- In order to understand the pros and cons of cloning, it is important to understand what cloning is. At the current level of technology, cloning consists of removing the DNA material from the egg of a female (sheep, cow or human) and replace it with the DNA of an existing living being (usually the same female who provided the egg). The result is an egg that matures into a baby and is born with the exact same DNA as the mother. In essence, the donor is giving birth to her own clone. This type of cloning is called "reproductive cloning" and is the process that produced "Dolly," the first cloned sheep. Recombinant DNA cloning removes the DNA of a micro organism and replaces it with the DNA of another organism. This is different because there is no birth process. The final type of cloning--and the one most likely to involve humans--is "Therapeutic cloning." In this type of cloning, a fertilized cell is allowed to mature for five days and "stem cells," cells which have the potential to become any type of cell, are removed. These stem cells can then be used to become brain cells, nerve cells, bone marrow, or even organs.
- Beyond technical issues, cloning carries with it many ethical arguments. For instance, in "therapeutic cloning" the human embryo (called a blastocyst at that stage) is destroyed by the stem cell extraction process. For religious people who believe that life begins at conception, this is an abomination and a sin. According to an ABC News poll (see Resources, below), 60% of evangelical Christians oppose cloning on moral grounds. Also, Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. David Baltimore, Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, and Hugh Moore Population Project at the United Methodist General Board of Church say that human cloning is immoral and unethical. They claim it will cause more grief and strife in the world than already exists.
On the other hand, The American Medical Association supports such cloning because of the potential to heal Alzheimers patients and cancer victims. They also claim it has the potential to repair the spinal cords of paralyzed people. Additionally, senators such as Tom Harkin of Iowa, physicists such as Stephen Hawking and philosophers such as Nick Bostrom of Yale University believe that cloning holds the key to curing most human ailments. - The reproductive form of cloning has found its supporters and detractors as well. For instance, large agricultural companies (called AgriBusinesses) support the idea of perfecting a cow, pig, chicken, or other animal and replicating it endlessly. The result would be a consistent product that is the same no matter what market it is sold in. To assuage consumer fears and concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has released a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document on its Website regarding animal cloning. Specifically, it states that, "Cloning doesn't put any new substances into an animal, so there's no new substance to test," and it claims that food can be considered "safe" for consumption.
In opposition to reproductive cloning, there are various animal rights organizations, consumer watchdog groups and environmentalists. These groups argue that such cloning not only reduces animals further in the eyes of business, but it also may produce meat which has unknown side effects upon human health. Despite the objections of those opposed to it, the United States Department of Agriculture has recently certified that not only is cloned meat considered safe to eat, but that the company selling it is under no obligation to disclose the meat's origin to the consumer. - Currently, the ability to clone large amounts of any animal, let alone humans, does not exist. Cloning is a very involved and delicate process and wide-scale cloning of even the simplest animal is extremely cost prohibitive. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, however, has stated that such cloning--despite its cost--should be explored to optimize food production. Such an undertaking, they further argue, would eliminate the need for costly vaccinations, steroids and other chemicals which have an adverse effect on human beings.
Critics, however, argue that while cloning technology is expensive at present, it is very unlikely to remain so. Much like automobiles, computers and cell phones were initially prohibitively expensive, the technological advances made them easier to reproduce and cheaper to build. The same, therefore, will undoubtedly occur with cloning technology. For instance, a European Union ethics panel said in 2008 that, as prices fall and as cloning becomes more economically viable, the effect would be to inflict needless pain and suffering upon domestic livestock. - Scientists who support cloning argue that the technology being explored today will save lives and reduce misery in the near future. For example, a soldier who loses an eye, limb or organ in war can have his own stem cells used to regenerate the limb, thus reducing the possibility of permanent disability. Additionally, they argue, that cloning technology could eliminate birth defects before a child is born or even conceived. The reduction of birth defects could eliminate deformities, chemical imbalances and congenital defects in future populations. The ethics committee and chair of the American Medical Association (AMA), Michael Goldrich, has supported cloning research since 2003.
Opponents argue, however, that such tinkering with the poorly-understood genetic make-up of humans could have dire consequences such as sterility, mutation or other consequences. Additionally, they argue that scientists--or even parents, for that matter--should not be allowed to manipulate unborn children's DNA in order to create a "perfect" human being. Often they argue that such discrimination could be used to institute a strict, genetically-enforced caste system that is anathema to American society and human rights in general. For instance, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas said that such cloning of humans runs the risk of diminishing human dignity and denigrates the sanctity of human life.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -