The Effects Of Human Cloning Through Experimentation
“Everyone began life as a single-celled embryo -- a zygote. The zygote divided
and divided by cellular division, similar to asexual reproduction. Each body cell is a
clone of all other cells, and of the original zygote. All the cells of our body form a clone”
(Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 53). This process of replication would be known as a natural
clone since it has occurred through nature. If natural clones are accepted within our
society, then why would a genetically engineered human clone not be? Many
Americans believe that human cloning is just too risky, but in fact they do not know what
cloning entails. Archbishop Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua stated that “we are all aware
of things that we can do, but for the sake of morality ought not do” (The Human Cloning
Debate 284). Morality depends on the goodness or badness of the motives and intentions
of the cloners (80). Many scientists are then aware that they can create human clones, but
because of the law, or just their morals, they opt not to create clones, in fear of what
could becoming the future. The existence of cloned human embryos in the lab, for
research purposes, will pave the way for later baby-making implantations.
The future of human life depends on the research and experiments performed by
scientists each day. Without advances in technology the world probably would have
ended a long time ago. New diseases seem to be formulating everyday, but with the help
of computers and machines, scientists are able to discover these diseases and learn more
about them. Cloning will be able to help stop these diseases and viruses destroying our
world. There are at least four known types of cloning: cellular, molecular, therapeutic
and nuclear transfer. Cellular cloning involves many special cell lines made in order to
show promise for treating certain congenital diseases with gene therapy (The Human
Cloning Debate 28). Molecular cloning cannot clone an entire genome, but copies some,
much like a copy machine runs off copies of some small number of documents (27).
Therapeutic cloning creates embryos which are identical to people, but obtain cells which
can be used as exact tissue matches for scientists to discover cures to various cancers,
hepatitis, and other diseases (“House Votes To Ban All Human Cloning” 2). However,
nuclear transfer takes the nuclei out of a cell and places the nucleus from the one being
cloned into the previous cell and discards the materials from the second cell (The Human
Cloning Debate 30). Nuclear transfer is usually more involved in the human cloning
process, while the other three cloning types help with replacing old diseased genes with
cloned healthy ones which will help to fight off certain diseases.
The creator of the first cloned animal was Ian Wilmut who has written an
autobiographical account of his own experiences with cloning and how it has effected his
life. In this book, The Second Creation: Dolly and the age of Biological Control, Wilmut
stated that “science is a logical pursuit, but progress in science does not necessarily,
or even usually, proceed along a straight path” (Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 21). Ian was
basically saying that science is unpredictable and the odds of actually getting what you
want to happen in an experiment the first time will most likely never happen. Many
attempts must be made in order to achieve the desired reaction. It took Ian 277 tries to
create Dolly, the world’s first cloned sheep (“Hundreds Want Clones, Scientists Say” 3).
“The pressures for human cloning are powerful, but although it seems likely that
somebody, at some time, will attempt it, we need not assume that it will ever become a
common or significant feature of human life” (Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 298). Ian
Wilmut has expressed an idea within his book that the cloning of human life is much
worse than the cloning of animals. There is no real reason why humans cannot be cloned
except that everyone seems to say that it is just “wrong.” There are so many advantages
to why cloning will help our society into the future.
Some advantages to cloning a human include: producing a child for an infertile
couple, avoiding the risk of genetic disease, creating a source of organs or tissues for
transplantation, “replacing” a spouse or child who died, or getting a child with a genotype
of one’s own choosing (Flesh of My Flesh 19). It is expected that out of the first 100
attempts, only about five will have live births. The babies who will have survived are
said to die within days. One or two might appear normal, but could have inside effects
(“Much Confusion Over Cloning” 3). Despite the negative expectations, no one really
knows what will happen to the resulting child. This child would have not existed for the
purpose of cloning, but to benefit that child by bringing it into being (Flesh of My Flesh
49). Any life is better than a nonexistent one. Besides, “cloning provides a powerful
scientific model for studying the interactions of the genes and their surroundings -
interactions that account for so much of development and disease” (Wilmut, Campbell,
Tudge 11).
Cloning is not a difficult process and it will be attempted within the next twenty
to fifty years.
To clone a person, scientists would take a woman’s egg and extract its DNA.
They then would place genetic material from an adult cell into the egg, which
could divide and become an embryo for implantation in a woman’s womb or for
research.” (“House Votes To Ban All Human Cloning” 4)
In order for the clone to be created, the nucleus and the egg have to be in the same stages
of the cell cycle; and if they are not, then both cells will have to be starved into an
inactive phase at the time of transfer. There are no actual parents of the clone, only
grandparents, since the DNA being cloned is naturally from the parents of the original
generation of the person being cloned. A woman donates an egg in which the donor
nucleus was inserted, and may carry the baby clone inside her womb. A man’s sperm is
not needed in order to form the clone because a scientist uses tiny glass pipettes, a micro
manipulating machine, and a jolt of voltage or chemical bath which has the egg mistake it
for a sperm head (The Human Cloning Debate 32). When the egg and sperm unite they
create DNA and everything commences with all new organs except that the clone’s DNA
is old, not their age (32).
