Chan 1

Samantha Chan

Ms. Haedtler

AP Language and Composition

19 April 2011

Should Cloning be Allowed in Society?

On March 7, 1997, the news announced that a team of scientists in Edinburgh, Scotland

had successfully cloned a sheep they named Dolly, astounding the world. The question no

longer seems to be if we will clone humans, but when? Somewhere, sometime, a human clone

will be born. This fact has enthralled the world into a global debate. Will vast armies of cloned

soldiers be raised to fight wars for us? Or perhaps we will create a race of slaves to do our

bidding? Cloning is becoming a more plausible and tangible idea rather than a bizarre dream

that would certainly never come true. However, due to the deleterious risks and the unethical

and dehumanizing issues of cloning, we must do everything in our power to halt cloning from

becoming a reality because cloning should not be allowed in society.

There are three types of cloning: therapeutic cloning, recombinant DNA technology, and

reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning refers to stem cells taken from a human embryo to

replicate human organs and tissue that may one day be used for treatment, for diseases, or for

transplants. In therapeutic cloning, stem cells from a donor are extracted and induced to

differentiate into somatic cells – differentiated cells not involved in reproduction, such as skin

and muscle – of a specific lineage, which then develop into tissues and, at least theoretically, can

be used to create entire organs. The controversy over therapeutic cloning is whether stem cell

research is moral or ethical. Another type of cloning is recombinant DNA, which involves
 Chan 2

forming an artificial strand of DNA by uniting two or more sequences to produce a gene that

gives a desirable trait. The DNA can be taken from members of the same species or different

species. It is usually used to genetically modify fruits, vegetables, cotton, and other plants that

may or may not be safe for humans or the environment. Lastly, reproductive cloning is the

creation of new life – in the form of a human or animal – by replicating DNA through a process

similar to therapeutic cloning, called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cell nuclear transfer

is the removal of the genetic material from the cell nucleus of an unfertilized female egg, and the

egg is then filled with genetic material taken from nucleus of the subject that is intended to be

cloned. The embryo is then implanted into a female and carried to term, just like a normal

pregnancy, except the new embryo is genetically identical to the nucleus donor. All of these

types of cloning each consist of separate issues and problems that must be revealed to the public.

Although therapeutic cloning has the potential to save humans through cloned organs and

provides great research for cures to diseases, the efforts to attain stem cells are inconvenient,

unsafe, and expensive. In fact, therapeutic cloning requires around 10 billion ovum from over

half a million willing women to donate their eggs since it takes over 100 unfertilized eggs to

produce a viable stem cell line. Who would be willing to donate so many eggs? Besides, the

egg harvesting procedure itself is not the “safest” or most “dependable”, and women have

testified to be in pain during procedures (Rodriguez). Women are given drugs first to halt their

ovary production, then kick start it to overdrive so scientists can receive ten eggs each, which can

affect their menstrual cycles. Removing the eggs also requires a serious medical procedure that

can leave scars. Evidence also suggests that the procedure increases the risk of ovarian cancer
 Chan 3

and infertility on donors. In addition to the egg harvesting procedure, after covering medical

costs and payment to the donors, costs to treat just one patient could soar above $100,000

(Herper). Furthermore, therapeutic cloning is an unacceptable giant step toward reproductive

cloning since this procedure to make cloned embryos for replacement tissues is essentially the

same as to make cloned babies. With the rate of which biotech is advancing, therapeutic cloning

must be halted as soon as possible before the inevitable creation of reproductive cloning.

To add to the numerous factors that surround therapeutic cloning, some people, like

Senator Sam Brownback, a lead sponsor of the anti-cloning bill, feel that embryos are considered

people. Stem-cell research is considered to be extremely immoral, since human embryos –

human life – will be solely created just for experimentation and destruction for cloning (Dudley

46). It amounts to the murder a person for the sake of treating other people’s diseases. As

Rodriguez states in eloquent words:

However, the successful procedure [of attaining embryos] has one resulting

consequence: the destruction of what many claim to be the moral equivalent of a

human individual. Let it be clear that the deliberate destruction of inchoate life

should never be taken lightly. Human life, whether it be in the form of our elderly,

a child, or even a precarious bundle of cells, must always be regarded with the

utmost dignity and respect. Murder, which is a biproduct of what therapeutic

cloning promotes, can never be justified; even when its purposed goal is the

greater good. Therapeutic cloning is one of the vilest, morally revolting,

prospects ever conceived of. (Rodriguez)

Therapeutic cloning is clearly unappealing and is considered by some a murderous operation.

