Cloning And Ethics Essay, Research Paper

Ever since the successful cloning of an adult sheep, world has been buzzing

about the historical event. "Dolly" the sheep has redefined the

meaning of the words "identical twin." Not only does she look like her

mother, she has the same genetic makeup as her. This experiment was not only was

thought of as impossible, but unthinkable. It was achieved in July 1996 by Dr.

Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Roslin, Scotland. "Dolly" was

announced to the public when she was seven-months old, on February 23, 1997.

Since the birth of "Dolly," the Wilmut?s Institute has cloned seven

more sheep from three different breeds. This process that successfully worked

with the sheep, is now being tested with humans. In response to the global

research, President Bill Clinton immediately ordered a ban on the federal

funding of human cloning in U.S. research. This issue is not to be taken

lightly. On the surface, human cloning looks like the perfect solution to end

many of society?s problems, but in actuality it has tremendous side effects.

Human cloning is an unethical procedure that has detrimental negative

psychological effects. Cloning is the process that ends in one or more plants or

animals being genetically identical to another plant or animal. There are two

procedures that can be called "cloning:" embryo cloning and adult DNA

cloning. Embryo cloning is also known as "artificial twinning." This

form of cloning has been used by animal breeders since the late 1980s and in

mice experiments since the late 1970s ("Human Cloning" 1). The

procedure consists of splitting a single fertilized ovum into two or more clones

and then transplanting them into other females. This process has not been used

to clone human embryos due to the Regan and Bush administrations that banned the

public funding of human embryo and fetal research during most of the 1980s and

early 1990s. The ban was finally lifted under Clinton?s presidency. After this

ban was removed, the first known human embryo cloning was done under the

supervision of Robert J. Stillman at the George Washington Medical Center in

Washington DC. They used seventeen flawed human embryos. They all had been

fertilized by two sperm and had an extra set of chromosomes. The embryos would

never have developed into fetuses. In October 1994, the embryos were

successfully split ("Human Cloning" 1). This experiment began the

public controversy over the ethics of cloning. The government now had to set

guidelines. They included the use only of embryos that had already been created

for the use of in vitro fertilization, because many of these are either thrown

out or frozen. Other procedures were banned, such as implanting the human

embryos in other species and cloned embryos into humans, moving the nucleus from

one embryo to another, and the use of embryos for sex selection. The first

documented case of successful adult DNA cloning was the "Dolly" case.

Adult DNA cloning, in the case of "Dolly," started when a cell was

taken from the mammary tissue of a adult sheep. It was then fused with an ovum

after the nucleus had been removed. To start the developing, the egg was shocked

with an electric pulse. 29 out of 277 of these special eggs began to divide.

They were all implanted in sheep, but only 13 became pregnant and only one lamb,

"Dolly," was born. Animals that have been cloned run the risk of being

infertile and having a lower life expectancy. Although "Dolly" has

been the most publicized animal that has been successfully cloned. There have

been other attempts. A monkey has been cloned and many embryos have been made of

a cow, but none have survived ("Can we Clone" 1). The monkey has been

the closest animal to the human to be cloned. This makes the issue of successful

human cloning more realistic. But will it?s uses be ethical? Simply put, human

cloning is "playing God." Manufacturing will replace procreating.

Instead of the parent and child being on the same level, the parent would have

power over the child. The child would be designed by the parent to serve some

purpose. According to the "Human Cloning: Religious and Ethical

Aspects" article, there are numerous uses that would have positive effects.

But in further reading the article there are also some social concerns with

these new technological advances. A recent poll conducted by CNN found that 6

percent of the United States think that human cloning might be "a good

idea" (Dixon 2). There were various ways that people wanted to use cloning.

"Recover someone who was loved?a twin, a reminder" (Dixon 3). Now

how could this be a beneficial use? Dying is a process of life. All living

things die. That?s the way things happen. Everyone at some point in time has a

regret about not telling a loved one something before it was too late and might

want to bring them back and tell them. This is not the same thing. This cloned

person, will be a baby and a different individual than the person who has died.

Even though their outside appearance might be identical, they are two separate

people. The poor child will have to live in comparison to their twin that came

before them. This could harbor feelings of resentment, towards the dead twin and

the parents. There are some people who would use cloning to end infertility.

