The Fantasy and Reality of Human Cloning

Day by day our scientific fantasies we once thought impossible are gradually becoming our reality: cloning falls under this category. It may not be as extreme as one imagines, but it is definitely occuring. Although dangers and unethical morals are consequences that will follow along, cloning, including its experiments, should be permitted because it will help advance our society. There are some places where they are attempting to ban cloning; However, all places should allow this to continue even if there has to be some restriction such as only allowing specific methods to use during the process.

Cloning can assist by advancing our society and by bringing different benefits, such as ending extinction, curing diseases, reviving animals, and producing goods. For starters, it serves as a solution to extinction if it's done correctly. However, this cannot be done unless research involving cloning is allowed everywhere. For instance, professor Beth Shapiro claims that, Only those whose tissue samples were taken and preserved before their extinction can be brought back in that way. Resurrecting long-dead species, including mammoths and passenger pigeons, will use different technologies, involving piecing together DNA sequences extracted from preserved bones and other remains (Should We Clone a Mammoth). They are developing a method which allows scientists to recreate certain animals that have been extinct, as long as they have saved the tissue from the animal. Furthermore, it will help humanity learn more about these animals and bring back animals that benefited the environment. To demonstrate, Shapiro explains that, Kangaroo rats are tiny environmental engineers whose complex burrow systems maintain the distribution and diversity of other species in their habitat. The domino effects of their disappearance include a rapid decline in plant diversity, which leads to a decline in seed-eating birds (Should We Clone a Mammoth).

They were essential to the environment, and if research on cloning continues, scientists would be able to revive them to better our world. Not only would it help us resurrect extinct animals, but it would prevent extinction altogether. For instance Wilmut explains that, ...an animal like a rhinoceros or an orangutan may have only about half a dozen offspring in a lifetime, so some of its genes are liable to remain uninherited...but if the breeding population is low...then the less common genes may well be contained within only one or a few individuals, and the individual containing the rarest genes may well finish its reproductive life without passing them on (Animal Cloning Could Be Beneficial). If only one kind of animal remains, it won't be able to reproduce in order to save its own species; thus cloning would come in handy because it wouldn't require another type of its kind to reproduce the same species, preventing it from dying out. In addition, this helps the human population as well because it can advance medicine. It can cure diseases we have trouble coming up with solutions for. For instance, it can help treat inbreeding, heart diseases, and macular degeneration (Monastersky A Second Life for Cloning). These are diseases that scientists have trouble dealing with but cloning provides new methods to surpass these setbacks; Hundreds of lives could be saved if they continue investigating and using such methods. Furthermore, it will help with the production of different products by creating more of what is already there in a quicker way. To demonstrate, farmers would be able to have quicker access to meat without the delay of having to breed his own animals. He would be able to select his best cattle and make exact copies (Wilmut Animal Cloning Could be Beneficial). In other words, cloning will not only let our environment thrive, but the life it sustains as well.

Cloning has been around for a while but the question is whether it should continue advancing. The first animal to be successfully cloned was a sheep they named Dolly. There have already been more animals that were cloned since then. For instance, there have been clones of rabbits, goats, frogs, and cows (Cloning). Something that should go into consideration is that there are different types of procedures available for cloning: The most known are reproductive, molecular and therapeutic.

Others think that the downsides of cloning would outweigh the good it would bring because there could be errors, overpopulation, diversity loss, and deaths. To begin, it isn't 100% accurate, meaning there have been and can be malfunctions during the process. For instance, when cloning human women would be at great risks, considering that they would be extracting her eggs in the process. Demonstrated when they state, Even if the creation of a cloned embryo were to be successful, surrogacy of such an embryo could pose unforeseen dangers to the surrogate. The offspring also could suffer from unknown birth defects and other medical challenges (Brainard After Heated Debate, U.S.). Not only would the woman be at risk, but there is a chance that there will be defects once the baby comes out. Likewise, there has already been malfunction when they have attempted to clone animals. For instance, British scientist John Gurdon made further progress six years later when he transferred the nucleus of a cell from the tadpole's intestine into a frog egg without a nucleus, but the tadpole still could not develop into an adult frog (Cloning). Although he was able to go through the progress, it didn't go as planned. Furthermore, cloning is a question of morality. Some people see embryos as humans and believe that destroying them for research isn't ideal. Similarly, it's perceived as destroying a human life and as an unnatural way to create life; Thus seen as unethical behavior. Even though cloning is an implication that babies are being murdered, there are different methods in which real embryos wouldn't necessarily be destroyed; Therefore, people wouldn't have to worry about killing a life. To illustrate, Dr. Hurlbut's suggested a process called altered nuclear transferthe process would create a 'biological artifact,' an embryo-like clone that could yield stem cells but could not progress beyond the very early stages of development (Monastersky A Second Life for Cloning). Moreover, its seen as an issue because there will be less diversity throughout humans and animals since they are creating exact replicas of a specific organism. Overtime, there would be less differences and less adaptations in the populations. Lastly, it can cause overpopulation if organisms are overproduced. The population on earth is already increasing, but if organisms were able to be created in large numbers, in a quicker amount of time, there will be overpopulation. Overall, cloning will bring benefits but it's a matter of how much you're willing to sacrifice for it; No one really knows the consequences that will occur, once it's done but some infer they're not worth it.

In other words, cloning outweighs the negative consequences it could potentially bring. It will help us advance and can change the way we live. It will bring upon new chances we didnt have before, so why shouldn't we give it a chance? Some may even perceive this as a waste of technology; They finally have these tools at hand, and it would be tragic if they didn't use them to improve the world. There is no major harm as long as there are limitations, such as only being able to clone if they use the altered nuclear transfer method. Providing this, scientists should continue their research with cloning only using methods that have the minimum damage.

Cite this page