 Chan 4

Moreover, therapeutic cloning would eventually extend the life for “approximately 100

million Americans, [and] this basically amounts to a surplus in the already over saturated

populous” (Rodriguez). According to World News Tonight, the baby boomer generation has

already caused an increase in the average family household. With therapeutic cloning providing

organs and cures for diseases, a surplus population would drastically cause dramatic economic

and demographic changes, as shown by all the health care reform and social security reform

required for the baby boomer generation. There would not be enough space and resources in the

world to support such a surplus population if therapeutic cloning was to ever be allowed.

Besides, even though therapeutic cloning will help individuals through manufactured

organs, the organs will be too expensive for the general public to afford. Astra Bryant, a

Neuroscience PhD Candidate employed at the Stanford Hospital, confirms that “cloned organs

would most likely be prohibitively expensive. The theory behind cloned organs was the

individualized production of an organ that would provide a perfect match with the patient. Such

individualized treatment would be highly expensive”. Furthermore, therapeutic cloning is also a

waste of time and money. Lots of time and money will be required to create various government

panels, institutes, and boards that will be responsible for awarding grants and spending money to

build research facilities and education programs intended to train future stem cell researchers.

Currently, almost all stem cell research funding initiatives being considered on the state level

entail bond issues that will ultimately cost tax payers at least twice their investment in embryonic

stem cell research related expenditures (Fry-Revere). Ultimately, therapeutic cloning is

inconvenient and impractical for the best interests of society.

 Chan 5

Recombinant DNA technology can be used for unsafe purposes and detrimentally affect

the environment. Many public opinion polls show that many Americans are unsure of the safety

of genetically modified crops from recombinant DNA, which may or may not still be in the

experimental phase (Freelance Commentaries). These plants are also subject to unintended

consequences such as loss of biodiversity, inclusion of inadvertent DNA, and contamination of

wild crops. These are not absolutes, but do indicate a need for caution in deployment of

Recombinant DNA technology.

Furthermore, GM produced seeds from recombinant DNA result in differences in finished

products that are not always recognized by human sense but can potentially harm humans and

other creatures. They may even cause alterations and irregularities in behavior in certain insects,

birds, and bees (Freelance Commentaries). Bees, in particular, are sensitive to genetically

modified plants and according to many farmers, the number of bees has been dropping rapidly.

The termination of bees not only causes concern to farmers and honey producers but also to

naturalists and gardeners who love plants and the gifts nature provides. By banning recombinant

DNA technology, not only insects and creatures will be saved, but so will the entire food chain

that depends on them for survival.

Moreover, recombinant DNA technology not only can harm humans and bees but can

cause serious new diseases immune to medical antibiotic treatment. In a scientific experiment, it

was recorded that “genetically engineered genes from soy were transferred to bacteria in the

gastro intestinal tract in spite of previous thought from the biotech industry that this would not be

possible” (Freelance Commentaries). This confirms that unexpected fatal diseases can occur
 Chan 6

from recombinant DNA technology, proving recombinant DNA technology is detrimental to

society. Doctor Bailey, who has a doctorate in bioengineering, also reports that Recombinant

DNA could be used to create an antibiotic resistant strain of a virulent pathogen, and if released

into the environment, it could cause a massive epidemic. He says that while Recombinant DNA

can be used for gene therapy, whether for plants or people, the new genes inserted into the germ

line (genetic material transferred through the gametes, before being modified by somatic

recombination or mutation) could potentially be passed on to the next generation (Bailey). For

instance, if there is a defect in the gene, then the fate of the entire species might be in jeopardy if

that gene is allowed to propagate. For the safety of the ecosystem and the environment,

recombinant DNA should be halted and prevented from creating perilous plants and incurable

disease that are harmful to the world.

Religion is among the most powerful factors shaping attitudes toward human

reproductive cloning. The main conflicts of cloning arise particularly from religious values of

Christians, Hindus, and Muslims. However, their views differ significantly, for they all look at

human cloning in different lights. The orthodox Christian views look upon humans as “playing

God” by creating life through science and technology instead of through natural reproduction.

