Human Reproductive Cloning - Coursework Example

Human reproductive cloning Introduction Human cloning has been divided into two categories by Hayry, Takala and Herissone-Kelly (2005) as constituting therapeutic and reproductive cloning, where therapeutic cloning aims to clone cells that make particular organs or types of tissues, but not entire human beings. On the hand, reproductive cloning which constitutes producing new human beings by similar methods. Cohen (2002) defines cloning as based on the definition of the word clone as given in the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia as a group of organisms descended from a single individual through asexual reproduction. This is a common phenomenon among plants which Cohen (2002) calls vegetative reproduction. When applied to human beings, human reproductive cloning brings about an entirely different debate. McLaren (2002) asserts that therapeutic cloning has been considered ethically wrong in some circles, but is more tolerated than reproductive cloning which has been seen to replace the natural mode of reproduction, which the paper intends to discuss. Cohen (2002) argues that the idea of cloning seems to possess as much explosive potential at the end of the century as the idea of the atomic bomb had in the middle of the twentieth century. He argues that the power unleashed by nuclear physicists seemed to threaten the existence of the human species; in comparison the power unleashed by biologists seems to threaten the very idea of what is human. The major concern that has been brought about by cloning as did the atomic bomb earlier own raises the question whether science has gone too far. The moral argument arises out of what Cohen (2002) describes as should something be done just because it is scientifically interesting and possible. The religious circles bring the concern of man invading God’s realm of creation. All these concerns are discussed in the part that follows where the paper traces the development of human reproductive cloning and brings to the fore some of the arguments it has attracted over time. Origin of reproductive cloning The idea of artificial cloning is as old as human civilization, where Cohen and Wellman (2005) assert that the word clone is derived from a Greek word meaning twig. This comes from the ancient Greek practice of taking a twig from one plant and either grafting it to another or rooting it to produce a new plant or shrub. Cohen (2002) observes that the idea of human reproductive cloning can be dated back to the year 1934 when before that cloning was completely unknown in vertebrates. The year 1934 is distinct in that a team of scientists from the University of Michigan found a population of fish in Northern Mexico that was entirely female. The species known as the Amazon molly is related to the more familiar tropical molly. This brought about the knowledge that animal reproductive cloning in nature was not uncommon to the vertebrates, hence the development of scientific interest in the field. Frogs became the first multicellular animals to be used for artificial reproductive cloning in the 1950s. Cohen (2002) observes that the frogs were preferred as a result of the abundant availability of their eggs which are also huge compared with eggs from mammals. The theoretical part was done earlier as far as the 1930s, where Cohen (2002) states that the Nobel laureate Hans Superman, who laid much of the theoretical basis observed that the technical bit was the hardest that remained an illusion for long. Two decades later the frog nucleus from different eggs could be successfully transplanted to a new frog egg and successfully hatch. Still this was far from modern day reproductive cloning that has become more sophisticated. Cohen (2002) observes that the experimental frog eggs hatched and developed into tadpoles but all died before adult hood. The experimentation with the frogs led scientists to have the need to further their horizons, this is stated by Cohen and Wellman (2005) who state that in 1979, cell biologist Robert Gilmore Mckinnell, who had been actively involved in the frog experiments, observed that frogs were cloned some time ago, what about human cloning. At the time Mckinnell thought human cloning will not be so soon if at all it will ever succeed. He saw it as a challenge that will be hard to tackle, but just like mountain climbers respond to physical challenge, therefore it will not be surprising that some biologists will respond to the challenge of human cloning. Hayry et al (2005) observe that embryonic cloning has been used with human embryos since 1993. The technique involves embryo splitting which is artificially doing what happens naturally when an embryo splits into two or more to produce identical twins. The reproductive cloning took a new dimension when Dolly a sheep was cloned using nuclear transfer. The birth of the first ever cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep Hayry et al (2005) argues that led to the people around the world condemning human cloning as an absolute wrong. The debate surrounding human reproductive cloning Human dignity The question of whether cloning is against human dignity has been raised by many quarters. This is manifest in the existence of a number of international protocols against cloning considering cloning to be against human dignity. Hayry et al (2005) observe that to replicate any human by technological means is against the basic dignity of the uniqueness of each human being in God’s sight. This translates to cloning as undermining human dignity as given by God, therefore no one else should compromise that dignity in any way. The debate of cloning as hampering the human dignity as given by God is widely cited by the various world religions in their fight against cloning. This does not imply that the secular are left behind. According to the National Academy of Sciences (2002) in their statement against cloning observe: Data on the reproductive cloning of animals through the use of nuclear transplantation technology demonstrate that only a small percentage of attempts are successful; that many of the clones die during gestation, even in late stages; that newborn clones are often abnormal or die; and that the procedures may carry serious risks for the mother. In addition, because of the large number of eggs needed for such experiments, many more women would be exposed to the risks inherent in egg donation for a single cloning attempt than for the reproduction of a child be the presently used...techniques. These medical and scientific findings lead us to conclude that the procedures are now unsafe for humans (p. 3). From the above arguments, it can be seen that the national academy of sciences has seen cloning to be undermining the human dignity by the possibility of the problems that could arise out of the human reproduction cloning attempts. Human uniqueness John (1997) observes that human beings possess a right to uniqueness and that this profound right could be violated by