Cloning Humans
Cloning humans has recently become a
possibility that seems much more feasible
in today's society than it was
twenty years ago. It is a method that involves
the production of a group of
identical cells or organisms that all derive from a
single individual
(Grolier 220). It is not known when or how cloning humans
really became a
possibility, but it is known that there are two possible ways
that we can
clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into
several halves
and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second
method of
cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human
being
and cloning them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical
to
that particular person. With these two methods almost at our fingertips,
we must
ask ourselves two very important questions: Can we do this, and
should we? There
is no doubt that many problems involving the technological
and ethical sides of
this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible
to avoid, but the overall
idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept
as a possible reality for
the future. Cloning presents as much a moral
problem as a technical problem.
Cloning is an affront to religious
sensibilities; it seems like "playing
God," and interfering with the
natural process. There are, of course, more
logical objections, regarding
susceptibility to disease, expense, and diversity.
Others are worried
about the abuses of cloning. Cloning appears to be a powerful
force that can
be exploited to produce horrendous results. Cloning may reduce
genetic
variability, Producing many clones runs the risk of creating a
population
that is entirely the same. This population would be susceptible to
the same
diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population. One
can
easily picture humans being wiped out be a single virus, however,
less
drastic, but more probable events could occur from a lack of genetic
diversity.
For example, if a large percentage of an nation's cattle are
identical clones, a
virus, such as a particular strain of mad cow disease,
could effect the entire
population. The result could be catastrophic food
shortages in that nation.
Cloning may cause people to settle for the best
existing animals, not allowing
for improvement of the species. In this way,
cloning could potentially interfere
with natural evolution. Cloning is
currently an expensive process. Cloning
requires large amounts of money and
biological expertise. Ian Wilmut and his
associates required 277 tries before
producing Dolly. A new cloning technique
has recently been developed which is
far more reliable. However, even this
technique has 2-3% success rate. There
is a risk of disease transfer between
transgenic animals and the animal from
which the transgenes were derived. If an
animal producing drugs in its milk
becomes infected by a virus, the animal may
transmit the virus to a patient
using the drug. Any research into human cloning
would eventually need to be
tested on human. The ability to clone humans may
lead to the genetic
tailoring of offspring. The heart of the cloning debate is
concerned with the
genetic manipulation of a human embryo before it begins
development. It is
conceivable that scientists could alter a baby's genetic code
to give the
individual a certain color of eyes or genetic resistance to certain
diseases.
This is viewed as inappropriate tampering with "Mother
Nature" by many
ethicists. Because clones are derived from an existing
adult cell, it has
older genes. Will the clone's life expectancy be shorter
because of this?
Despite this concern, so far, all clones have appeared to be
perfectly normal
creatures. A "genetic screening test" could be used
to eliminate zygotes of a
particular gender, without requiring a later abortion.
Cloning might be
used to create a "perfect human," or one with above
normal strength and
sub-normal intelligence, a genetic underclass. Also, if
cloning is perfected
in humans, there would be no genetic need for men. Cloning
might have a
detrimental effect on familial relationships. A child born from an
adult DNA
cloning of his father could be considered a delayed identical twin of
one of
his parents. It is unknown as to how a human might react if he or she
knew he
or she was an exact duplicate of an older individual. Supporters of
cloning
feel that with the careful continuation of research, the
technological
benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social
consequences. In their
minds, final products of cloning, like farm animals,
and laboratory mice will
not be the most important achievement. The
applications of cloning they envision
are not nightmarish and inhumane, but
will improve the overall quality of
science and life. Cloning will help to
produce discoveries that will effect the
study of genetics, cell development,
human growth, and obstetrics. Human cloning
is not the issue, it is merely a
threat to the continuation of cloning research.
Their arguments for such
research are displayed here. Cloning might produce a
greater understanding of
the cause of miscarriages, which might lead to a
treatment to prevent
spontaneous abortions. This would help women who can't
bring a fetus to term.
It might lead to an understanding of the way a morula
(mass of cells
developed from a blastula) attaches itself to the uterine wall.
This
might generate new and successful contraceptives. Cloning experiments may
add
to the understanding of genetics and lead to the creation of animal
organs
that an be easily accepted by humans. This would supply limitless
organs to
those in need. The growth of the human morula is similar to the
growth at which
cancer cells propagate. If information derived from cloning
research allows
scientists to stop the division of the human ovum, a
technique for terminating
cancer may be found. Cloning could also be used for
parents who risk passing a
defect to a child. A fertilized ovum could be
cloned, and the duplicate tested
for disease and disorder. If the clone was
free from defects, then other would
be as well. The latter could be implanted
in the womb. Damage to the nervous
system could treated through cloning.
Damaged adult nerve tissue does not
regenerate on its own. However, stem
cells might be able to repair the damaged
tissue. Because of the large number
of cells required, human embryo cloning
would be required. In in-vitro
fertilization, a doctor often implants many
fertilized ova into a woman's
uterus and counts on one resulting in pregnancy.
However, some women can
only supply one egg. Through cloning, that egg could be
divided into eight
zygotes for implanting. The chances of pregnancy would be
much greater.
Cloning would allow a women to have one set of identical twins
instead of
going through two pregnancies. The women may not want to disrupt her
career,
or would prefer to only have one pregnancy. With cloning it would be
assured
that they would be identical. Cloning could provide spare
parts.
Fertilized ova could be cloned into several zygotes, one would be
implanted and
the others would be frozen for future use. In the event the
child required a
transplant, another zygote could be implanted, matured, and
eventually
contribute to the transplant. Some believe that if a parent wanted
to produce
talents in a child similar to his own, cloning using DNA from the
cell of the
adult may produce a child with the same traits. Many are
skeptical about this
possibility. No matter what we say or do, research for
cloning will steadily
continue and even more moral and ethical issues will
arise. Who knows which of
the two kinds of cloning will become the most
popular in the future, but right
now the main stand we need to take is
whether or not it can be done and should
be done. Who knows if human cloning
done in research labs presently will go
beyond the laboratory and affect
individuals lives. What we do know however, is
that cloning seems to very
appealing in some aspects and very frightening in
others. Barbara Ehrenreich
makes a quite humorous pun commenting on coming
possibility of cloning
humans. She states," When the technology arrives for
cloning adult
individuals , genetic immortality should be within reach of the
average
multimillionaire. Ross Perot will be followed by a flock of little
re-Rosses"
(86).