Human Cloning Concerns: The Pros and Cons of Copying Organisms

The concept or definition of cloning is to asexually produce an exact copy of an organism just by using it’s genetic information. Thus, when referring to human cloning, it is the act of artificially producing a genetically identical copy of a human. Cloning occurs naturally. An instance of this occurrence is the formation of identical twins in the womb. The controversy over human cloning mostly regarding a procedure that scientists use in the laboratory, known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer. Current Health and Science Journal discusses human cloning pros and cons. According to the essay, the possibility of cloning technologies enables the medical field to renew damaged tissues and grow a new cell to replace the damaged tissues. This approach could open up new possibilities of growing genetically identical organs such as kidneys, heart or bone marrow for patients awaiting transplants. This can benefit the Biomedical field immensely. The process of cloning can also help sterile couple to have a child of their own that shares their own genetic information. While there are benefits to the process of human cloning, there is also an equally disadvantageous factor. According to the Health Science Journal, cloning creates identical genes, which prevents genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is what helps an organism adapt to its environment and thrive as a species. One of Charles Darwin’s Theory for Natural Selection is the ability of an organism to adapt in an environment in order to survive.

This literature inspects the pros and cons of human cloning to examine whether it is ethical to purse human cloning by answering the following questions:

1. What are some policies/laws, religious and educational values that have been implemented to contended human cloning?
2. What are the Social Values Concerning Human Cloning?
3. When will it be more affordable to the ordinary people?
4. Is there any policies that prohibits the pursing of human cloning, if it’s only advantageous to the rich?
5. What kind of work has been done so far and What is the Success Rate?
6. What is some of the concerns that is involve with safety?

Understanding the ethical issues of pursing human cloning from social, economic and political perspective will shed a light on how leaders in the science, political and religious communities can start to approach and solve this complex problem.

Various Values That Have Been Implemented to Contended Human Cloning

According to the journal, “Balancing morality and economy: The Case of State Human Cloning,” by Bonnie Stabile, laws against pursuing human cloning are more likely in states that are against abortion, lack aspiration to support biotechnological and scientific advances, and are more likely to be politically conservative. While, the states that are more likely to pursue human cloning are politically liberal and have more aspiration in supporting biotechnology and scientific advances. These States also tend to be less impacted by religious beliefs. Thus, they tend to also be more permissive to abortion.

The controversy over cloning was brought to the public eye recently. Thus, policies and laws are currently being formulated both in the States as well as Internationally. In the United States, according to the Laws and Public Policy about Cloning, on July 31, 2001, the House of Representative passed a bill called, “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001”. This bill however, was not supported by the Senate. Similarly, On February 27, 2003, the House of Representatives passed an almost identical bill as the 2001, called “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003”. This was also not supported by the Senate. The Federal Government has yet to pass policies that regulate human cloning; Therefore, several States have taken the matter into their own and have passed their own laws and regulations concerning human cloning. Examining the policies and regulation on International Organization, the United Nations as of March 2005, has approved a non-binding global ban on all human cloning, according to the BBC news story. The United States and various Catholic centric countries voted in favor, while the United Kingdom voted against the policy.

The American Association of pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (APPLOG) is also against the concept of pursing human cloning. This has drawn attention that some business people might think of trading human life for beneficial purposes. An intriguing question is raised regarding the status of the cloned human within society. In the United States House of Representative has issued a ruling that human cloning is illegal; but the Senate has yet to rule on the matter. According to the Current Health Science Journal, in December 2006, Australia has banned the pursing of human cloning. The Roman Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the practice of cloning, saying it represents “ a grade offense against human dignity and equity among the people”. Jess Rainbow explained that the ideology of cloning in sense is the act of “playing God”. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia on June 28,1997, has banned the pursing of human cloning, by claiming that it is a great sinful acts.

