Cloning Essay

Darien Sessions Sister Moea’i FDENG 101 2/21/17 The Replicators In the summer of 1982, a movie called E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial made history and creating talk about aliens across the globe. But another movie, which was overshadowed by E.T., was released that same summer that received much less recognition. Blade Runner was a film loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Starring Harrison Ford as a Replicant Hunter, named Rick Deckard, that hunts down clones living among humans and destroys them. This film grew to become a cult classic mainly because it provokes thoughts about what makes someone human. It is no surprise that since 1962, when John B Gurdon successfully cloned a frog, society has been both fascinated and terrified about the prospects of cloning technology and research. Three main schools of thought have developed regarding the ethics of cloning which shape the debate today. The smallest group believe that cloning is an acceptable means for scientific discovery and should be used accordingly. However most believe that cloning is acceptable and ethical when used to benefit not just humans but also non-humans, and that using cloning technology responsibly is okay but caution is needed. Lastly, a small group believe that cloning of any kind is unacceptable, unethical and/or encroaches on the idea of “human dignity (Japan).” But, of course, these opinions had to originate from somewhere; this all starts in Dippenhall, Hampshire, UK where a teacher said the scientific ambitions of John B. Gurdon were “ridiculous.” Cloning seems like it belongs in science fiction, but what most people do not know is that the studying of cloning and genetics has been around for nearly 150 years and the first experiments were conducted in 1885 by Hans Adolf Edward Dreisch where he “showed that by merely shaking two-celled sea urchin embryos, it was possible to separate the cells.” Once shaken they would then grow into two separate sea urchins, this experiment showed that each cell contains a complete set of genetic information which can grow into a full organism (The History of Cloning). There were several other discoveries made until another landmark breakthrough in 1958 by John Gurdon. He was able to transfer the nucleus of a tadpole into an enucleated, a cell without a nucleus, frog egg which then grew into a genetically identical organism. This marked the start of research that would spark debate and controversy around the globe (T.A.). Research that aloud scientists to place a lamb embryo into the womb of surrogate sheep in 1984 and then in 1996 others could cultivate cells in a lab then impregnate sheep and even opened the door to use “modified cells to create transgenic animals – such as cows that could make insulin for diabetics in their milk.” Also in 1996, Dolly was born. The creation of Dolly was almost identical to the previous experiments that year except Dolly was cloned from an “adult somatic cell.” As an organism grows, certain genes in the cells deactivate as they are no longer needed. So, when an adult cell nucleus is used as a donor, the genetic information must be “reset to an embryonic state.” This is how Dolly was born and with it came conversations about the implications and ethics of cloning, controversies about human cloning and stem cell research (The History of Cloning). The first school of thought in the debate of cloning ethics is that of the individuals that believe cloning is an acceptable means for scientific discovery and should be used to benefit everyone. According to Maurizio Salvi, animal cloning can solve several scientific goals that would benefit humans. The first is scientists can use transgenic sheep, goats and cattle to produce human proteins in milk and help solve medical problems relating to diseases that cause, or are caused by, protein deficiencies. The second is xenotransplantation. Which is a large word that basically means to use pigs, which are very close genetically to humans, to grow human organs which would then be used for human transplants. Salvi also describes the use of cloning to produce animals which are closer genetically to humans which “might allow the creation of better models for testing treatments for human pathologies.” Salvi also touches on things like cancer, alternatives to embryo stem cells and even that cloning could help with ageing and prolong life (Salvi). In September 2015, the EU banned cloning livestock which created a lot of talk from the scientific community. Some experts even said the ban “[was] an impractical step,” and that “the EU missive is somewhat misguided. (EU Ban)” While this was a small group of individuals that believe cloning should be researched further and used accordingly, most believe cloning is good but should be approached cautiously. As cloning research progressed and become more complex, some individuals concluded this kind of research could open a lot of doors and solve problems that would otherwise stay a mystery but stayed reserved because of what cloning research could lead to. Many see the potential of cloning but are fearful that humans would use the technology in unethical means. In an article, Sharlayne Arana is quoted voicing that opinion, “Animal cloning is simultaneously ethical and unethical. In the long run, animal cloning can be ethical if we use it to advance science in a way that benefits all animals. However, I deem it unethical to clone and utilize non-human animals to only benefit our species ... If animal cloning is ethical, it is only ethical to the extent that its purpose is to serve all animals." Others expound upon that thought and discuss that the scientific community has not reached the limits of research and, as Andrew Hoffman, the director of Regenerative Medicine Laboratory at the Cummings School, stated “[The research] is a very rich source of information that hasn't been exploited scientifically for the purposes of advancing human medicine. It has been a very underdeveloped area.” He continues to state that the literature developed from the veterinary science communities have been separated from “human literature (EU Ban).” Hoffman means to say that society has a very limited knowledge of what research is taking place, the advanced to human medicine scientists are making, and how tests are made. Salvi voices his opinion on this subject in a paper he wrote in the Journal of Asian and International Bioethics he starts by saying that the “biological… and the socio-cultural…features of human beings justify the prevalence of human beings in” denying biocentric ethics. But “I do not see moral arguments to oppose to animal cloning for research purposes but I also do not see any reason to accept cloning as a technique to use in animal breeding programmes when the expected goals are oriented only to maximize and accelerate the animal breeding industry- oriented process (Salvi).” Hoffman’s quote sums up what most of the scientific community believes about the