Cloning Essay, Research Paper

Cloning, is it the thing of the future? Or is it a start of a new generation? To some, cloning could give back a life. A life of fun, happiness, and freedom. For others it could mean destruction, evil, or power. Throughout this paper, you the reader, should get a better concept of cloning, it’s ethics, the pro’s and con’s, and the concerns it has brought up. You will hear the good of what cloning can do and the bad that comes with the good. Most of the information you will read about in this paper is what might become of the future. Even though the cloning of humans can not be accomplished. When it is the possibilities are endless. What is cloning? How did it get started? Well, it is like this. A clone is a genetic copy or a replica of an living organism. But, when you gear cloning doesn’t a Si-Fi movie come to mind. Like when they take a nucleus, place it in a egg, put the egg in a incubator, and when it hatches it’s an exact replica of the original being (Lawren). Though this has been done with frogs it has not yet been accomplished with mammals (Lawren). Another way to make a clone, as they do in the cattle buisness, is to split the cells of a early multi- celled embryo which will form two new embryos (Lawren). For it to get started into practice it took more than fifty years of questioning and testing. The first successful cloning experiment involved a leopard frog. It took place in, 1952 with group of scientist from the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia (Lawren). To clone the frog they used an embryonic frog cell nucleus(Margery). 1962, John Gurdon of Cambridge University cloned a toad that survive threw adulthood and was able to reproduce. He was also the first to take a nucleus from a fully contrast tadpole intestinal cell and cloned toads(Robertson). As you can see we are getting close to the cloning of humans. 1981, Steen Willadsen was the first to clone a artificial chimera. He did this by mixing a sheep and a goat getting the result of a “geep” (Lawren). It had the body shape and the head of a goat, and a dappled coat which had large patches of Richard Pech sheep’s wool. 1984, Willadsen cloned the first verifiable mammal, using embryonic nuclei transplant into an unfertilized sheep egg. Also in, 1986, when he worked for Texas bioengineering company (Lawren). By using the embryonic nuclei, he produces the first cloned calves from cattle. The cloned cattle that were produced were super-elite, high production dairy cows and bulls who had a high breeding rate (Robertson). 1987, James Robl of the University of Massachusetts was the first to clone rabbits also using embryonic nuclei. But who can say when we will be able to clone human organs or complete “biocopies” of human beings by using just the nuclei taken from a skin sample (Lawren). What’s so good about cloning? Lets look at this at a different scenario. Ned and Stacey are in a hospital. The both of them have a kidney that is failing them. For Ned this is no big deal, since he has a clone. All the doctor has to do is remove the cloned kidney and switch it with the bad one. With this cloned kidney you don’t need to worry about the body rejecting it because it is made from the same DNA and the cells will react to it as if it was the original one. On the other hand for Stacey she doesn’t have a clone. So, all she can do is pray for a donor’s kidney to arrive before she dies. Another good thing is we could create farm or “pharm” animals genetically engineered to produce valuable drugs (Resenberger). Like scientist are creating an animal that will manufacture anti-clotting drugs for humans in their milk by gene-spliced sheep and mice (Resenberger). With this breeders could make formerly expensive drugs in large quanities at a low cost. Doesn’t all of this sound good to have? Or are we just overlooking the bad possibilities. Lets just say some freak wants to make an army of one hundreds Adolf Hitlers. Or try to clone Einstein. Also people could go out and buy a son that will grow up to be Micheal Jordan or Mike Tyson. But in a way this is good for people who are unable to have children. Some thought of the future is immortality. When you make a clone it is like being born again. You have a whole other body waiting for you. You could be 80yrs old and switch into a 21yrs olds body (Lawren). You lose a limb just get another one sewn back on (Lawren). These possibilities can go on and on. Richard Pech Cloning can also produce doubles, triples, even quadruplets. In a way this is good for some families. Are you wondering how this could be good? Well, just think about this. This couple had a cloned son implanted in the wife. When the son is born he is just fine and normal like every other baby. After a few years the kid is able to walk and wonders off some where. the next thing you now it the kid is hit by a car and is killed on the scene. Even though this is a tragic event. The mother