cloning. This argument closely resembles the earlier argument on human dignity being threatened by uniqueness. The debate rages that human uniqueness is already threatened by the existence of identical twins. Hayry et al (2005) also add that the fact that most cultures do not see a moral problem in their inherited similarity seems to suggest that even if such a right existed, it would not be absolute, or even very highly valued. The problem arises when one attempts to differentiate the clone from an identical twin. This is well stated by Hayry et al (2005) who argue that a clone would in most cases be less of an exact copy of its sibling than an identical twin. This is a result of the mitochondrial DNA of clones coming from the egg used, not from the nucleus transferred as happens with identical twins. Furthermore a clone would be unique, because as Burley, Justine and John (1999) observe that the clone would be brought up in a different environment, hence would turn out to be unique from others. It would be subject to unrepeatable experiences in changing surroundings. From an ethical point of view, the debate turns from the realisation that identical twins are the works of nature; while cloning is what Hayry et al (2005) call the intentional creation of a genetic copy of a human being, therefore intentionally undermining the uniqueness of human beings. This is a view much held in the religious circles who state that even identical twins are unique, but clones are not. Treating people as mere means The first two debates are highly open, where one can take sides and still be considered ethically correct. The major argument is what Hayry et al (2005) refers to as the Kantian idea that we should never treat people as mere means. The argument is based on the assumption that by merely creating a copy of an existing individual, we are treating the produced copy as a mere means, and not as an end in itself. This is argument is based on Kantian doctrine, which as quoted in Hayry et al (2005) as having stated: Humanity itself is a dignity, for man can be used by no one, neither by others nor by himself, merely as a means, but must always be used at the same time and as an end (p. 57). This argument holds more sway if for example, people use reproductive cloning to bring back a lost loved one, or to recreate any other person they for some reason think is of worth recreating. This argument goes against the belief that individual uniqueness is not entirely genetic, but also determined by cultural and other experiences acquired over time; therefore no one can recreate an individual, not even through reproductive cloning. Health safety The National Academy of Sciences (2002) argue that medical and scientific findings indicate that cloning procedures are currently not safe for humans, that is, cloning of a human through the use of nuclear transplantation technology is not appropriate, as of the present. This raises the question of medical ethics, where no scientist can undertake human reproductive cloning for the mere knowledge that the process is not safe and the safety of the participants cannot be guaranteed in any way. This argument closely resembles that of human dignity, but is more of a temporary basis in the medical science world, until the point is reached where the safety of the participants can be guaranteed to a higher level. This argument by the scientists is more of a precautionary measure against industrious organisations that do not have many considerations for human dignity and moral ethics against adopting human reproductive cloning for either commercial or other means. Poverty The raging moral debate can be directed to the issue that is brought about by the existence of poverty incidence in the present world, where the resources that should have been allocated to human reproductive cloning research cloning should be redirected to the alleviation of poverty. The debate is based on the assumption that there are more issues considered being of priority before people embark on human genetic engineering. With the widespread cases of underdevelopment surrounding many pockets of the world and in the wake of the present day economic crisis that have adversely affected all nations, therefore resource allocation should be made to the priority areas before we can embark on cloning. The beneficial part of cloning The possibility of human reproductive cloning to bring about major changes in human health sphere is widely discussed. McLaren (2002) argues that the potential of cloning in helping reduce the problems of infertility abound. With the possibility of cloning, the traditional fears of infertility problems both social and medical are overcome. One does not have to worry about reproduction being inhibited by infertility, through the advances made in human reproductive cloning; the infertility problems have been widely addressed. Hayry et al (2005) observe that human reproductive cloning could be used as an alternative fertility treatment, and methods of nuclear transfer could be used to avoid some mitochondrial diseases, but with no generally acknowledged positive right to reproduce and with the rarity of mitochondrial diseases, it is far from clear that we should use cloning to tackle these issues. Conclusion Human reproductive cloning has brought about raging arguments both for and against in more or less equal measure. Being a relatively new phenomenon, it has divided the opinion of almost all people in the world. The scientific procedure is still faulty, but just as many other techniques before it, there is the possibility of cloning to be perfected and the various worries that exist to be removed. At the same time, whatever level of perfection will be hard to dislodge the deeply held view of human dignity and uniqueness that is undermined by cloning. From a different perspective, human reproductive cloning holds the potential of revolutionising the medical profession by bringing about fundamental changes in what was widely believed to be hard to treat diseases and medical problems, such as infertility. Just like the realization that the earth was not the center of the universe and a sphere brought about much resistance in the renaissance period, human reproductive cloning holds the potential of being welcomed in the future once the major fears are addressed. References Burley, Justine and Harris, John. Human Cloning and Child Welfare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25: 108-113. 1999 Cohen, Andrew I. And Wellman, Christopher Heath. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 2005. Cohen, Daniel. Cloning. New York: Twenty-First century books. 2002 Harris, John. Is Cloning an Attack on Human Dignity? Nature, 387: 754. 1997. Hayry, Matti, Takal, Tuija, and Herissone-Kelly, Peter. Bioethics and Social Reality. London: Rodopi. 2005 McLaren, Anne. Cloning, Council of Europe. 2002. National Academy of Sciences, Scientific and Medical aspects of human reproductive cloning. New York: National Academy of Sciences. 2002 Read More