An embryo is commonly viewed as human life, and life is a gift from God. The main religious

values of conflict summarize to: humans should not probe the fundamental secrets of life, which

belong to God; humans lack the authority to clone; humans do not have the knowledge attributed

to divine omniscience; and humans do not have the power to control the outcomes of actions that

is a mark of divine omnipotence (Dudley 57). Pope John II has already declared cloning as a
 Chan 7

violation of human dignity and human value. Another religious concern is whether the clone

would have a soul. Hindus believe that when a man and woman have intercourse, a pre-existing

soul is reincarnated into a new embryo. Hindu theologians are at odds on whether or how a

person created from no intercourse would have a soul. Additionally, both Muslims and African

Americans feel that society is not ready for cloning technology. Therefore, from a religious

viewpoint, it is unethical and unnatural to clone.

Reproductive cloning is deleterious and leads to many health problems, especially

mutations. The process of cloning is very inefficient, with “only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for

every 100 experiments” (U.S Department of Energy Genome Programs), so it is extremely

hazardous to attempt to clone humans. Dolly, the cloning prodigy herself, took over 277

attempts and died of severe lung disease in February 2003. Some people may say that by

cloning animals, the clones can be used as testing materials in experiments instead of real

animals. However, many experiments have shown that the process to actually clone animals has

led to death and severe abnormalities of the clones. This ultimately results to creating cloned

embryos, implanting them and then destroying those that look defective as they develop in the

womb.

Moreover, many experiments further emphasize the dangers and malfunctions of

reproductive cloning. Researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in

Cambridge, Massachusetts analyzed “more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice…

[and] about 4% of genes function normally” (U.S Department of Energy Genome Programs) in

2002. In this case, the abnormalities came from changes in normal activation of expression of
 Chan 8

certain genes. However, abnormalities and deaths are also caused by mutations. An experiment

conducted by Texas A&M University on cloned pigs had only 28 successful pigs from over 500

attempts, and one was even born without a tail or anus (Driscoll). In addition to these low

success rates, cloned animals have higher rates of infection, disorders, and tumor growth along

with a more compromised immune function. Now, to try this on humans, will evidently lead to

disastrous results. Human cloning would most likely lead to miscarriage, abortions, or births of

massively deformed offspring (McGee). It is not ethical to induce a disease into a healthy

human for the purpose of medical research; therefore it would not be ethical to create a human

clone that could very well experience clone-related complications that might exist as an

experiment.

According to Dr. Dave Yount, who presented arguments against reproductive and

therapeutic cloning at Mesa Community college, another risk of human cloning is that “a cell

many years old from which a person is cloned could have accumulated genetic mutations during

its years in another adult that could give the resulting clone a predisposition to cancer or to other

diseases of aging” (Yount 4). Dr. Bailey agrees that clones will have a short lifespan due to the

shortening of telomeres, repeating units of DNA at the end of eukaryotic chromosomes which

gets shorter each generation as the cell divides. Given all these health mutations and a short

lifespan, cloning humans is simply not worth the risk.

All of the moral and ethical issues of cloning surmount to one statement: cloning is

highly unethical. Adding to the fact that many experiments show only 10% of cloning attempts

are successful (Driscoll), cloning creates emotional and moral issues of being a clone. Cloning

strips away a person’s individuality and creates great emotional pressure of living to people’s
 Chan 9

expectations of the original person. A clone in replace of a dead loved one will be brought up in

an abnormal household; filled with diverted grief into making a clone rather than accepting and

coping with the loss. This certainly places great emotional pressure on the development of the

child, and no psychiatrist in the world can say cloning a child will not pose huge emotional risks

on the child because of these expectations. Who would want to torment the emotional stability

of a child?

It is also unclear if a clone would want to be parented by its progenitor, or technically, its

twin. Cloning blurs relationships and radically ruptures family bonds, such as filiation,

consanguinity, kinship, and parenthood. A cloning could be the twin sister of its mother, which

makes it also be the daughter of its grandmother and lacks a biological father (Dudley 46). As a

clone grows up, knowing her mother is her twin, she would not be able to experience a normal

family with normal family relationships. Her mother would be consistently seeing herself every

time she sees her “daughter” and may even force her own values on the clone, preventing the

clone from establishing her own identity and path in life. The clone’s “father” would see the

growing replica of the woman he fell in love with ten years ago, which would of course strain the

family as a whole and the parental bonds.