and father can go back to the lab to get the exact cloned baby. The new cloned baby has the same physical features, but mentally he will be different (Robertson). So, the personalities of the two will be different. One or the other will learn different stuff and at a different rate. And the lab will always have a copy or clone for another child. In a bad sense, the company that is making the cloned embryo could also sell the same copy to another couple. In time you had one cloned son and then a couple years later you have the exact clone son again. Which might make the first son feel like he is in a awkward position . Having a brother that is exactly like him physically. So, as you can see cloning has its good and its bad (Robertson). Though this seems too good to be true or the worst nightmare you have ever had. This stuff still can not be accomplished yet. All though a lot of attempts have been tried. The human embryo still does not want to develops into a clone. And so far it has been taking years of painstaking research. Some peoples opinion about are good or bad. Like Marie Diberardino, Ph.D. who researches animal cloning at the Medical College of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia says, “The cloning of animals is certainly useful, but I’m morally against manipulation genetic material that would develop into a whole human being. We just don’t have the right to manipulate the gene pool of human individuals.”(Lawren). As you can see, Marie is against the cloning of human beings, but John C. Fletcher, Ph.D., of the University of Virginia’s Center for Biomedical Ethics believes in cloning for human parts, but not for human manipulation. He says, “I don’t think any Richard Pech [ethics] committee would approve research that would mutilate an embryo by destroying the brain. I know if I were looking at such a proposal, I’d say no. But If you could grow me a liver from one of my cells, I wouldn’t opposed– ass long as you weren’t growing me. It’s certainly better than taking a liver from a kid.” (Lawren). A biologist at Bio Time Inc. in Berkeley, California is Paul Segall. He is the coauthor of Living Longer, Growing Younger. He says this ” The aging surgeon’s dexterity, the athlete’s wind, the construction worker’s muscles, the fashion model’s face — all restored. Complexions smooth as a baby’s joints and tendons as spry as a teenager’s, hearts and lungs of an adult in his or her prime… Cloning will provide the raw materials to put us pack together.” Segall is definitely pro with cloning. One thing that Segall enthuses is , “The Seventy-year-old transformed into a nineteen-year-olds body.” (Robertson). To research in the United States is like selling drugs on the street. So, to see any progress in cloning seems remote. The main ethical problem is the fact that cloning deals with human embryos (Robertson). Kind of like abortion, since so far no cloning embryo has lived. Back in 1975, The federal government declared that there could be no funding on the experiments on human embryos until the government’s Ethics Advisory Board gave its approval (Resenberger). And since this is so close to abortion all politicians may stay clear of cloning research for the foreseeable future (Resenberger). But right now the immediate concern is whether if there should be any restriction on research with embryos designed to improve or perfect techniques of embryo splitting (Margery). if they are able to establish the efficacy and safety of embryo splitting then it will have to be a concern. The two biggest ethical issues are whether they should be able to research on normal human embryos. The second is if the embryo create can be placed into a uterus and be born. Some of the families concerns are the fear if cloning violates one’s uniqueness and dignity. It will also give the child a unrealistic parental figures. Richard Pech Some feel discomfort with the manipulation and destruction of human emboss in research. They even fear the fact that clones could be created to provide a sick or dying child will the organ or tissue transplant. Still the worst fear is the case of the production of the cloned embryo will be produced and sold to certain parents looking for the desirable child of their dreams (Resenberger) . In conclusion, cloning could possibly bring us immortality, it could be the fountain of youth, its the ultimate life insurance, it could bring back loved ones, give some couples their first child, and provide us with our own transplants. On the bad side one could possibly conquer the world, bring back evil souls, create mind zombies and sell you body without you even knowing it. So does all the good even up with the bad or is it not worth the trouble? I personally do not know, because to me it is strange to think that they could make me again. It seems like it is impossible to be born a second time in life. One thing for sure, cloning is bring around a whole new idea to peoples heads. _