Essay, Research Paper: Clonning

If there s a line in the sand defining the risks [of science] , then it will be shifting all the time (Philip Cohen 4). And that line must shift. For humans seem to have an innate need to push the edge of the envelope. We climbed Mount Everest even though we knew it was almost impossible. We broke the sound barrier even though dozens of pilots died trying. We even cloned a sheep, even though we knew wool was going out of style. We attempted everything to answer the immortal question, Can it be done? The more importantly the question that never got asked is Should it be done? Thankfully, people are asking both questions in regard to human cloning.
The largest criticism comes from Lori Andrews, an expert on the legal aspects of reproduction at Kent college of Law in Chicago. She and her colleagues fear what might happen if clinics attempt to clone a human before the risks have been reduced to an acceptable level (Cohen 5). And she is not alone. President Clinton recently asked the Bioethics Advisory Commission to review the prospect of human cloning.
This commission, composed of eighteen medical, legal, and ethics experts, concluded that it would be morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector to create a child by implanting cloned embryos in a woman (N. Seppa 367). Clinton found the commission findings so compelling that it drove him to personally write legislation addressing the panel s concerns. According to the President s new bill, no federal money may be used to support research on human cloning (N. Seppa 367). Once this bill is passed the only scientists who will be able to continue research will be those in the private sector.
The private sector has already taken action. The aptly named Dr. Richard Seed announced plans to open a clinic to produce human clones...for desperate couples (Hoyland 3). Surprisingly, the idea of opening a fully functional cloning clinic is not that far fetched. In fact many of the technology (sic) needed to produce a human clone (are) already being developed for other, (more) acceptable medical treatments (Hoyland 3).
Researcher Don Wolf recently announced that he had cloned two monkeys using cells taken from donated embryos. Wolf s research is Federally funded because it could lead to a supply of genetically identical primates to help [further] research into AIDS and other diseases (Cohen 5). Even though Wolf has no interest in human cloning he does admit that others could apply his techniques to humans. Endocrinologist Zev Rosenwaks goes on to say that the same technique could be used to grow eggs for women who have damaged ovaries (Cohen 5).
Just like Wolf, Rosenwaks says he has no interest in human cloning. But inevitably both are making advances in that field. Simply put, because they are working with our fellow primates, everything Rosenwak s and Wolf s accomplish can be applied to humans.
In the June issue of Science News, Seppa writes that [Sterile] couples might someday want the option of cloning themselves (N. Seppa 367). Yes, human cloning can help these couples, but what other benefits are there?
One is the area of organ transplants. Today, if a person is in need of a bone marrow transplant or a kidney they are put on a waiting that is sarcastically referred to as the death list. We can clone a person with compatible DNA and extract the bone marrow from the clone. If someone needs a kidney they can get it from their clone. This would create an endless supply of tailor-made organ donors. This use of cloning will save lives. Patients will be able to get the organs they desperately need from their clone. Unfortunately these benefits of cloning are not what people hear about. Instead they are bombarded by the negative aspects of cloning.
Look at all the success the science fiction genre has had with the general public. These movies have been illustrating how cloning can destroy a society. The movies Gattaca (in a world of laboratory bred humans, so called normal birth humans are second class citizens), Species (Scientist experimenting with D.N.A and cloning unleash a monster onto the world), and the Star Wars prequel (The evil Empire unleashes an army of clones against the JediNights) all these paint a dark demented and even life threatening picture of the cloning process.
People often claim to be against cloning because it s unnatural. For example, the anti- abortionist feel that life starts at the moment of conception and that only G_d has the right to make a life. This is the same negative reaction people had about artificial insemination: Claming that doctors were playing G_d. And maybe they were, but then they are also playing G_d when ever they save a life.
Curiously the anti-abortionists don t want doctors to use technology to create life, but they seem to have no problem if doctors use technology to save a life. One rarely sees pro-lifers protesting outside a cancer research center. Why? Because they are fearful of cancer, for the same reason they are against cloning. They don t understand it. And what they don t understand they consider wrong.. Unfortunately the process of cloning is extremely complicated and I don t see much hope in everyone grasping its concept anytime soon. How, then ,can we cope with cloning if we are clue-less about it?
The first thing we need to do is more research so we can feel secure that the people in the scientific community have a good working knowledge of the process. Then we need to have laws that protect the ignorant fears of the general population. And finally, the general population needs to have faith. Faith that once the research is done the members of the scientific community will be able to explain what cloning is in ten words or less, and when that happens we the people can begin to argue its moral implication without sounding like four year olds debating politics.