Rather than using donated sperm and eggs, a cell of the parent is used. Not only

would the parent give birth to a child that was his/hers, but it would be

his/her twin. This will eliminate procreating all together. But that could also

lead to problems. Sex "creates new gene combinations that confer new

strengths, especially to disease" (Economist 20). Using one parent?s

cells to create a child could also lead to megalomania, which is the

"desire to reproduce one?s own qualities" (Dixon 3). Cloning could

allow a parent to pass on certain qualities that they want to make sure that

their children have. Instead of letting a child be who he/she wants to be the

parent is in a way trying to control his/her child. This is one step away from

eugenics. This is a way to "improve the human race" (Dixon 3), by

giving each child conceived a certain characteristic. This concept is rooted in

Nazi belief in the Aryan race. Humans will be bred to produce certain traits.

Once the "perfect human" was developed, "embryo cloning could be

used to replicate that individual and conceivably produce unlimited numbers of

clones. The same approach could be used to create a genetic underclass for

exploitation: such as individuals with sub-normal intelligence and above normal

strength" ("Human Cloning" 4). The population should pride itself

in the differences in everyone. This concept of an "ideal" person is

the reason that there are people with depression, causing low self esteem,

eating disorders and ultimately suicide. One of the worst things that cloning

could be used for is "spare parts." Using a cell from a person?s own

body to duplicate yourself would make your twin a specimen more than a person.

One suggestion from Dixon?s article was to "take tissue like bone marrow,

then offer the baby for adoption" (3). It is a dehumanizing act that makes

the child an object not a person who needs love just like everyone else. The

purpose of human cloning is "to create someone exactly like the original.

But everyone?s idea about this clone, this copy, seems to be that he or she

would be available for experimentation, used as a repository of spare parts, or

as some sort of pliable toy one could mold in one?s own image" (Shoun 1).

The clone itself is seen as inhuman, an "it," not a "he" or

"she." When, in actuality, the clone is just as much as a person as

the person who he/she was cloned from. The clone and the donor are twins

separated by time. This leads to the point that the clone will have serious

psychological problems as he/she grows up and throughout his/her life. Cloning

causes problems with identity and individuality. If the cloned child is the

identical twin of the mother or father, he/she is already born into a world of

constant comparison. Being expected to be like the person that he or she is

modeled after, could burden down the cloned child. This ultimately gives the

"parents" more control over their children. They can vicariously live

through their children and live on as their children. These

"recreations" of themselves can now become just like them and even

fulfill their hopeless dreams. Not only will they not have an opportunity to be

themselves, but these children will have to constantly try to live up to the

hopes of their parents (Kass 6). Technically, one parent would actually be the

biological twin of the child. Through human cloning, parent-child relationships

would lose all meaning. As bioethicist James Nelson has pointed out, a female

child cloned from her "mother" might develop a desire for a

relationship to her "father," and might seek out the father of her

"mother" (who is her biological twin sister) for paternal attention

and support. In the case of "self-cloning" the child is also the

donor?s twin, which is the equivalent to the result of incest?to be parent

to one?s sibling (Kass 7). The meaning of father, grandfather, aunt, and

cousin will drastically change. Family values are trying to be restored in this

country, but how can they be restored if this country doesn?t even know what a

family is. Dr. Wilmut has been noted as saying, "People are not thinking

this thing carefully. I have not heard of an application of this to copy a

person with which I would be comfortable. That is not appropriate." He

continued that using this technique on humans would be "quite

inhumane" and that he was glad that he lives in a country where embryo

experimentation is illegal ("Scientist" 1). "Would cloning be

wrong because it is ?playing God,? or because, when we want to play God, too

often we?re looking for an excuse to demean or mistreat someone? Is cloning

wrong because it has the potential to create a subspecies for which we presently

have no category, or because our sinful nature likes to relegate one group or

another to a class beneath ourselves?" (Shoun 2). No matter how one looks

at this issue, cloning humans will do more harm than good. It is just one more

example of technology getting out of hand before we can control it. This

inhumane act must be stopped before we will not be able to stop it.