As well as being unethical, cloning is also extremely dehumanizing. Cloning humans

allows for humans to control the genes of the clone. People would no longer be genetically

unique if clones were allowed in society. Patrick D. Hopkins, a teacher of bioethics, science, and

technology studies at the University of Chicago, strongly believes that the main source for the

fear of cloning is:

 Chan 10

The sheer, age-old human desire to think of oneself as metaphysically

special, possessing a unique mysterious spark of something that cannot be

reduced, measured, or worst of all copied. If science can figure out to copy a

human, to create a human, then it really has stepped over a line of

privileging self-perception. (Dudley 26)

Scientists will be able to genetically manipulate a human embryo before it begins development,

which enables them to choose a certain eye or hair color, a circumstance that is extremely

inappropriate and against Mother Nature. This process completely takes away the humanity of

human reproduction from the circumstance of a loving union between man and woman by

producing children with no “parents” in the practical sense. The clone merely becomes a

manufactured product, made by human will and design. Through cloning, human life would not

be from an act of love, but an artificial design to predetermined conditions (28). Human

individuality and identity is a jewel that should be treasured, not made as a product from

technology.

In addition to the numerous varieties of the negative aspects of cloning, cloning conflicts

and interrupts natural evolution, adaptation and genetic individuality. Cloning lessens the

diversity in our genes, and weakens our ability to adapt. In other words, if some day we all have

the same genetic makeup and lose the technology of cloning, we would have to resort back to

natural reproduction – the same effect as inbreeding. Additionally, there is no benefit to creating

an entire population of genetically identical members. As Doctor Bailey notes:

 Chan 11

Our genetic diversity is what drives evolution and the continuity of our species.

By creating a population of genetically identical organisms, their susceptibility to

any particular negative stimulus (e.g. a disease) could wipe out the entire

population, while a genetically diverse population where some members are

resistant to the negative stimulus would have a better chance of survival.

Humans need the genetic diversity that nature provides in order to provide the crucial multiple

variations for a robust human population. Furthermore, cloning can also cause people to

manipulate the genetic diversity of animals, and clone only the best existing animals, restricting

improvement of species. This way, cloning potentially interferes with natural evolution and the

theory of “survival of the fittest”. It is possible that cloning can genetically create a “perfect

human” or someone with inhumane strength and extreme intelligence, making regular humans a

genetic underclass. It is also far easier and cheaper to produce naturally than create human lives

through cloning. Why have a child from a laboratory when you can have a child of your own

within the context of marriage and a family? The act of cloning is simply wrong in a sense that

natural life, adaptation, and individuality must thrive without interference from mankind.

The cloning debate has sparked a serious controversy between science and ethics.

However, regardless of our viewpoint on cloning, this issue compels us to reflect on our values

and make decisions that may alter the natural evolution of the human species. The prospect of

cloning is diabolical in the sense of its precarious, immoral, and unethical effects to society. We

must not forgo the use of our endowment of the cardinal merits of reason and intellect, and we

must fight to preserve the sanctity of what it truly means to be human. We must stick to our own
 Chan 12

business and leave nature alone. Most importantly, we must not allow the opportunity for

cloning to change the humanity of mankind.

 Chan 13

Works Cited

“Argument against GM (Genetically Modified) Foods.” Freelance Commentaries, 2008. Web.

15 Jan. 2011.

“Arguments against Cloning.” Allaboutpopularissues.org, 2002-2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2011

Bailey, Mark. Personal Interview. 12 November. 2010.

“Cloning Fact Sheet.” U.S Department of Energy Genome Programs, 11 May. 2009. Web. 10

Jan. 2011.

Driscoll, Sally. “Counterpoint: Human Cloning Treats Human Life as a Commodity.” Great

Neck Publishing, 2009. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.

Dudley, William. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Greenhaven Press, 2001. Print.

Fry-Revere, Sigrid. “Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology News, 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2011.

Herper, Matthew. “Cloning’s High Cost.” Forbes, 2006. Web. 23 Jan. 2011.

“Human Cloning.” Neohumanism.org, 2004. Web. 16 Jan. 2011.

Logston, Amy. “The Ethics of Human Cloning.” Saint Vincent College, 1999. Web. 22 Jan.

2011.

McGee, Glen. “Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning.” American Institute of Biological

Sciences, 2001. Web. 16 Jan. 2011.

Rodriguez, Richard. “The case against Therapeutic Cloning.” Helium, 2002-2011. Web. 15 Jan.

2011.
 Chan 14

Sandel, Michael. “The Anti-Cloning Conundrum.” New York Times, 2002. Web. 24 Jan. 2011.

Yount, Dr. David. “Arguments against Reproductive cloning and ‘Therapeutic’ Cloning.” Debate

sponsored by The Center for Global Tolerance and Engagement, and the MCC Biology and

Philosophy Club. Mesa Community College. Web. 14 Jan. 2011.