The Boon and Bane of Cloning: Biology Research Paper

Introduction

Cloning, a controversial topic that has many people on opposing sides of the spectrum, however, a subject that is undeniably intriguing and worth exploring further. The definition of cloning in the Encyclopedia Britannica is the process of generating a genetically identical copy of a cell or an organism (Rugnetta, n.d.). The question for many of us, especially those armed with limited information, is what does this mean? Is this the beginning of the end of human worth? Is man portraying GOD-like entitlements? Are the medical innovations our salvation or our annihilation? To answer this, it is necessary to understand the process behind the study, the importance of exhorting the boundaries to improve and ensure humanity and the medical and religious ethics it entails. Creating genetically identical clones can become conflicting but also seems to alleviate concerns of extinction. Making the perfect human, a thought that seemed impossible from a technical perspective has broken through barriers highlighting the probability of a forever.

Scientists have been engaging in cloning experiments for decades, however it was not the focus of the people until the cloning of Dolly the sheep. As stated by Learn Genetics in The History of Cloning. Dolly was the first mammal created by Professor Wilmut and Campbell in 1996 at The Roslin Institute by using somatic cell nuclear transfer. These experiments were carried out with a group of scientists, embryologists, surgeons, vets and farm staff (Genetics, n.d.). In addition, Learn Genetics included a list of prior attempts recorded as far back as 1885, demonstrating artificial embryo twinning by Driesch through Mitalipov’s 2013 human embryonic stem cells engendered by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Furthermore, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) augmented subjects to include other mammals that have been cloned from somatic cells such as cats, deer’s, dogs, horses, mules, ox’s, rabbits and rats (NHGRI, 2017). This information is important because it shows the timeline and numerous techniques, attempts and failures scientist have made to create something bigger than themselves.

The boon and bane of cloning isn’t as black and white as many would like. With the bad also comes the good and sometimes differentiating one’s ethics with potential growth in any aspects can cloud one’s judgement. There are plenty of thing to consider with this obsession of creating clones (aka) artificial twins. Medical benefits like growing and transplanting organs and tissues, producing drugs through animal testing, cell research, infertility, diseases and death may all be improved or eliminated altogether. Reviving endangered species, producing better crops and better animals for consumption also is affected by this process (Wiladsen, n.d.). Other things to consider are cost, physical dangers, legal concerns including human trade, as well as, conflicting medical and moral ethics.

There are three different types of artificial cloning: gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Gene cloning aka DNA cloning produces copies of genes or segments of DNA. Reproductive cloning produces copies of whole animals. Therapeutic cloning produces embryonic stem cells for experiments aimed at creating tissues to replace injured or diseased tissues (NHGRI, 2017). The main use of clones, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to produce breeding stock, not food. Animal copies of the best in the herd are used to breed, and the sexually reproduced offspring then becomes the food-producing animals (2018). This falls into the category of creating a better product such as using sheep to genetically modify its milk to contain a human protein essential for blood clotting (NHGRI, 2017). It has been said by the FDA that meat and milk from cloned animals show no differences from the conventionally bred animals. Let’s keep in mind the process, as it is still being tested and experimented with. Referring to Dolly, the only clone to be born live out of a of 277 embryos (2017). The safety of human donors becomes concerning, raising major drawbacks. Medical ethics comes into play when hundreds of pregnancies must be created before a successful clone is developed. Diseases, changes in life expectancy and diversity, medical malpractice, human trading (the selling of humans as spare body parts), moral ethics and death all extend from the fixation of making a better human.

Some might think that cloning (and perhaps other new genetic technologies, such as those derived by replicating embryonic stem cells) offers a way to escape death--a way to make themselves ""immortal""(Cohen, 1999).

According to Kumar, these advances in molecular biology can, and should, be used to revive lost species from their stored genetic material or to add genetic diversity to remnant populations. Kumar states we must collect as many DNA samples from endangered, threatened and extinct species as we can, so that if the human population ever reduces its footprint on Earth, these species can be reintroduced (Kumar, 2012). Many might conclude that humans are “playing God” by creating artificial life, tweaking genetics to benefit mankind and reproducing the dead. Questions arise, does the clone have the same rights? the same memories and experiences per the original? Does the clone look identical or different? How high is the risk of humans losing their uniqueness and simply becoming a tool? Others interpret it as having a second chance per say. Skin for the burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for the quadriplegics and vital human organs could be produced. In the future, it may be possible to produce needed tissues for suffering people without the worry that the tissues might be rejected by their immune systems. Also, conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart failure, degenerative joint disease and other problems may be made curable if human cloning and its technology are not banned (Wiladsen, n.d.).

Scientists up till now have not cloned a human-being and doing so has the potential of diminishing human value especially when one can be brought back or replaced with our own genetic double. Ultimately the thought of living forever or at least a more comfortable life shows our humanity and curiosity for the improbability of competing with GODs preeminence. In beginning this research paper mixed feelings about cloning embodied my way of thinking, but as the positive outcomes began to outweigh the negative aspects of the topic, I have come to understand the importance of continuing the study behind cloning for our future generations.

Knowing that our children will have better medical treatments, healthier food and the chance to live a longer, healthier life seems to be a goal we would all agree on. Is it scary to imagine humans being herded like cattle, yes but not everything accomplished in this world has been without getting our hands dirty and struggling with right or wrong.

References

Brenner, L. (2018, July 20). Pros & Cons of Cloning. Retrieved from: https://sciencing.com/pros-cons-cloning-5453902.html

COHEN, J. R. (1999). In God's Garden. The Hastings Center Report, 29(4), 7. Retrieved from: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A55738977/PPNU?u=edirect_gvrl&sid=PPNU&xid=f38fcf31

Kumar, S. (2012). Extinction need not be forever. Nature, 492(7427), 9. Retrieved from: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A359853600/PPNU?u=edirect_gvrl&sid=PPNU&xid=a2b6911d

Learn Genetics, (n.d.). The History of Cloning. Retrieved from: https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/clonezone/

Michael Rugnetta, (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Cloning Genetics. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/science/cloning

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). (2017, March 21). Cloning. Retrieved from: https://www.genome.gov/25020028/

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2018, August 10). Animal Cloning and Food Safety. Retrieved from: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm148768.htm

Wiladsen, S. (n.d.). The role of the scientist is to break the laws of nature. Retrieved from:https://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/EvolutionPage/Studentsites/cloningpage/PROS2.html

Cite this page