Bio-Ethical Debate on Cloning - Research Paper Example

Bio-ethical Debate: Cloning The concept of human cloning is a controversial that is as problematical to comprehend as the physical and psychological needs, present and future, of someone produced by this method are unknown. Societies throughout the world generally believe that human cloning experiments will violate a moral barrier, taking humans into a sphere of self-engineering. Those who oppose human cloning argue that this unnatural style of reproduction has an overwhelming potential for decisions being made based on reasons of vanity in regard to children. Their concern is that the very nature of the traditional family is in danger of evolving in a strange, unknown and undesirable direction and that the cloning of animals puts society on the slippery ethical slope towards human cloning. Advocates of cloning practices say that it may, among other things, serve society as an effective alternative treatment for infertility. Cloning is the creation of an embryo by the method of human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This procedure involves implanting DNA cells from an organism into an egg whose DNA nucleus has been removed then chemically treated so that the egg begins to behave as though fertilization has occurred. This results in the creation of embryonic growth of another organism that contains the complete genetic code of the original organism. Through this process, the cloning of mammals has resulted in, to date, hundreds of cloned organisms born. In some of these contexts, cloning refers to established technologies that have been part of agricultural practice for a very long time and currently form an important part of the foundations of modern biological research” (Nussbaum & Sunstein, 1998, p. 1). Though this process has produced many live successes, it has proved considerably less likely to produce successful pregnancies than those conceived through sexual reproduction. In addition, the majority of cloned animals have experienced some type of birth defect. Replication of an organism’s DNA identity does not occur naturally within mammals; only plants produce offspring through replication from one generation to the next. “The prospect of such replication for humans has resulted in the most controversial debate about reproduction ever to be taken up in western civilization” (McGee, 2001). Research regarding the cloning of animals may supply data that will be useful in the biotechnological and medical sciences. Some of the goals of this research are: “to generate groups of genetically identical animals for research purposes; rapidly propagate desirable animal stocks; improve the efficiency of generating; propagating transgenic livestock; produce targeted genetic alterations in domestic animals and to pursue basic knowledge about cell differentiation” (Ward & Nancarrow, 1995). There has been increased interest in science’s ability to genetically modify farm animals by the induction of genes from other species, humans for example. ‘Transgenic animals’ were initially developed using mice. “Proposed applications of this technology to livestock improvement include the possible introduction of growth-enhancing genes, genes that affect milk quality or wool fibers, or disease-resistance genes” (Ward & Nancarrow, 1995). The ethical dilemma does not necessarily focus on the cloning of animals or agricultural crops, though these issues remain controversial; the argument is the likelihood of human cloning being the next logical step. The freedom of the ethical and responsible pursuit of knowledge is supported by scientists and non-scientists as well. Historically in the U.S., scientific experimentation has been encouraged but many argue that simply because there may be importance attached to science that is free from constraints, this does not mean the pursuit of science without regard to a measure of limitation based on society’s ethical and moral standards. All acknowledge the immense public gain in maintaining the ‘sanctity of knowledge and the value of intellectual freedom.’ However, “international statements about the ethics of research with human subjects, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, make it abundantly clear that science, however valuable, must, as scientists and non-scientists agree, observe important moral boundaries” (Robertson, 1997). For example, scientific study must not jeopardize rights or safety of the public or impose unnecessary distress to animals. At present, both federal and state governments regulate the researcher’s methods so as to monitor community safety concerns and to ensure the rights of research subjects. It is a socially and legally accepted precept that research may be restricted, to guard the subject’s sovereignty by requiring their consent, for example. “If the government can show that restrictions on cloning and cloning technology are sufficiently important to the general well-being of individuals or society, such restrictions are likely to be upheld as legitimate, constitutional governmental actions, even if scientists were held to have a First Amendment right of scientific inquiry” (Robertson, 1997). Consequently, even if scientific experimentation were found by the courts to be a constitutionally protected right, the government could regulate this activity in order to protect the public against harms it might inflict. An example is the bodily risks created by use of somatic cell nuclear transfer methods to produce human children. Government regulation may not disallow research in an effort to stop the development of novel invention or knowledge but it may conditionally restrict or even forbid the means used by researchers if those means involve harm to individuals or the public at large. “The freedom to pursue knowledge is distinguishable from the right to choose the method for achieving that knowledge, since the method itself may permissibly be regulated” (Robertson, 1997). Researchers themselves