Human Cloning And Its Disadvantages - Essay Example

HUMAN CLONING AND ITS DISADVANTAGES The advent of the human cloning technology in the fields of genetics became the hallmark of scientific achievement in the previous and the present century. Although the technology is not yet perfected, many have placed high hopes in this advancement in the field of medicine as cloning could be used to treat genetically related diseases. However, after the success of geneticists in cloning mammals, the most famous of which is Dolly the sheep, many scientists, academicians, scholars, philosophers and lawmakers, started a rigorous debate if human cloning should be totally banned or if laws prohibiting it should be introduced. The United States of America is the first country in the world to announce that laws had been passed to ban human cloning completely. The laws dismayed scientists and experts alike who believe that human cloning can advance humanity. However, an opposing view on human cloning began to broaden as we gradually understand the implications human cloning may pose in the future. Recently, experts in various fields contend that human cloning could become a threat to society if we do not exercise prudence and rationality in the utilization of the said technology. Specialists and ordinary citizens alike assert that human cloning should be banned because of its adverse moral and ethical implications, it is extremely unsafe and it is socially and psychologically harmful. The prospect of utilizing cloning technology, not just for the purposes of therapy and treatment of genetically linked diseased but also cloning humans for other purpose, pose profound ethical questions. The National Academies of Sciences in America as well as the Bush administration made its positions clear with regards this issue. In July 2002, the Council on Bioethics, under the office of the President issued its findings about human cloning in a report titled, Human Cloning and Human Dignity. The report states that the human cloning argument revolves around various ethical and pragmatic questions. Exploration of these issues reveals variation in ethical and moral notions (McHugh 210). Protestations on this issue are linked to the apprehensions of many that cloned children 1"might come to be considered more like products of a designed manufacturing process" and 'gifts' whom their parents are ready to take. This behavior toward children could also lead to heightened2"commercialization and industrialization of human procreation" and could result to a new 'eugenics' in which parents choose what 'kind' of genetically 'modified' child to have. Another of consideration we need to look closely at, is the argument with regards the possibility of creating human life in order to destroy it in the end. As there are two most common prospects of human cloning, one of which is the cloning to replicate a 'whole' human being and the other one is for therapeutic purposes, the majority of the President's Council stressed that cloning for therapeutic purposes obliges that 3"the creation of human life expressly and exclusively for the purpose of its use in research, research that necessarily involves its destruction, ... transform[ing] nascent human life into nothing more than a resource tool." Another danger that comes with the utilization of the technology to clone humans is related to safety. The Council on Bioethics asserted that, 4"[g]iven the highrates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe. Scientists and experts agreed that the scientific information indicate that the techniques utilized by scientists is not safe on humans as shown in the experiments with animals demonstrating that, with very many attempts to clone life, only a few percentage is successful. In addition, a great number of the clones die during gestation and most often newborn clones carry abnormalities or die as a result. Although many content that the risks are reduced as the technology advances, reproductive cloning is costly and highly wasteful. About 90% of cloning efforts were unsuccessful to produce feasible offspring or results. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. Apart from that, studies done on cloned animals point to the fact that cloned animals have weaker and abnormal immune function, high susceptibility to infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Many cloned animals have not existed long enough to produce feasible data about how clones age. In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced that the genes of cloned mice are endangered. After assessing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, the researchers discovered that about 4% of the cloned genes of mice function abnormally. The danger in cloning is very clear as studies by geneticists illustrated that defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may cause developmental aberrations of cloned embryos. Aside from the aforementioned ethical implications and its lack of safety, human cloning is also socially and psychologically harmful. Some objections to reproductive cloning are founded upon people's apprehension that cloned individuals will have difficulty with their identities 5"because each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and because the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the 'original." Other concerns have also been put forward about the consequences of cloning on society because cloning would impinge not only on the participants but also on the society which sanctions this kind of activity. There are also concerns that society will be able to love and accepted a cloned individual like any other child. Furthermore, many fear that the adverse consequences of cloning such as the suppression and discrimination of the 'weak' individuals in society may result to genetic manipulation of developing 'more superior' life. The American Society for Cell Biology stated that 6"As much as we wish to alleviate suffering now and to leave our children in a world where suffering can be more effectively relieved, we also want to leave them in a world ... that honors moral limits, that respects all life whether strong or weak, and that refuses to secure the good of some human beings by sacrificing the lives of others." Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning stating that even therapeutic cloning would harm society by "crossing the boundary from sexual to asexual reproduction, thus approving in principle the genetic manipulation and control of nascent human life." Moreover, it is not just the experts, the lawmakers and the moral leaders who are concerned about this issue. Survey across America shows that most people in the United States opposes both human reproductive cloning and cloning for research purposes, although many support therapeutic stem cell research. Researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University have conducted a survey from September 7 to 17, 2004 and asked 1,004 randomly selected adults of their views on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. According to the survery, 53% of respondents answered they "strongly or somewhat" support embryonic stem cell research, while 36% said they are "strongly or somewhat" against the research. On the other hand 83% of survey respondents said they oppose human reproductive cloning, and 56% said they also oppose human cloning for research purposes (VCU Survey, 2004). It is clear therefore, according to the arguments aforementioned that human cloning is harmful for society because of its moral and ethical implications; Moreover, it poses genetic and biological threats as it is not a safe process, and it is socially and psychologically harmful. Unless these threat and implications are overcome, it is not morally acceptable for scientists and human beings 'to play God' or manipulate life as it destroys our social structure. Individuals in society should therefore be aware of these implications as well as participate in deliberating whether new technology like human cloning is harmful or not. Laws should also be implemented or passed according to the decisions of the majority. As of now, the view of the majority is to prohibit cloning as it is detrimental to our existence. Although there are benefits which we could derive from its advancement especially in the field of medicine, we should always weigh its advantages and disadvantages. So far, the disadvantages overshadow the former. WORKS CITED Brown, David. "Two Stem Cell Options Presented; Human Embryos Wouldn't Be Killed,"Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2004, A1. Buckley, Anne. "VCU News Center." Majority of Americans favor embryonic stem-cell research. Dec. 2006. Virginia Commonwealth University. 6 Dec 2006. . Hafner, L. "Revised Feinstein/Kennedy Cloning Bill Has Criminal and Civil Penalties, Requires Research Review," Washington Fax, May 2, 2002. Horsey, Kirsty. "When Is an Embryo Not an Embryo" BioNews. no. 287, Dec. 6, 2004 Hurlbut, William. President's Council on Bioethics, Presentation of in "Transcript of the President's Council on Bioethics. Washington, D.C. 2004 McHugh, Paul. "Zygote and 'Clonote' - The Ethical Use of Embryonic Stem Cells," New England Journal of Medicine. vol. 351, no. 3. July 15, 2004 President's Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity,. Washington DC. July 2002. Read More