Should Reproductive Cloning of Humans Be Banned - Essay Example

Should Reproductive Cloning of Humans be banned? Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Until lately, discussions regarding the cloning of humans were performed within the realms of fantasy and science fiction. However, the successful cloning of the Dolly sheep in the year 1997 made it evident for the scientists to believe strongly that they can be able to clone human beings as well. It is therefore due to the possibility that both opposition and support among the human population has been elicited or incited (Newton, 2009). According to various magazines and newspapers, cloning has been described as an exciting process forward, which makes it possible for genetic engineers to minimize uncertainties associated with reproduction. The genetic engineers have also published commentaries by religious figures, scientist and other individuals who see human cloning as being an attack on the dignity of the human population (Rosner, 2007). The aim of this research paper is thus to ascertain whether human cloning which involves the transfer of cell nuclear to give forth offspring should be accepted. There has been tremendous development in science, which has presently made it possible to clone both the cells and whole organisms as well. The sheep Dolly, born on the 5th of July 1997, became the first mammal that was cloned successfully from an adult cell (Levine, 2009). From a technical viewpoint, it became apparent that it was possible to clone humans as well despite the moral and ethical issues (Newton, 2009). The National Bioethics Advisory Commission or the NABC was requested by President Bill Clinton after the scientific breakthrough to study the ethical and legal implications of the technology. The cloning process used by Scottish scientists to produce finally Dolly involved the transfer of the somatic cell nuclear. This process involves the extraction of DNA in an egg cell and the subsequent fusion of the enucleated egg with the differentiated cell from an organism that already exists like for instance a skin cell or a mammary gland. According to the Scottish scientists, it was discovered that the fusing of two cells led to a triggering of an electric shock that resulted in reprogramming causing the combined mammary cell to become divide and eventually develop into an early embryo (Newton, 2009). The technology of cloning was established as a way of enhancing production of animals, which were genetically engineered. It was realized that many profits could be generated from the production of genetically engineered animals which secreted proteins and chemicals that were valuable to the human population for instance like goats or milk, which yielded human blood clotting agents from their milk (Scarnecchia, 2010). The absence of cloning will therefore imply that scientists must manipulate each animal individual, which leads to low rates of success. With the discovery of cloning however, there are great possibilities that scientists are able to use only one animal for the cloning of a whole heard of animals (Greif and Merz, 2007). The aim of this process is not to copy each and everything regarding the animal but rather only the properties, which have been engineered into the animal. The need of some genetic engineers to gain control on the animals’ inner workings has fuelled the further enhancement of the cloning process. It is through this context that some individuals have attempted to justify the process of human cloning. The report compiled by NABC suggested that there be a continued ban of human cloning research that was federally funded by private firms and that the ban is reviewed after 3 to 5 years. According to an article “Why we should Ban Human Cloning” by George J. Annas, the author argues that human cloning underestimates the value of human life through depriving individuals of their right in forming lives which are independent and also the development of their unique talents (Newton, 2009). This, according to Professor Annax would imply questing the meaning of being human. However, according to an article titled “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” by John A. Robertson, it is contended that indeed, there is dire need of ensuring that the process of cloning is responsibly used but that the federal government should not establish regulatory policies which bans human cloning in totality. Through his arguments, Professor George A. Annas starts by recognized the shifts in debate about cloning which started soon after Ian’s announcement that he had successfully cloned the first mammal (a sheep Dolly) using the technology. Despite the fact that discussions regarding cloning had started well before during the 1970’s, such a debate did not carry weight or immediate effects until the sheep Dolly was born. It was well after 1997 that it became evident that the human cloning technique could actually be enhanced or developed further. Human cloning techniques, according to Professor Annas, should be banned because of the unforeseen effects or impacts associated with the process on the meaning of being human and on the overall makeup of the overall family (Newton, 2009). For instance, the professor (Annas) was fearful that cloning might eventually turn populous human life into a commodity that can easily be bought and that the uniqueness of human beings as individuals will then be brought into question. Annas beliefs that until the techniques used in human cloning are refined and the ethical, legal and moral issues are addressed, then human cloning should be banned in totality. John Robertson disagrees with the issue of banning human cloning and argues that indeed, there is no motive of thinking that the ability to clone human beings will result in many individuals resorting to the cloning process despite the fact that other reproduction methods would give them chance to have healthy siblings (Newton, 2009). Robertson presents various plausible circumstances through which human cloning will prove to be beneficial like for instance in helping couples who have failed to have children through other reproduction methods (Scarnecchia, 2010). Human cloning should be warranted to be used under specific conditions as believed by Robertson, since it is similar to other current assisted reproduction processes. For instance, Robertson strongly believes that there is no genuine reason as to why couples seeking to have healthy siblings sharing a strong biologic or genetic relationship should not be able to use cloning as an option when other reproductive processes are impossible. He therefore counters arguments put forth by Annas which argue that the cloning process will limit someone’s individuality through stating that by one being a twin, then one is not denied his or her freedom or individuality since the twins usually possess a special closeness or intimacy which cannot be exhibited by the non-twins. The transfer of the cloning process to the human population has created a host of unique ethical, social and technical issues, which have not been well addressed in the cloning of the animals (Scarnecchia, 2010). While the idea of cloning animals is meant to bring forth animals, which are identical, economically efficient and beneficial to the human population, the cloning of human beings is portrayed as being a procreative method meant to copy existing individuals (Fox and Swazey, 2008). The issue of cloning has been mistaken by many and sundry to imply that the process leads to the production of exact copies of either the dead or the living individuals, which is not true (Newton, 2009). The reality is that the cloning technique cannot exactly produce a copy of the cloned individual. Despite the fact that a person manufactured through the cloning process wont posses the exact genetic sequence as an individual whose nucleus was utilized, other crucial factors actually affect the development of such an individual (Schenker, 2011). Cloning is disadvantageous in that it cannot lead to the production of exact copies due to non-genetic factors like education, the home environment, culture and the economic situations. There has also been a false perception that has equated cloning with birth of twins, which are identical. Critics have argued that it would be a grave mistake if the process of cloning was developed and used to replicate the human population (Scarnecchia, 2010). It is questionable as to the benefits derived from the successful cloning of humans and whether such benefits will eventually justify the radical effect that cloning will have on the general society. Cloning, as a scientific process, should not just be a procedure that should easily be availed to any one wishing to use it, but rather since, it is a dangerous and unnecessary departure from the social practices and processes, which have developed from time immemorial (Johnson, 2011). Despite the fact that some commentators and scientists have been asking the human population to accept the process of human cloning because it is technically possible, there are some good reasons as to why the technology should be developed and other good reasons why the technology should not be developed (Newton, 2009). Most arguments against human cloning have been based on the safety concerns (Scarnecchia, 2010). After reading opinions and hearing testimonies regarding human cloning, the NBAC recommended a 3 to five year ban on human cloning in the US due to safety concerns, recommendations that were presented to President Clinton. Cloning should therefore be banned since it gives different obstacles in each species like for instance in the implantation of the embryo, its development and gestation which are different among the different species (Loomis, 2009). Without extensive or wide human experimentation on human cloning, this process should not become a reality and it should be banned. Despite the fact that the 276 failed experimentations on lambs may be acceptable losses, the ethical implications that may result from partially or totally failed human cloning experimentations should never be accepted (Burgunder, 2010). There are also inhibitions regarding human experimentation, which may seem to be impassable practical and ethical barriers to the cloning of humans but scientists must wait until they have obtained enough knowledge from the experimentation on animals before they finally proceed with the trials on humans. Individuals advocating for the use of cloning have attributed it to the fact that it should be endorsed as being a process which provides the much needed cure for infertility by giving such individuals a chance to have the genes they don’t want passed on (Newton, 2009). The flaws of such people lie in the fact that they do not understand the availability of other options, which are less questionable (Scarnecchia, 2010). Indeed, if cloning was a cure, then the problem of infertility would have been non-existent since elderly people, newborns, and women with complete hysterectomies and individuals born without testes or ovaries would have the ability of bearing offspring. The reality is that cloning does not in any way alleviate the social or environmental causes of infertility that are underlying. There have been boundaries regarding an individual’s right towards procreative autonomy which is very ill-defined and thus making people to become cautions regarding prohibiting the cloning process. According to the NBAC report, it was noted that prohibiting cloning would bring tension towards the fundamental rights of individuals to procreate (Scarnecchia, 2010). Through various Supreme Court cases and decisions, the right to privacy and decision making regarding procreation can be traced. Some cloning proponents eventually extended the right to imply that is obliged to support the start of all processes, which may aid citizens to reproduce. However, there has been an improper expansion of this right to imply that people should be free from government interference in their endeavour to engage in reproductive decision-making processes like human cloning (Newton, 2009). In conclusion, just like any other debates based on the introduction of other genetic technologies, the cloning debate represents the preposition that indeed, if science is capable of doing something, then it should be done. Scientists have been known for the introduction of new technologies and processes having inflated promises of being able to solve most of the global problems. However, researchers together with their investors promote such technological processes without necessarily proving the actual harms or benefits associated with them. Human cloning should be banned because it represents one of the numerous miracles that it will lead to curing of some diseases. Rather, this scientific process would only change how human beings relate to each other and the general world. The process of human cloning cannot go ahead without crossing various ethical boundaries. Human cloning should therefore be banned in totality since there are no foreseen or identifiable benefits from the process and thus the existing legal and social arguments against the process should not be dismissed. References Burgunder, L. 2010. Legal Aspects of Managing Technology. London: Cengage Learning Fox, R., and Swazey, J. 2008. Observing Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Greif, K., and Merz, J. 2007. Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences: Case Studies of Policy Challenges from New Technologies. New York: MIT Press Johnson, J. 2011. Human Cloning. London: Diane Publishing Levine, A. 2009. Cloning. Chicago: The Rosen Publishing Group Loomis, W. 2009. Life as It Is: Biology for the Public Sphere. California: University of California Press Newton, D. 2009. DNA Technology: A Reference Handbook. New York: ABC-CLIO Rosner, F. 2007. Contemporary Biomedical Ethical Issues and Jewish Law. London: KTAV Publishing House, Inc. Scarnecchia, D. 2010. Bioethics, Law, and Human Life Issues: A Catholic Perspective on Marriage, Family, Contraception, Abortion, Reproductive Technology, and Death and Dying. London: Scarecrow Press Schenker, J. 2011. Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. London: Walter de Gruyter Read More