Cloning. Good Or Bad Essay, Research Paper

Cloning: Good or Bad

The rapid development of the technology for cloning has led to moral debates

around the world on whether or not to ban breathing human clones. While the potential

benefits of genetic engineering are considerable, so may be the potential dangers. We

have come to believe that all human beings are equal, but even more firmly, we are

taught to believe each one of us is unique. Is that idea undercut by cloning? That is, if

you can deliberately make any number of copies of an individual, is each one special?

Cloning could provide a way for infertile couples to produce children genetically similar

to themselves. Human cloning may provide numerous benefits to mankind. This is the

new world of cloning, and thanks to a 7-month-old sheep named Dolly, a new science has

been born. As with every new science, there are those who believe in it, and those who

oppose it. In the two articles that are covered in this paper, the first one, BBC NEWS:

Public Express Concern Over Cloning, is against cloning and the second article, THE

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE: Should Human Cloning Research Be Off

Limits, supports cloning. By reviewing the articles, they will tell the audience which has

a better claim by how well it s written.

The first article talks about the negatives of cloning, but doesn t back up the

information. For example, The survey found virtually no support for cloning for

reproductive purposes, even in those groups which might have been expected to be

sympathetic, such as infertile couples . (BBC NEWS, p.1) This article basically is just

stating how segments of the population feels about cloning and not backing it up with

data and other forms of evidence. Throughout the whole article, evidence is very hard to

find. It sounds like the editor felt that everyone knew what was going on in cloning and

not explaining in detail and backing up those claims from people.

The editor did not really have a strong thesis and did not have good rhetoric.

This article brings up the point that many do not agree with the use of cloning for human

purpose in order for parents to choose their child. The article should have gone further

and written up some more information such as, by reproducing characteristics that

parents desire would foul-up the diversity of society. If everyone was able to choose

what characteristics his or her child would have, most people would opt for the

characteristics of famous people who are either extremely smart or who are incredibly

good looking. The generation of the clone people would be so similar in ways of

thinking and in personality that the world would become a very boring place, if that were

the case. The replication and copying of DNA can cause damage to the genetic code. In

this case, it is possible for genetic disorders arise. If a sample of DNA is taken from a

younger person to copy, that person could be carrying a code for some sort of disorder

whose symptoms would not show until later in the person s life. Therefore, the exact

code that would be copied to make another human carries that disorder. There are many

things that need to be sorted out such as who can use cloning and how it will be

controlled so it does not cause problems. This would have been a good detailed

explanation with evidence.

The second article supports cloning and is very well written. The thesis is

completely in support of cloning, Like many others, we believe that any plan to ban

research on cloning human cells is seriously misguided. (New England Journal, p.1) and

back it up with lot of scientific evidence.

This article also states how genetic defects could also be cured with cloning

technology and gives good backing to it. 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. 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. 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. The author also talks about the public s view and the respected views of many

distinguished scientists, biotechnology companies, and medical organizations in support

of cloning and then backs up cloning by saying how people could be hurt by not looking

into cloning and the benefits. The difficult ethical judgments about how to apply this

new technology can be made only with full knowledge of the scientific facts. (New

England Journal, p.3) The author talks about the need to really study this concept and

also puts pressure on his fellow colleagues to educate the public about the benefits of

cloning.

This article is also well written in a professional sense with good wording and

grammar. The first article was okay, but didn t seem to really sway the reader with the

lack of evidence and professionalism. The rhetoric in the second article is very strong

and clearly sways the audience by reading it. The first article only stated opinions and

couldn t really sway people toward accepting their view because there wasn t enough

evidence to prove it. The second article distinguished people from the scientific

community backing up this article, but the first article seemed to only have some

opinions of the public.

Judging by the quality of the two articles in persuading me to choose a side, the

second article in support of cloning really got me thinking toward their side. I liked their

professionalism and evidence backing up their claims. By having prestigious people

back up the subject, I really opened up my eyes. Then all the evidence just made sense

also due to the fact that it was written with a lot of professionalism. The thesis was also

well outlined in the second article. The rhetoric was so much better in the second article

because they sounded like they really believed in what they were saying and backed it up,

while the first article just had some views from the public without much evidence. The

second article was just written so much better and with more evidence to sway my

opinion in support of cloning.