ethics of cloning. But much of the general-public does not feel this way, most believe cloning and the technology produced by cloning research is unethical and should not be used in anyway. In an article titled “The coming of the clones” one reporter examines the history of cloning since 1997 with the creation of Dolly. The editorial discusses experiments being conducted at the time and warns against it. The author read about a report that scientists had “obtained stem cells from cloned human embryos.” They then go on to describe the experiments as “[dangerous],” and “macabre research.” The article says that cloning has “[turned] human reproduction into a manufacturing process,” and cloning like this is “being performed at several scientific labs in the United States, despite the availability of alternative techniques that produce cells of nearly the same scientific and medical value but that require neither the creation nor destruction of human embryos.” The article argues that human cloning distorts the “moral meaning of human procreation,” and that if scientists are allowed to create children by these means it would “withhold from children the possibility of a relationship with both a genetic mother and father,” “could be used to attempt to control the physical and even psychological traits of children,” and it could “[burden] them with the expectation that they will be like the individuals from whom they were cloned.” This person, among many others, believe that it would not only be dangerous but unethical to clone humans for any reason. The article ends with the sentence: “This [cloning] isn’t science-fiction. It’s horror. And its time policy-makers paid attention to cloning again (The Coming of the Clones).” These thoughts and feelings from society eventually built up to the point that politicians and policy-makers did pay attention and even, like in the EU’s case, step in and act. This is what happened when the United Nations convened and discussed this topic. The put together a report that would “[evaluate] the responses of the United Nations to the questions of human cloning governance. This report is an “ethical analysis of cloning (Japan).” The UN document discusses a lot about this concept of the “protection of human dignity” stating that it is “one of the cardinal principles of bioethics.” Human dignity is not a concept that is used a lot, but the report defines human dignity to be two parts, intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic dignity, “relates to the internal sense of dignity felt by an individual due to their own feeling of self-worth, capacity” to make their own decisions and their ability to meet their responsibilities. Extrinsic is described as relating “to the manner in which individuals respect the dignity of others and are entitled to be free from external harm to their own dignity.” Discussions like this have taken place several times and literature has been produced from them. Including the “UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights,” which, in article 11 states that any practices that are contrary to human dignity, like the cloning of human beings, is not permitted and that countries should fight at a national or international level to ensure those principles are not broken. But that “unequivocal” statement does not specify if cloning research, specifically human cloning research, should be considered counter to human dignity. The arguments against cloning has brought up that reproductive cloning could “lessen the respect for individuals,” because they feel they could be easily replaced. Other fears brought up in the report is that some believe that reproduction should “occur by chance,” and be “through natural selection.” Another argument is that cloning could lead to the commoditization of life and that it could lead to a growth in the spare parts black market which would infringe on human dignity. They also touch on the fact that cloning research and technology does have the capacity to further human and non-human medical technology. They even say that regenerative medicine “is one area which has been promoted as offering great hope for producing replacement tissue,” without the host rejecting it, since the replacement is essentially their own. They state that “this technique if successful may enable millions of people suffering from the most common diseases of the industrialized world;” diabetes, stroke, spinal injuries and even terminal illnesses like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. But even the convention in which the UN discussed these topics, no conclusion was made. Political stalemate lead the UN to abandon their efforts and pass it along to the sixth committee of the General Assembly, who drafted the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning which was sustained and put into place on the 8th of March 2005 (Japan). This declaration stated that “Member States were called on to adopt all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life (General Assembly).” There is, without a doubt, a lot of feelings for and against cloning technology and research. Many people have voiced their fears and some have even painted a dystopian picture if cloning research continues. But many others have said that cloning can lead to many great medical discoveries that could save the lives of millions of people. But whether you are on the side of scientific exploration, necessary caution or fear there is still much to be discussed, and if policy-makers, scientists and the public don’t come together to solve this issue, many could die from diseases that could’ve been solved by cloning technology or means that would’ve been researched if cloning wasn’t taking up scientist’s energy. Works Cited “EU Ban on Cloning Livestock Stirs Up Worldwide Debate." University Wire, 15 Sep 2015, SIRS Issues Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com.byui.idm.oclc.org. "General Assembly Adopts United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning by Vote of 84-34-37 | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases." United Nations. United Nations, 8 Mar. 2005. Web. 22 Feb. 2017. “Japan. United Nation. Is Human Reproductive Cloning Inevitable: Future Options for UN Governance. By Chamundeeswari Kuppuswamy, Darryl Macer, Miheala Serbulea, and Brendan Tobin. Yokohama, Japan: United Nations U Institute of Advanced Studies, 2007. Print.” Salvi, Maurizio "To What Extent Should Animal Cloning Be Permitted?" Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 12 (2002): 45. Print. T.A., Johnson. "The Stem Cell Debate: Should Necessity Trump Ethics?" Indian Express, 10 Jan 2016, pp. n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com.byui.idm.oclc.org. "The Coming of the Clones." Weekly Standard, Sep 2015, pp. 5. SIRS Issues Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com.byui.idm.oclc.org. "The History of Cloning." The History of Cloning. University of Utah, 10 July 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.