Human Cloning and Human Dignity - Essay Example

Incredibly I found this back in my inbox. I’m only sending this so as to put it back in the completed order section. No way am I “revising” this. Student name Instructor name Course name Date Cloning Introduction Cloning can be defined as the creating of an embryo by the somatic cell nuclear transfer method. This process entails implanting an organism’s DNA cells into an egg. This egg has had its DNA nucleus removed then treated with a chemical substance which induces the egg to perform as if fertilization has taken place. This procedure results in creating the embryonic growth of a new organism which contains the original organism’s entire genetic code. Hundreds of cloned mammals have resulted by means of this process. “The term clone is used in many different contexts in biological research but in its most simple and strict sense, it refers to a precise genetic copy of a molecule, cell, plant, animal, or human being. In some of these contexts, cloning refers to established technologies that have been part of agricultural practice for a very long time and currently form an important part of the foundations of modern biological research” (Nussbaum & Sunstein, 1998, p. 1). Although this method has created many live successes, it has proved significantly less likely to generate successful instances of pregnancy than those conceived naturally via sexual intercourse. Additionally, the majority of cloned mammals have had some form of birth defect. Mammals do not replicate their own DNA through the natural process. This occurs only by cloning which presents both scientific and ethical implications. “The prospect of such replication for humans has resulted in the most controversial debate about reproduction ever to be taken up in western civilization” (McGee, 2001). Plants create offspring through replication by the natural method. When mammals replicate DNA by artificial means the practice is complex both technically and socially speaking. Those who are in opposition to cloning humans contend that this unnatural form of reproduction has a tremendous potential for basing dubious procreation decisions with regard to the genetic engineering of children. Their worry is that the traditional family is in jeopardy of evolving in a bizarre, unfamiliar and socially undesirable direction. Supporters of cloning procedures say that it may possibly, among other attributes, serve society as a valuable alternative infertility treatment. The cloning of animals has provoked the debate regarding the social, legal and ethical aspects concerning human cloning. Because of failure rate as compared to the customary conception method in animal testing, scholars, scientists and politicians usually agree that human experiments would probably result in a too many clinical failures to be acceptable. At this relatively early stage of development cloning is still largely considered experimental and attempts to replicate human DNA would lead to an objectionable number of abortions, miscarriages, and births of extremely deformed offspring. “Recent study of mammalian cloning suggests that a number of defects often created in the reprogramming of the egg do not manifest themselves until later in the life of the resulting clone, so that mature clones have often undergone spectacular, unforeseen deaths” (McGee, 2001). The idea of human cloning is a contentious, derisive subject that is difficult to fully appreciate because the present and future psychological and physical needs of someone produced by this technique are not known. The majority of people believe that cloning experiments involving humans would breach a moral barrier, taking humans into an area of self-engineering. “Regulations that would deny the birth of human or mammalian clones are challenging at best as they must effectively navigate complex jurisprudential ground protecting an as-yet nonexistent life against reproductive dangers, in a western world that, in statutory and case law at least, favors reproductive autonomy” (McGee, 2001). The Dolly Dilemma Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut, along with colleagues at the Roslin Institute, announced on February 23, 1997 the cloning of a sheep by a new process. The technique involved transplanting the genetic matter of an adult sheep into an egg that had its nucleus removed. The ensuing birth of the sheep, Dolly, was one more landmark in mankind’s capability to manipulate nature. The birth of Dolly signaled “the fact that humans might someday be cloned, created from a single somatic cell without sexual reproduction, moved further away from science fiction and closer to a genuine scientific possibility” (Wilmut, 1997). The sheep experimentation was different from previous undertakings in that it created an animal that was a genetically identical to just one adult sheep and not the identical offspring from two adults. Dolly was the initial successful clone of a mammal because the sheep was the product of the genetic material of a single parent. For more than four decades since, the method of transmitting a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg utilizing nuclei derived from fetal and non-human embryonic cells has continued. Evidence suggests that genetic material housed in differentiated somatic cells might have the potential to produce the development of healthy and fertile animals. Biologists had previously wondered whether, once cellular differentiation occurs, this process would be reversible. Until Dolly was born, the ability to do so was unproved. “The demonstration that nuclei from cells derived from an adult animal could be reprogrammed, or that the full genetic complement of such a cell could be reactivated well into the chronological life of the cell, is what sets the results of this experiment apart from prior work” (Di Bernadino, 1997). For more than a decade, scientists have frequently cloned sheep and cows from embryonic cells but Dolly was the first mammal that matured to a completely