Michael J. Sandles, keeping the traditional values of humanity, asks an intriguing question to his readers; Is pursing human cloning unethical since only the rich can get the benefit? Or, is it because it is dehumanizing. Sandles presents the following as a core argument for the immorality of genetic engineering: “The fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access but whether we should aspire to it in the first place'.

According to the Journal, “Balancing Morality and Economy: The Case of State Human Cloning,” about third of the States with cloning laws, universities were in favor of supporting the research of cloning. In the Statesof California, New Jersey, and Connecticut, permissive cloning laws were passed. In the States, universities who were not involved in the political process ;the educational system in these states did not support nor did they have any input in this issue, established restrictive cloning laws.

What are the Social Values Concerning Human Cloning?

The opponents of human cloning, have a strong belief in preserving and protecting social values of a traditional family. Some of the opponents, such as the physician, Leon Kass, argues that bringing life in a laboratory, takes the beauty away from the “natural and necessary umbilical connection between a mother and a child”. According to Kass, creating babies in a laboratory is unnatural and it is morally and fundamentally wrong. Similarly, a political scientist, James Q. Wilson, agrees with Kass about the preservation of a traditional family; But also wants to limit cloning to just heterosexual couples.

Baroness Mary Warnock, an architect of Britain’s fertility law, supports this technology advancement. She believes that, the protection of a “traditional family 'ideology is restricting the homosexual community to have their own ideal “traditional family”. Warnock argues, “While most people consider homosexual having babies ‘unnatural, 'this alone however cannot constitute a moral imperative to prohibit it”. Similarly, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), is supporting and assisting the reproductive agencies in Britain as of 2002.

The other social concern that is associated with human cloning is, its effect on individuality and liberty. As a human, everyone is entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The report issued by the President’s Council on Bioethics points out that, cloning of human can cause a major problem with identity and individuality. This meaning, using a child to provide organs and tissues, since the chances or rejection will be very small. This would rob the values a human being possesses from the cloned child. Simply, the cloned child would serve to benefit someone else’s need. Genetically engineered child or not, this is something the Bioethics committee is not supporting.

How Much Would It Cost and When Will it be Affordable to Ordinary People?

According to Jenny Bradford, research article, “Human Cloning,” the cost is one of the major limiting factors in pursuing human cloning. For instance, the cost of in-vitro Fertilization (which is used by infertile couples to be able to have babies that share their DNA), is currently estimated to cost at least $50,000 USD. There is a hope that in a few years, the price will drop to $20,000-$30,000 USD. This is still a great expense that most ordinary people cannot afford. This is only the concern of individuals with fertility issues. Time Magazine reported that in 2001, the donor organs, such as kidneys, bone marrow, liver etc…, can range up to $200,000-2 Million USD per organ. Caplan, a researcher and scientists, once said:

“The issue there will be will we be able to afford the cloned cells or will only the rich get them. No reasons to think that the health system will work any differently when it comes to cloning…. I am very worried that this will become an advantage only rich will enjoy”. Thus, this kind of advancement in medicine and technology will not be advantageous to majority of the United States’ population.

Is there any policies that prohibits the pursing of human cloning, if it’s only advantageous to the rich? Vivek Wadhwa, from the MIT technology review wrote, “Laws and Ethics cannot keep pace with Technology”. As a society, there are laws that must be followed, code of ethics that must be upheld. But in the world of technology, there are no such things. It is always growing exponentially to regulate any ethics or laws. On the other hand, there are also individuals that are against such ideas. For example, in Michael J. Sandles argumentative article, “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athlete and Genetic Engineering,' he argues that, the continuation of pursing human cloning would mean that, as a society, everyone is acknowledging or accepting the idea that is rich is more deserving than the poor. This would lead to a much greater division in the stratification of classes between the rich and the poor. Also, Sandles asked his readers to consider a future where the less fortunate is denied of the benefits of this advancement in the Biomedical and technological fields. He points out that the inequality of equal access to this technology and medical advancement as a serious ethical consideration. While, both cases speak the importance of Class Consideration, as of currently, there has yet to be finial decision to be made.

