Hargett 1

Nicholas Hargett

Shelby Stanard

English 1201

8 August 2021

The Scientific Process Torturing Animals and Threatening Humans

It is a day that you never thought would come, yet at last, the days of your beloved dog

Sugar have come to an end. Sugar was your family’s faithful companion for 10 years, and she

did everything with you, from frolicking around in the afternoon sun while playing fetch with

your frisbee, to innocently chasing the squirrel that runs across the backyard every morning. As

you reflect on the good times with your precious pet, you long to hear her delicate yet outspoken

bark that used to greet you at the door when you came home, and to run your fingers through her

soft fur coat. Sugar’s hair lies in scattered places throughout the house, which only serves to

deepen your sorrow. As far as you know, Sugar left a twinge in your heart that can never quite be

healed. Luckily for you, as you slowly get used to life without her, you stumble across a

Facebook advertisement that promises to give Sugar back to you. For a small price of $2,000,

you can have your treasured pet cloned and have a “man’s best friend” forever. You eagerly pay

the $2,000 fee to have your dog cloned but are unaware of the dangers behind animal cloning.

You can have Sugar’s bark, color, and fur back, but you will never have Sugar’s personality that

you loved above all, and you will face the difficult reality of caring for an animal with

devastating defects and genetic disorders. Animal cloning seems like a blessing to those going

through a harsh loss of a pet, or even a family member, but unfortunately, cloning is a process

that is still being refined and studied. In addition to animal cloning, human cloning is becoming a
 Hargett 2

real possibility in the future, which makes many scientists even more skeptical about the cloning

process. Animal cloning introduces unnecessary suffering to animals who are being used for

expensive experiments and economic gain that devalues animal life. Furthermore, human cloning

presents similar risks to animal cloning, which robs any potential offspring of a happy and

healthy life.

Animal cloning is a modern method that produces new offspring artificially. The method

most used, somatic cell nuclear transfer (Figure 1), involves removing the nucleus of an egg cell,

or enucleating, and transferring another animal’s DNA into the enucleated egg cell. Afterwards,

the new cell, known as the reconstructed egg, is “activated”, which means adding chemicals to

the egg, or running it through an electric current to facilitate division. After the new cell has

developed significantly, the egg cell is inserted into a surrogate, where it is developed naturally.

If the offspring is developed correctly and successfully, it should be an almost exact “clone” of

the animal who supplied the donor DNA (Scientific Aspects of Human and Animal Cloning).

This process has been studied well and perfected by many scientists. One such scientist, Ian

Wilmut, was able to produce a cloned sheep in 1996 who he named Dolly. Since the birth of the

first cloned animal, cloning has been further refined and studied, which has resulted in the

suffering of thousands of animals in a process that is even less efficient than natural childbirth.
 Hargett 3

Figure 1. This illustration by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH)

depicts one process of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is the process that

produced Dolly the Sheep and the process that is most studied today (Cloning Fact Sheet).

Cloning is a resource-wasting and inefficient process that results in the suffering of

animals who are used as test subjects. The cloning of Dolly, although not the beginning of

cloning experiments, helped usher in an age of science that normalized the abuse of animals. In

order to produce Dolly in 1996, it “took 277 reconstructed embryos and twenty-nine embryo

implantations to produce Dolly” (Carey). To put this in perspective, to produce only one

organism, Dolly in this case, 277 egg cells had to be enucleated and implanted with another

animal’s DNA, and 29 sheep had to undergo a procedure to implant the embryo. 277 sheep could
 Hargett 4

have been produced in lieu of one cloned sheep. In addition to the 277 enucleated cells, 29 sheep

were used as surrogates, and 28 sheep had miscarriages. To counter this fatal flaw in this method

of cloning, new methods have been developed that aim to make cloning more efficient and

humane.

Despite efforts to limit the suffering of animal subjects and make cloning more efficient

by making changes to the method of cloning, animals have still suffered as a result of these

attempts. It is noted that “all such research has involved the instrumentalization and suffering of

innumerable nonhuman animal test subjects.” (Carey). This demonstrates the fact that even if

new cloning techniques were used, attempts at furthering cloning research have resulted with

animals suffering because of it. Even if in the future cloning becomes commonplace and safe,

hundreds of thousands of animals would have suffered for the gain of very few.

Cloning research exploits animal life and dehumanizes the definition of life, as animals

are treated as objects and not living beings. While undertaking research to further animal cloning

technology, animals are “characteristically classified as abstract, inanimate sources of

information and material, rather than as ‘‘subjects of a life,’” (Carey). In the process of refining

animal cloning technology, the meaning of what it means to be living becomes distorted and the

abuse of animals goes unnoticed. This attitude towards research involving animal cloning has

resulted in the abuse of many animals. Normalized abuse of animals through the research of

animal cloning is becoming more common as institutions aim to further this technology.