developed state by the use of the nucleus of a somatic cell from a single animal. The event was of historic scientific significance with weighty moral implications because it brought society closer to the realities concerning the responsibilities involved in this new-found ability to produce human clones. The concerns involving the cloning of humans have been a disquieting subject of scientific, legal, ethical and philosophical debate throughout all sectors of society. Some observers have proposed that the upheaval provoked by the contemporary opportunities cloning offered resulting from Dolly is far out of proportion to several of the possibilities it has spawned. Similar concerns were voiced during earlier cloning experiments and were merely appearing again in a more prominent manner. Regardless of any baseless fearful arguments opposed, it is vital to be aware of the possibilities raised by this exceptional and far-reaching scientific step. Dolly has been very important to the discussions involving human cloning and the implications, both positive and negative to society. This innovative technique of cloning includes three original developments: “the replacement of sexual procreation with asexual replication of an existing set of genes; the ability to predetermine the genes of a child; and the ability to create many genetically identical offspring” (Di Bernadino, 1997). Scientific Questions Several noteworthy uncertainties persist regarding the practicability in the nuclear transfer cloning of animals by utilizing adult cells as the basis of nuclei. For instance, can the process that produced Dolly be successfully duplicated, so to speak, in other cases and are there species issues in the capability of achieving successful nuclear transfer? It has been demonstrated that nuclear transfer in rats is far less successful than in the bigger domesticated animals. In mammals, contrasting several other species, the early embryo quickly activates its genes and cannot subsist on the components stored within an egg. Will genetic imprinting have an effect on the capability of nuclei to reprogram development during later phases? “In mammals imprinting refers to the fact that the genes inherited on the chromosomes from the father (paternal genes) and those from the mother (maternal genes) are not equivalent in their effects on the developing embryo” (Isles, et, al. 2006). Dolly’s creation from a somatic cell nucleus implies that the imprint can be continuous, but possibly, an amount of instability of the imprint could decrease the effectiveness of nuclear transmission from somatic cells. It is understood that the volatility of imprinting leads to developmental abnormalities in rats and has been linked to genetic disorders and cancer but this discrepancy may be the result of concentrated nuclear transfer research done on domestic animals instead of rats in this area during the preceding decade. But an element of the species dissimilarity may just reflect the more extensive scientific efforts recently in livestock motivated by agricultural interests. How will the cells aging process affect the capability of somatic cell nuclei to determine typical development? As somatic cells separate they age progressively. This progression involves the continual shortening of the chromosomes and other adverse genetic changes. “Germ cells (eggs and sperm) evade telomere shortening by expressing an enzyme, telomerase, that can keep telomeres full length. It seems likely that returning an adult mammalian nucleus to the egg environment will expose it to sufficient telomerase activity to reset telomere length, since ocytes have been found to be potent sources of telomerase activity” (Isles, et, al. 2006). Will the mutations that accrue in somatic cells influence nuclear transfer efficiency perhaps leading to diseases in the offspring? “As cells divide and organisms age, mistakes and alterations (mutations) in the DNA will inevitably occur and will accumulate with time. If these mistakes occur in the sperm or the egg, the mutation will be inherited in the offspring” (Isles, et, al. 2006). Advocates of producing a child by the somatic cell nuclear transfer method focuses on the need to promote research and advances in science. Scientific Autonomy The responsible and ethical pursuit of knowledge is encouraged by scientists and non-scientists alike. Traditionally the U.S., has encouraged scientific experimentation but many claim that merely because there could possibly be value attached to experimentation that is unbound from social and political constraints. All recognize the vast public gain in preserving the sanctity of knowledge and appreciate intellectual autinomy. However, “international statements about the ethics of research with human subjects, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, make it abundantly clear that science, however valuable, must, as scientists and non-scientists agree, observe important moral boundaries” (Robertson, 1997). For instance, scientific study must never endanger the safety or rights of the public or inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Presently, both state and federal governments regulate the scientist’s methods so as to monitor public safety concerns and to guarantee the rights of experimentation subjects. It is a legally and socially accepted principle that scientific research may be restricted, to protect the sovereignty of the subject by requesting their consent. “If the government can show that restrictions on cloning and cloning technology are sufficiently important to the general well-being of individuals or society, such restrictions are likely to be upheld as legitimate, constitutional governmental actions, even if scientists were held to have a First Amendment right of scientific inquiry” (Robertson, 1997). Accordingly, even if scientific experimentation were established by the courts to be a right protected by the Constitution, the government might regulate this activity so as to guard the public against