Origin of reproductive cloning The idea of artificial cloning is as old as human civilization, where Cohen and Wellman (2005) assert that the word clone is derived from a Greek word meaning twig. This comes from the ancient Greek practice of taking a twig from one plant and either grafting it to another or rooting it to produce a new plant or shrub. Cohen (2002) observes that the idea of human reproductive cloning can be dated back to the year 1934 when before that cloning was completely unknown in vertebrates.

The year 1934 is distinct in that a team of scientists from the University of Michigan found a population of fish in Northern Mexico that was entirely female. The species known as the Amazon molly is related to the more familiar tropical molly. This brought about the knowledge that animal reproductive cloning in nature was not uncommon to the vertebrates, hence the development of scientific interest in the field. Frogs became the first multicellular animals to be used for artificial reproductive cloning in the 1950s.

Cohen (2002) observes that the frogs were preferred as a result of the abundant availability of their eggs which are also huge compared with eggs from mammals. The theoretical part was done earlier as far as the 1930s, where Cohen (2002) states that the Nobel laureate Hans Superman, who laid much of the theoretical basis observed that the technical bit was the hardest that remained an illusion for long. Two decades later the frog nucleus from different eggs could be successfully transplanted to a new frog egg and successfully hatch.

Still this was far from modern day reproductive cloning that has become more sophisticated. Cohen (2002) observes that the experimental frog eggs hatched and developed into tadpoles but all died before adult hood. The experimentation with the frogs led scientists to have the need to further their horizons, this is stated by Cohen and Wellman (2005) who state that in 1979, cell biologist Robert Gilmore Mckinnell, who had been actively involved in the frog experiments, observed that frogs were cloned some time ago, what about human cloning.

At the time Mckinnell thought human cloning will not be so soon if at all it will ever succeed. He saw it as a challenge that will be hard to tackle, but just like mountain climbers respond to physical challenge, therefore it will not be surprising that some biologists will respond to the challenge of human cloning. Hayry et al (2005) observe that embryonic cloning has been used with human embryos since 1993. The technique involves embryo splitting which is artificially doing what happens naturally when an embryo splits into two or more to produce identical twins.

The reproductive cloning took a new dimension when Dolly a sheep was cloned using nuclear transfer. The birth of the first ever cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep Hayry et al (2005) argues that led to the people around the world condemning human cloning as an absolute wrong. The debate surrounding human reproductive cloning Human dignity The question of whether cloning is against human dignity has been raised by many quarters. This is manifest in the existence of a number of international protocols against cloning considering cloning to be against human dignity.

Hayry et al (2005) observe that to replicate any human by technological means is against the basic dignity of the uniqueness of each human being in God’s sight. This translates to cloning as undermining human dignity as given by God, therefore no one else should compromise that dignity in any way. The debate of cloning as hampering the human dignity as given by God is widely cited by the various world religions in their fight against cloning. This does not imply that the secular are left behind.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (2002) in their statement against cloning observe: Data on the reproductive cloning of animals through the use of nuclear transplantation technology demonstrate that only a small percentage of attempts are successful; that many of the clones die during gestation, even in late stages; that newborn clones are often abnormal or die; and that the procedures may carry serious risks for the mother.

Read More