What Work Has Been Done So Far and What is the Success Rate?

Although, Cloning has been a major controversial topic for the last two decades, history of cloning span is more than 100 years. The very first artificial embryo twinning demonstration was in 1885. Examining the History of Cloning, a study conducted by the University of Utah Genetic Department, this experiment was conducted by Hans Adolf Edward Dreisch. He showed that by merely shaking two celled sea urchin embryos, it was possible to separate the cells. Once the cells were successfully separated, each cell grew into a separate sea urchin. Jumping to 1952, the very first successful Nuclear transfer. This experiment was conducted by Robert Briggs and Thomas King on a frog. Briggs and King transferred the nucleus from a tadpole into a frog eggs that lacked a nucleus. The resulting cell developed in the tadpole. This experiment was not as successful because the donor nuclei was far more advanced. The few tadpoles that survived grew to be abnormal. Then in 1975, J. Derek Bromhall conducted an experiment on a rabbit; becoming the first mammalian by nuclear transfer. Bromhall considered this experiment to be a success due to the advanced embryos that were developed after a couple of days. He never continued the experiment to know if the embryos grew into healthy adult cells. Shortly after merely two decades, in 1996, Dolly, the first mammalian was created. Dolly was a sheep that Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell created by using the Somatic Nuclear Transfer technique. Accordion to the University of Utah Genetic Department, out of 277 attempts, only one produced an embryo that was carried to term in a surrogate mother.

After Wilmut and Campbell’s experiment, cloning became such a controversial topic in the world. Just few years after, in the years of 1998-1999, more mammalians were created, such as cows, mice and goats. All the mammalians that made it to the embryonic stage, made it from fetal to advanced cells. In 2013, Shoukhart Mitalipov and several other colleagues made a break through by creating human embryonic stem cells by somatic cells nuclear transfer (SCNT). The result was a baby with a rare genetic disorder. Even though, the schuss rate in human cloning is very low, it is still too so to say it cannot be done. According to the Genetic Department in the University of Utah, the success rate in human cloning to be promising in the coming 10-15years.

Some of the Concerns That are Involved With Safety?

When reviewing the dissertation, “Balancing Morality and Economy: The Case of Human Cloning, 'by Bonnie Stabile, she reports that the human reproductive cloning fails. A National Academies of Science as of 2002, states that, it will most likely fail and the procedure is also dangerous to the egg donors, surrogate mother, as well as the cloned children. The process of cloning is widely used on animals; and as of currently, there are no statistical data to insure the safety and efficiency of human cloning. According to the Current Health Science journal, only about 3% of the mice cloned population made it to birth.

Reproductive cloning has a high health risk concerning women. According to the Science Journal, harvesting a large quantity of eggs, would most likely result in achieving a high dosage of hormones. This alone can use unseen compilation time to time. These women would then undergo surgery to extract the eggs. This will also expose the women to face more dangerous complications. Even though, these women will be informed of the risk they are taking, who is to say that it is ethical to put these women at risk, all for the name of science.

Studies that were conducted by Cohen, in 2002 demonstrated that the cloned mice life span was shorter. He also observed that, the cloned mammalians immune system was very weak. The mammalians were more prone to chronic disease and are more likely to be obese. For instance, Dolly, the cloned sheep, suffered from a major arthritis and obesity. Other researchers, such as Rudolf Jaenish, who is doing a dissertation at MIT, argues that , majority of the time, cloned animals are defective. Thus, when focusing on pursuing human cloning, safety is one of the major ethical issue that is yet to be resolved.

