Another cloning paper that year

Human cloning is not an ethical procedure because the procedure will be abused when attempting to use it to improve the quality of human life. It is important to understand what human cloning is as well as the repercussions of such an act. The experts remain divided on this issue. People all over the world remain divided on this issue. Some are for human cloning; some are against human cloning. It is my belief that human cloning is an unethical action.
Dr. Nabal Bracero, a reproductive endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins, says, “Reproductive cloning is the term use to describe the process by which the nucleus of a somatic cell (i.e. any cell of the body of an adult that is not a sperm or an egg) is transferred to the cytoplasm of an egg that had its own nucleus removed. In this way the genetic material (DNA) of an adult will be expressed in the environment of the egg cytoplasm to produce an embryo based on this adult DNA bypassing the process of fertilization. More simply, to give instructions to an egg cell to produce an embryo according to the genes of an adult cell and not according to the genes that comes from a sperm and an egg during fertilization. Is this ethical? Although this is a huge topic in a nutshell the main problem that I have with reproductive cloning are the following. Reproductive cloning in animals has resulted in specimens who suffer from serious metabolic diseases that experts suggest is a direct result from the cloning techniques used today. For example, these young animals suffer from premature metabolic aging, suggesting that this adult DNA may be able to produce an embryo but still carries the message of "old DNA". Therefore, is definitively unethical to expose humans to a treatment which is frankly dangerous in animals at this point in time. Reproductive cloning also could pose an obstacle to the refinement that the human set of genes (genome) has been undergoing during thousands of years. This asexual form of reproduction would probably bypass many of the usual checkpoints necessary in order to remove bad genes from the genetic pool. On the other hand, many hardcore bioethicists see a huge threat to the dignity of the human being in this non-classical form of reproduction. Here, I tend to agree that any form of mechanistic approach towards reproduction may be a threat to the essence of the human spirit. However, nature has been cloning people for thousands of years in the form of identical twins (which by all definitions are human clones) and these people do not seem to live their lives in a less dignified way. Then again, these clones are perfectly arranged by nature (God!) and do not have the problems of ‘old DNA’ discussed above.“ (Bracero)
Justine Durrell writes, “In simple terms. Cloning occurs when a female’s donated egg is enucleated…and injected.” She calls this process SCNT. She notes, “The SCNT cloning process does not require a sperm donor. Clones are likely to differ from their donors more than twins differ.” (Durrell)
Bernard Gert is an ethical professor. He says, ”It may give rise to a genetically stratified society. Individual may be genetically engineered to provide various tasks-e.g., as warriors. If genetic engineering were permitted, the technology would be utilized inappropriately. Technology cannot justifiably be used to provide benefits to only a few. The present lack of knowledge should restrict genetic engineering to genetic repair.” (Gert p70-72)
One writer, E. V. Kontorovich, says, “The possibility of human cloning now looms imminently, unseen but real. Cloning would take the humanity out of human reproduction. Death and bodily infirmity are concomitant with human existence and in the long run unavoidable. Longevity cannot justify a practice that is basically wrong. There is nothing heartless about saying that people should resort to alternatives besides cloning, like adoption. Advocates of cloning like to sidestep the idea of organ farming with visions of growing organs, not a fetus. Cloning may benefit some, but… in the long run it undermines the advancement of the human species.” (Kontorovich p101, 103)
Human cloning could cause numerous problems within society. There is a solution, however. Since human cloning does not have any function within society, it should be banned.
Jane Maienschein, a biology professor, believes in the regulation of genetic engineering. She says, “ The ability to splice genetic sequences into living organisms …raises fears that we are…unleashing something that we will not be able to control. Certainly it is wise and sensible to ask …where such boundaries might exist. Astonishingly, this work is largely unregulated. Most occurs in fertility clinics. The reaction to those first cases of recombining DNA in the 1970s is instructive. The scientists themselves quickly saw that applying the techniques could lead to the irreversible creation of ‘unnatural’ genetic ‘monsters.’ They called for careful consideration of what they knew.” (Maienschein p151, 153, 154-155)
George Annas, chair of the department of Health Law at Boston University, thinks human cloning should be banned. He says, “There are no good or sufficient reasons to clone a human. Replication of a human by cloning would radically alter the very definition of a human being by producing the world’s first human with a single genetic parent. It is the manufacture of a person made to order. This change…represents a challenge to human dignity and the potential devaluation of human life. Cloning is replication, not reproduction. Applying this technology to humans is too dangerous to human life and values. Cloning has no real military or paramilitary uses.” He also speaks out on “cloning a dying child. This should not be permitted. This encourages the parents to produce one child in the image of another. It encourages all of us to view children as interchangeable commodities. No one should have such dominion over a child. Only government has the authority to restrain science and technology until its social and moral implications are adequately examined. We have a number of options. The first is for Congress to simply ban the use of human cloning. One of the most important procedural steps a federal Human Experimentation Agency should take is to put the burden of proof on those who propose to do extreme and novel experiments. Cloning proponents should have to prove that there is a compelling reason to approve research on it.” (Annas p183-190) These experts either believe in regulation or banning. They are convincing in their arguments. Human cloning should be banned.
Others oppose these views. Their arguments are not so convincing. Oliver Morton, an editor, (on genetic engineering) says, “Biology is about life. It’s just an accident of history that, until recently, everything alive was more or less natural. It [genetic engineering] is unnatural, but it’s not bad. The natural has no special moral status. Now medicine can offer us more than ever before.” (Morton p57, 62)
One expert, Lee M. Silver, a molecular biologist, says, “Scientists who work directly in the field of animal genetics and embryology were dismayed by all the attention that now bore down on their research. The cloning of Dolly broke the technological barrier. There is no reason to expect that the technology couldn’t be transferred to human cells. Real clones will simply be later-born identical twins-nothing more and nothing less. Cloned children will be full-fledged human beings. Opposition to cloning on the basis of safety alone is almost surely a losing proposition. There is no scientific basis for the belief that cloned children will be any more prone to genetic problems than naturally conceived children.” (Silver p91, 93, 95)
In Canada, Jason Scott Robert reports, “Bill C-13 proposes to regulate various elements of the creation of novel beings. The bill deals with the circumstances under which chimera and hybrid making would and would not be permitted, where the hybrid or chimera is created in part from human biological materials. Creating either type of creature is prohibited under the bill.” (Robert) The fear is obviously that a creature only partially human would be created. What implications would this have for the human race?
Nancy Gibbs reports, “ We think of science as a clean and logical place where, with the right skills and instruments, you can see the world in a grain of sand. So what happens when you cross science with a circus full of clowns and tricks and gaudy lights, where everything is for sale and nothing is for real? The science circus comes to town when groups like the Raelians claim to be cloning children.” Unproven claims being made is one more danger of cloning.
The facts of human cloning speak for themselves. The procedure has not yet been perfected on animals. How can such a procedure be justifiably used on human beings? How can that be ethical? Human cloning is not an ethical procedure. It cannot be used to improve the quality of human life.

Lisa Messenger
English 102 1077 TR 12:30
Essay 4


Works Cited

Annas, George. Opposing Viewpoints

Bracero, Nabal. Personal Interview. March 2003

Durrell, Justine. Article Untitled. Trail October 2002
Gert, Bernard. Opposing Viewpoints
Gibbs, Nancy. “Abducting the Cloning Debate” 2003
Kontorovich, E. V. Opposing Viewpoints
Maienschein, Jane. Opposing Viewpoints.
Morton, Oliver. Opposing Viewpoints
Robert, Jason Scott. “Regulating the Creation of Novel Beings” 2002
Silver, Lee M. Opposing Viewpoints.