As animal cloning is researched further, many governments and agencies, like the

European Union, find themselves in hot water trying to protect animals from abuse and cruel

experiments. Cloning has the potential to become an important tool in agriculture, making the

debate surrounding animal cloning even fiercer. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
 Hargett 5

responded to farm animal cloning in a series of three statements, first in 2009, then in 2010 and

2012. Following research conducted by the EFSA, the EFSA released a statement and confirmed

that they “saw animal welfare problems related to the health of surrogate mothers (carrying the

clones) and the clones themselves” (Vaqué). The EFSA discovered that the outcome of the

surrogate mother and the clone offspring are grim and leads to increased amount of suffering.

This prompted European lawmakers to argue against animal cloning and produce more

legislation to regulate animal cloning experiments.

Animal cloning will not benefit agriculture due to increased mortality and disorders in

farm animals. As a result of this, animal cloning is not a viable option that can benefit the

economy. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) conducted an

independent study which “expressed doubts that animal cloning for farming purposes can be

justified “considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and

animal clones”’ and the EGE did “not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food

from clones and their offspring” (Vaqué). The studies conducted by the EGE prove that animal

cloning cannot be exploited for profit. These findings also confirm that animal cloning results in

the suffering of both the surrogate mother and the clone offspring, and that there is no

agricultural or economic benefit to excuse the use of cloning on farm animals.

Since the first cloned animal, Dolly the sheep, was born in 1996, conversations

surrounding human cloning have become more common, which concerns many scientists,

including Dolly’s creator, Dr. Ian Wilmut. The prospects of human cloning concerns Wilmut and

his colleague, Dr. Jaenisch, as their “immediate concern is that this proposal fails to take into

account problems encountered in animal cloning.” (Wilmut and Jaenisch). Wilmut and Jaenisch

are concerned that scientists will disregard the problems that still lie in animal cloning and
 Hargett 6

attempt to clone a human. They fear that if this happens, human beings will also suffer. The two

scientists also want to highlight the problems behind animal cloning, including how “Cloning

results in gestational or neonatal developmental failures” and why there “is no reason to believe

that the outcomes of attempted human cloning will be any different” (Wilmut and Jaenisch).

Here, they assert that human cloning will result in the suffering of the human surrogate and clone

if attempted. Scientists do not recognize the dangers behind animal cloning, and because of this,

human cloning is a threat to human life.

Not only does human cloning have the potential to directly threaten human life, the idea

of human cloning and public outcry threatens other important scientific research. Wilmut, after

being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, backed research aimed at curing the disease. Wilmut

fears that “Public reaction to human cloning failures could hinder research in embryonic stem

cells for the repair of organs and tissues.” (Wilmut and Jaenisch). The research he is talking

about involves the cloning of cells to restore useless tissue that contributes to diseases like

Parkinson’s. This process is called therapeutic cloning. If a human cloning experiment were to

go wrong, Wilmut fears that research will be halted due to public outcry. Furthermore, Wilmut

goes on to say that the “potential benefit of this therapeutic cell cloning will be enormous, and

this research should not be associated with the human cloning activists.” (Wilmut and Jaenisch).

Therapeutic cloning is different from animal cloning, as this type of cloning aims at cloning

cells, and involves minimal risk in comparison to human and animal cloning. The prospect of

human cloning is not only a risk to the surrogate and clone, but also a risk to humans who can

benefit from other types of cloning, like therapeutic cloning.

Since its creation, animal cloning has had a low viability success rate, and offspring that

do survive have a shorter lifespan and decreased quality of life. It has been widely reported that
 Hargett 7

“only a few present [sic] of reconstructed embryos develop to term and of those that do many die

shortly after birth” (Ibtisham et al). More times than not, cloned animals do not develop properly,

and even if developed successfully, they oftentimes have increased mortality rates. Cloning is

still not refined enough to be utilized and offspring have a decreased quality of life. Moreover,

the cloned embryo also presents a risk to the surrogate mother. During pregnancy, it was found

that cloned embryos are “30 present [sic] bigger than normal embryos, as a result, surrogate

mothers carrying the pregnancies suffer from pain and it is against animal welfare” (Ibtisham et

al). Not only does cloning present danger to the offspring, but it also presents danger to the

surrogate mothers, who are at an increased risk of developing placental abnormalities (Ibtisham

et al). Cloning is a big risk to the cloned offspring and the surrogate, additionally cloned

offspring oftentimes don’t make it to term, and when they do, they face increased risk of death.