are ultimately liable for upholding ethical and scientific principles and must endeavor to incorporate this within the performance of their work. Whether for or against scientific constraint, or the idea of cloning any organism, most everyone universally expresses great concern regarding somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques used for human experimentation. Whatever reasoning brought forth by proponents of human cloning must be measured against the Hippocratic precept of ‘first do no harm’ to satisfy public, political and the medical communities’ ethical threshold. At present level of technological advancement, the considerable threats to the physical welfare of a person created by somatic cell cloning far overshadow any possible benefits of this technique (Brock, 1997). The history of man is marked with countless occurrences where the public, or papal, outcry of ‘playing God’ has at least attempted to impede the advancement of science. This catchphrase is generally used to define a moral boundary not to be crossed by science or medicine on the basis that it draws uncomfortable distinctions of human’s role within God’s tenets. Surprising no one, the announcement of successful somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning in mammals has again caused this argument to be vocalized. Those that believe that people should not ‘play God’ are opposed to the scientists investigating the dark mysteries of life, which are only God’s to control and that humans lack the divine authority to decide when life begins or ends. In other words, the fallible human does not have the knowledge, especially knowledge of future outcomes, attributed to divine omniscience and would make a disaster in the attempt. “Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, then, after they have learned to be men, they will not play God” (Ramsey, 1970). The proponents of human cloning might surmise that the faction who are opposed to ‘playing God’ evaluate scientific and medical developments according to a narrow, partial, and self-interested perspective. For the major religious organizations of the world such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is not generally regarded as theologically intimidating. For example, Islamic scholars emphasize that scientific discoveries are simply the continuation of divinely ordained revelations to man. Abdulaziz Sachedina, an Islamic scholar, concluded that “cloning may be a divinely given opportunity for human moral training and maturation” (Sachedina, 1997). A statement in the Calvinist tradition suggests that humans receive glimpses of God within the sciences. The broad diversity of religious traditions and beliefs characterizes the American culture. There is no single religious view on the subject human cloning because religious outlooks on human cloning vary in their individual premises and methods of reasoning and therefore draw different conclusions. The issues surrounding the cloning of human beings have been a disquieting topic of philosophical, scientific, legal and ethical debate throughout all areas of society. Some consider that human cloning, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, will never be an ethical consideration because it undercuts essential social values that hold together the fabric of society and that cloning will always pose the risk of causing psychological and physical harm to the child. Fear has been unnecessarily raised regarding the creating of children through cloning based on the mistaken belief that selecting a child’s genetic makeup is comparable to selecting the child’s personality. A benefit that merits more prevalent discussion is that cloning would be lead to a wider understanding that a person’s traits, such as personality and their life achievements, is dependent more so on educational opportunities and the social environment, as well as an individual’s genetic history. Undoubtedly, there is a need for further public, scientific and political reflection on the significant moral issues raised by the potential cloning of humans. Many important questions remain unanswered, such as the character and extent of our moral interest in the liberty to make reproductive choices and whether that autonomy should include creating a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. Most agree that there are certain situations where boundaries on scientific liberties must be defined, even if such definitions are perceived as unnecessary limitations by the scientific community. Suitable ethical constraints are a subject for both scientists and the public to together devise and apply. However, limits on freedom of scientific experimentations must be reasonable and justifiable while allowing a continuing public discourse to reconsider legislative limitations as scientific and public knowledge advances. Most also agree that scientific boundaries should not encroach upon long established rights and freedoms, that impositions on any freedoms should always satisfy certain conditions. Limitations should not ever be arbitrary in nature or gratuitously oppressive and should only materialize from the thoughtful harmonization of both cost and benefit to humanity. Works Cited Brock, D. “Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con.” (1997). [Paper prepared for NBAC]. McGee, Glenn. Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia. (February 2001). Nussbaum, Martha C. & Sunstein, Cass R. Clones and Clones Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. (1998). Ramsey, P. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven: Yale University Press. (1970). Robertson, J.A. “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. (March 14, 1997). Sachedina, A. “Islamic Perspectives on Cloning.” [Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. (March 14, 1997). Ward, K.A. & Nancarrow, C.D. “The Commercial and Agricultural Applications of Animal Transgenesis.” Molecular Biotechnology. Vol. 4. (1995). pp. 167-78. Read More