfer is the artificial making of an embryo that will develop into an identical twin. No machine that can produce carbon-copy humans when performing nuclear transfer is involved. At this point it is believed that human cloning should not be used. However, if we are to venture into cloning we must make many precautions.

I think the best way to do this is to research the consequences. Yet, the cloning of animals is not acceptable. In summary, cloning is ethical, unless there is a lack of respect for the lives of animals and humans, and for the ongoing inhabitation of life on earth. Bibliography: human cloning1 The biological definition of a clone is an organism that has the same genetic information as another organism or organisms (“Cloning”, 1997). Is cloning the gateway to the future or the door to disaster? From this definition and from information about the science behind cloning on cloning, it seems ethical.

This statement ignores information about how we can misuse cloning and what consequences occur when the procedure is unsuccessful. Cloning should not be used until it is perfected. It is doubtful however that we will allow cloning to be misused, and most people probably have this same opinion on cloning, but their lack of knowledge on cloning, or their beliefs that cloning would be misused, is the reason for the differences of opinion. Thus, an elaboration on the history, techniques, ethics, and reasons for researching the technology of cloning is necessary.

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 cutting, bulbs, tubers, fission, or parthenogenesis reproduction (“Cloning” 1997). Parthenogenesis unfertilized ovum, seed or spore (“Parthenogenesis”, 1997). Hence, cloning, biologically speaking, is any process in which production of a clone is successful. Thus, the biological term is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an organism. However, people can use the term 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 organism 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 (“Cloning” 1997). 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 multicellular 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 (Economist, 1997). About eight million identical twins are alive in the world; thus, already eight million human clones inhabit the earth. In unicellular organisms, a cell will produce two daughter cells that only have the same genetic material. 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 cell differentiation, the use of stem cell, 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 genetic disorders. That is the current work with cloning. It is becoming a part of our society already. Cloning is currently a technology that many people could use.

It is believed that it will become more popular as prices for the technique decrease, and as the use of cloning becomes increasingly popular. That is if we humans consider cloning acceptable technology, and that we would like to use for the twenty- first century. Cloning has progressed so quickly, few of us know if we should be even fooling with this once the pros outweigh the cons. A good place for us to find that information is to look at the past and current research results with cloning and why scientists research it.

Amazingly, the first attempts at artificial cloning were as early as the beginning of this century. The most well known clone arrived on July 5 at 4:00 P. M. lamb number 6LL3 (Economist 1997), or Dolly, was born. She weighed in at 14 pounds and was healthy. Scientists accomplished this by using frozen mammary cells taken from a six-year-old pregnant ewe and fusing them with an enucleated egg. The trick to fusing the cells is giving a small electric current to the petri dish on which the egg cell is.

This stimulates the egg much like a sperm would, and usually takes the genetic material from the cell and becomes a zygote. The fertilized zygote was then placed in another ewe acting as a surrogate mother. The experiment was a success and Dolly became the first successfully cloned mammal. Scientists also foresee the cloning of pigs to produce organs that humans will not reject (Wills, 1998). Cloning also provides better research capabilities for finding cures to many diseases. There are also possibilities that nuclear transfer could provide benefits to those who would like children.

For instance, couples who are infertile, or have genetic disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. Equally important, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of in-vitro fertilization. Cloning does offer some negative affects it could have to life. The biggest problem with asexual reproduction is that genetic diversity becomes limited. If a population of organisms has the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe out the population. This is because not one organism has an advantage of fighting the disease over the other.

The technique of nuclear transfer is also early in its developmental stages. Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out the procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly. This is the main reason science is holding out on cloning humans. It is also believed that we should not attempt nuclear transfer until the technique is perfected. Other arguments for cloning include if we are taking nature into our own hands by cloning. Religious groups claim that cloning defies the rule or the belief that humans have souls.

They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. People question when we will draw the line for getting involved in natural events (Bruce, 1998). They say cloning would deprive an individual of uniqueness. They argue that identical twins are not unique from each other. However, they are new in genetic variation and unique from anything that they came from. People also wonder what mental and emotional problems would result if a clone were to find out that he or she was cloned. Scientists even say identical twins are not identical as we thought.

Scientists also predict that dizygotic twins, or fraternal twins, would maintain more similarities than clones. The reason seems that fraternal twins grow a bond grow a bond during their first nine months (Wills, 1998). This is an example that genetics does not fully contribute to the personality of a person. Time spent intrauterine for nine months has a greater effect than genetics is a good example. So anyone who argues that cloning disregards the laws of God and the souls of humans, they should reconsider their views. Cloning does not artificially produce copies of adult humans.

Nuclear transfer is the artificial making of an embryo that will develop into an identical twin. No machine that can produce carbon-copy humans when performing nuclear transfer is involved. At this point it is believed that human cloning should not be used. However, if we are to venture into cloning we must make many precautions. I think the best way to do this is to research the consequences. Yet, the cloning of animals is not acceptable. In summary, cloning is ethical, unless there is a lack of respect for the lives of animals and humans, and for the ongoing inhabitation of life on earth.