Over the years, cloning has become more refined, and many scientists aim to use this new

technology to help endangered species. However, they fail to consider the risk that cloning has

on not only the few remaining organisms in the species, but also the future of the species if

successful. Robert P. Lanza and other scientists understand that cloning “endangered species is

controversial, but we assert that it has an important place in plans to manage species that are in

danger of extinction.” (Lanza, Robert P. et al). As stated earlier, cloning is a dangerous and risky

process for both the surrogate and the clone. If a clone were to be made of an endangered

species, the surrogate and the clone would be put at an increased risk of death, which would

certainly not help the already endangered species. Additionally, should the cloning be successful,

the clone offspring might have certain genetic defects, and due to the sparse population,

unfavorable genes will be introduced into the small gene pool, thus affecting the species in the
 Hargett 8

future (Ibtisham et al). Cloning endangered species is not a viable or effective way to rescue an

endangered population.

Animal cloning is unique in that it enables scientists, and in this case farmers, to copy and

paste an organism and any favorable trait it possesses. Although the selectiveness of cloning is

more precise than natural methods, cloning is far less efficient and even more risky than

traditional selective breeding. Ibtisham writes that animals “showing the desired traits in growth,

production and disease resistance, can be duplicated with the help of animal cloning.” (Ibtisham

et al). Cloning accomplishes this mission of duplicating favorable traits, but only on few

occasions. There have yet to be any breakthroughs that increase the efficiency of animal cloning,

and cloning has “produced animals that are on average more sickly than their non-clone

counterparts” (Carey). Cloned animals are oftentimes less viable than animals who were birthed

naturally. Natural reproduction methods and traditional selective breeding are far more humane

and efficient than animal cloning. Selective breeding is also effective and more efficient than

cloning.

Animal cloning is a technological advancement that needs to be closely monitored and

confined. Cloning is a resource-wasting and inefficient process that benefits no one, and efforts

at fixing this broken system have proved futile and have only resulted in even more animal

suffering. The industrialization of animal cloning only heightens the injustices in animal cloning,

even when there are no economic or agricultural benefits. The prospects of human cloning are

even grimmer, as animal cloning has not yet been refined or humanized, the production of a

human clone will result in unneeded cruelty. Scientists aiming to clone a human will only detract

from the work of scientists utilizing cloning for medical purposes, like therapeutic cloning.

Endangered species are put at even more risk through hopeful scientists that wish to rescue
 Hargett 9

organisms in the species by using cloning. By cloning an endangered animal, the surrogate and

the cloned animal are put in danger, as well as the future of the species. Furthermore, cloning

cannot compete with the efficiency and humanity of natural breeding methods. Although animal

cloning gives hope to grieving pet owners and family members, this flawed science only makes

the recovery more difficult, as it abuses animals and puts humans in danger in the process.
 Hargett 10

Works Cited

Carey, Jessica. “Taking Responsibility for Cloning: Discourses of Care and Knowledge in

Biotechnological Approaches to Nonhuman Life.” Journal of Agricultural &

Environmental Ethics, vol. 28, no. 3, June 2015, pp. 589–599. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1007/s10806-015- 9544-0.

“Cloning Fact Sheet.” Genome.gov, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-

Fact-Sheet.

Ibtisham, F., et al. “Animal Cloning Applications and Issues.” Russian Journal of Genetics, vol.

53, no. 9, Sept. 2017, pp. 965–971. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1134/S102279541709006X.

Jaenisch, Rudolf, and Ian Wilmut. "Don't Clone Humans!" Science, vol. 291, no. 5513, 2001, p.

2552. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A73355891/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=416d0b98. Accessed 11 July 2021.

Lanza, Robert P., et al. "Cloning Benefits Animals." Do Animals Have Rights?, edited by

Jamuna Carroll, Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010309211/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark- OVIC&xid=783937d8. Accessed 18 July 2021.

Originally published as "Cloning Noah's Ark," Scientific American Magazine, 19 Nov. 2000.

Scientific Aspects of Human and Animal Cloning [Electronic Resource] / President’s Council on

Bioethics. Washington, D.C. : The Council, 2002, 2002. EBSCOhost,

 Hargett 11

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=edsgpr&AN=edsgpr.000546437&site=eds-

live.

Vaqué, Luis González. “The Cloning of Animals for Farming Purposes in the EU: From Ethics

to Agri- Food Law.” European Food & Feed Law Review, vol. 9, no. 4, Aug. 2014, pp.

223– 232. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=fsr&AN=99247697&site=eds-

live.