In regarding the question, “Is it Ethical to Pursue Human Cloning?”, there are yet to be a set of policies and regulations placed in the United States and Internationally. This paper examines the ethical issues regarding the pursuit of human cloning from social, economic, political, religious and educational perspectives. Views of researchers, scientists, politicians and religious leaders alike, on the pros and the cons of this ethical issue were examined. The proponents of pursuing human cloning are intrigued by this scientific and technology advancement. They think that this will be a revolutionary and great benefit to the human population. Proponent such as, Warnock (an architect to UK fertility law) believe that it can help sterile couple to be able to have a child that shares their own DNA information. The Current Health Journal, also discussed how human cloning can be advantageous in the medical field. Cloning technologies can help the replacement of damaged tissues or donor organs. While, opponents on the other hand, believe this practice to be harmful to the society. They believe that pursuing human cloning would create class division, problem with individuality and identity. Additionally, they also believe it to have safety concerns. In 2001, the Time Magazine reported that cloned donor organs are estimated to cost from $200,000 USD-2 Million USD. This kind of expense is not what the ordinary people can be able to afford. This is only advantageous to the rich population. Michael J. Sandle, opponent of this practice, argues that by allowing such practice it will lead to a great division in the stratification of classes between the rich and poor. There is also the concern for safety. Cohen, in 2002, conducted studies in cloned mammalians. He observed that, the cloned mammalians immune systems were much weaker. The cloned mammalians, seem more prone to chronic diseases. For example, Dolly, the cloned sheep suffered from obesity and arthritis. Similarly, Rudolf Jaenish, argues that cloning will result in defective animals. However, since this was just recently brought to the public attention, it might take quite sometimes before any regulations or laws are set permanently. Also, not to mention that, this scientific advancement is believed to have barely scratched the surface of it’s true potential. The recent break through was in 2013, by Shoukhart Mitalipov and several other colleagues. Even though, their break through was not fully successful, it has opened doors to a lot more researchers and scientists to expand on their research. It is also estimated that within the next 10-15 years, there will be further research that will shed more light on the success rate of human cloning. This is in the hopes that in the next 10-15 years, there wouldn't be any policy or regulation that could restrict or ban the practice of human cloning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the discourse surrounding human cloning is undeniably complex and multifaceted, with both compelling advantages and daunting drawbacks. The potential for medical breakthroughs, personalized treatments, and advancements in understanding human biology cannot be overlooked. However, the ethical concerns related to human dignity, identity, and the potential misuse of cloning technology raise important questions about the path forward. As we navigate this intricate landscape, it becomes evident that any decision regarding human cloning must be approached with careful consideration of the moral, scientific, and societal implications. Striking a balance between scientific progress and ethical responsibility is paramount, ensuring that our pursuit of knowledge and innovation remains firmly rooted in our commitment to the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.

References

Advantages of Human Cloning:

1. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J., & Campbell, K. H. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385(6619), 810-813.

2. National Academy of Sciences. (2002). Human cloning and human dignity: An ethical inquiry. National Academies Press.

3. Loi, P., & Clinton, M. (2005). Mammalian cloning: Advances and limitations. ILAR Journal, 46(3), 298-312.

4. Andrews, L., Stemerding, D., Sipp, D., & Chan, E. C. (2015). Human therapeutic cloning revisited: Developing an agenda for an informed debate. Stem Cells Translational Medicine, 4(4), 345-350.

5. Charo, R. A. (2004). The unanswered questions of human cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 47(2), 166-174.

Concerns of Human Cloning:

1. Darnovsky, M., & Reardon, D. (2019). Human germline editing: We need to stay ahead of the curve. Nature, 570(7759), 169-171.

2. Kass, L. R. (1998). The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans. New Republic, 218(8), 17-26.

3. Capron, A. M., & Testa, G. (2015). The beginning of the end of the human embryo research ban? Science, 348(6236), 201-203.

4. Hubbard, R., & Wald, E. (1993). Exploding the gene myth: How genetic information is produced and manipulated by scientists, physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators, and law enforcers. Beacon Press.

   Keep in mind:
   This is only a sample.

   Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

   Get custom essay

5. Scott, C. T. (2013). The impacts of human cloning on the family: Exploring the medical, ethical, and social factors. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 23(1), 3-10.