All societies believe the activity of human life being created should be restricted to
the man and woman who commit to each other and to raising children (278). The
Catholic Commission would allow engendering of new human life as long as it was
destroyed or permitted to die (281). Catholics also express that if a human were cloned it
would be deprived of the nurture of its own parents. Whereas, the advantages mentioned
earlier included a child for an infertile couple, which would demonstrate that the clone
would not be neglected by its own parents. If hundreds of couples have volunteered for
an experiment to create cloned children despite strong religious and scientific opposition,
then there must be an ample reason why (“Hundreds Want Clones, Scientists Say” 2).
“Procreative liberty is the freedom to decide whether or not to have offspring” (The
Human Cloning Debate 44). Couples have this freedom to choose whether they want to
have cloned children. These couples would not disobey the law or science unless they
really wanted to have a child through the process of cloning. Catholics may disapprove
of cloning, but how can they be against something they themselves have no comprehension
about. Catholics are not to engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse, but most couples
do any ways; just as Americans are not to clone, but are considering it within the next
year if approved.
Ian Wilmut declares: “Human cloning is physically too risky, it could have
untoward effects on the psychology of the cloned child, and in the end we see no medical
justification for it” (Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 5). Most scientists oppose human cloning
because of such risks, but some fertility doctors and a religious cult are planning to try
human cloning within the next year. Doctors are capable of human experimentation but
will probably avoid any step which appeared as though its real purpose were to clone.
“Society had not liked in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and had called it unethical or a warning
of monstrous defects before the first test-tube baby was born” (“Much Confusion Over
Cloning” 3). Now that IVF is worldly accepted there is no opposition against this process
of baby making. There will be many people who still will not understand cloning until it
is actually tested and proven correct. Dr. Richard Seed - a physicist - offered to set up
cloning clinics, jumping the gun by several decades since very few scientists have the
necessary expertise (Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 4). The future of human life depends on
science, without it the world could have died a long time ago. Many countries have
banned human cloning including Spain, France, and now the United States.
“Members of Congress called for a federal ban on human cloning on April 27,
2001, which stated that it would be a federal crime to clone a human, participate in
human cloning or import human clones to the US” (“Bill Would Ban Human Cloning” 1).
Violators could get ten years in prison and a minimum one million dollar fine. The
House of Representatives voted 265-162 in favor of the bill (“House Votes To Ban All
Human Cloning” 1). The White House has indicated that if Congress passes a cloning
bill, President Bush would sign it. The Bush Administration is opposed to the cloning
of human beings either for reproduction or for research. “The moral and ethical issues
posed by human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored in the quest for scientific
discovery, the statement said” (2). Even though the President has the final say on
whether to pass the bill or not, he does not have a full understanding of how carefully
experimentation will be in order to create the first human clone. There are so many
scientists willing to get involved with a human cloning project, that combined will form
the most elite team of scientist around the world. It would not matter if cloning was
banned or not because it’s such a simple technology, it will not be ban-able. Cloning
would just go underground and be practiced without legal oversight (The Human Cloning
Debate 112). Britain is in fact allowing human cells to be cloned for research purposes
since last year. Since the bill was passed in favor of banning human cloning, it would not
be surprising when experiments on cloning are conducted in an unidentified Mediterranean
country to escape opposition (“Hundreds Want Clones, Scientists Say” 3). When deformed
clones start appearing within society it will be the government’s own fault since they did
not allow research cloning opportunities to trusted scientists and doctors. By embracing
the future through procreating the human species will one day be immortal, and able to
live through anything as long as traces of DNA are left behind from when one human dies;
others will live on in their place like they never left.
Besides creating a child for an infertile couple, a spouse or child who died could
be replaced by their clone. Only the DNA can be replicated, the environment and experiences
that created someone’s unique personality and character cannot be duplicated. An exact copy
can be made of a deceased victim, but the brain can never be cloned. The development of the
brain and experiences cannot be replicated by cloning. The clone would not share the same
talents because the clone will have been brought up in a different environment than the original
copied person. The clone may look the same but it is the environment that shapes the final outcome.
“Cloned cells, with identical sets of genes, vary in shape or coloration. These variations are
small and usually ignored, but when cells are combined to form organisms, the differences are huge.
Individuality is born” (Pence 14).
Cloning has been created for many reasons, including: curiosity, vanity, wish for personal
power, and the desire for immortality (Wilmut, Campbell, Tudge 282). The whole world is curious to
find out whether a human can really be cloned or if the idea is just another illusion. Many people
are so vain that they believe the world needs another one of themselves in society in order for the
world to survive, while others just have a need for clones of themselves for total domination and
power. The desire for immortality has been haunting human lives ever since Adam and Eve had taken
the forbidden fruit. If they would have listened to God all human life could have lived forever,
but by disobeying God humans were ordered to die at one point in their lives. If everyone had been
made immortal then the world would be overcrowded, so in a way the forbidden fruit was a way out of
life. Everyone says at one point in their life that they wish they could live longer or maybe even
forever, now that scientists have a way to make this happen, society fears the future of science.
As the saying goes, “why want what you cannot have,” but what if we can have it (cloning), what are
we supposed to do then when it is possible? If humans are able to be cloned in the laboratory,
scientists are able to pave the way for later baby-making implantations, and life can continue on
forever.
Works Cited
“Bill Would Ban Human Cloning.” Associated Press 26 April 2001. 22 September 2001
Copyright © 2001 Elizabeth A Letourneau |