damages it may inflict. An example is the physical risks produced by using the somatic cell nuclear transfer methods to create human offspring. Government regulation might not prohibit research in an effort to discontinue the development of an innovative invention or knowledge but it could conditionally curb or even prevent the methods utilized by scientists if those methods involve harm to a person or society at large. “The freedom to pursue knowledge is distinguishable from the right to choose the method for achieving that knowledge, since the method itself may permissibly be regulated” (Robertson, 1997). Scientists themselves are ultimately accountable for upholding ethical principles and must attempt to integrate this within the execution of their work. Ethical concerns have generated moral apprehensions regarding the remarkable new developments in biomedical science. People have become progressively more aware of the dangers of cloning research and its potential consequences, particularly to human subjects. Although exceptions have occurred, scientists and their pioneering experimentations have benefited from much autonomy with regards to the control and regulation of their research tactics. From about the mid-twentieth century though, public demand for regulations of scientific experimentation practices has amplified. This is due to, in part, a great deal of scientific experimentation is publicly financed, particularly in the biological sciences and consequently requires an additional level of answerability to the public. “The regulation of science has justifiably become accepted as necessary, especially for those science programs that accept federal funding.” (“Cloning”, 1997). Scientists are obliged by societal needs to examine human, animal and environmental protection matters by accepting restrictions on certain forms of experimentation. Scientific applications influence public ventures consequently society understands that the sovereignty of scientific testing is not an unrestricted right. The public requires scientists to conduct their research according to the commonly held moral principles of existing public opinion. Most people are of the opinion that there are some situations where limitations on scientific liberties ought to be defined, even if these definitions are thought of as unnecessary by the scientific community. Appropriate ethical constraints are a matter for both the public and scientists to together develop and apply. However, restrictions on freedom of scientific experimentations must be justifiable and reasonable while permitting a continuing public dialogue to reconsider lawful limitations as public and scientific knowledge advances. Most also agree the boundaries of scientific experimentation should not infringe upon long established freedoms and rights, that impositions on any rights should meet with certain conditions. “Limitations should not ever be arbitrary in nature or gratuitously oppressive and should only materialize from the thoughtful harmonization of both cost and benefit to humanity” (Robertson, 1997). First, Do No Harm Whether a person supports or opposes strict scientific constraint, or the thought of cloning any creature, most everyone generally expresses enormous anxiety regarding somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning procedures used or experiments on humans. Whatever reasoning offered by supporters of human cloning it should be calculated against the Hippocratic principle of ‘first do no harm’ to satisfy political, public and the medical communities’ moral threshold. The current level of technological advancement coupled with the substantial threats to the physical wellbeing of a person created by somatic cell cloning eclipses any potential benefits of this technique. Dolly the sheep was successfully produced only following more than 250 tries by this method of cloning. “If (cloning) were attempted in humans, it would pose the risk of hormonal manipulation in the egg donor; multiple miscarriages in the birth mother and possibly severe developmental abnormalities in any resulting child” (Brock, 1997). The requirement to defend such an experimental and possibly risky technique as cloning falls to the scientists using these techniques. Common sense in addition to customary medical practices would not sanction the use of a mechanism or a drug on a person merely based on early experimentations such as in cloning methods without benefit of further experimentations using animals. Innovative treatments much undergo thorough investigations prior to being used on a patient. In cloning, the pioneering technique creates the patient and is therefore responsible for any bad effects, physically and/or socially inherent in the practice. In other words, other forms of medicine intended to care for a patient is vigilantly examined prior to being used whereas cloning creates the potentially harmful situation. It is unthinkable that any conscientious doctor or scientist would endeavor to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce a human at this early phase of experimentation. “The scientific community, the public and politicians overwhelmingly agree that, at least for now, regulations are warranted on all attempts to produce humans through nuclear transfer from a somatic cell.” (Downey/Geransar, 2008) Others claim however, that prospective parents are today allowed and even persuaded to carry a baby to full term even when there is a significant risk known to both physician and patient that the child will have an extreme genetic disorder. Even if the preponderance of the public opinion thinks the decision to have the child is ethically wrong, the parents’ rights to reproductive freedom will always supersede. “Since many of the risks believed to be associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer may be no greater than those associated with genetic disorders, some contend that such cloning should be subject to no more restriction than other forms of reproduction” (Brock, 1997). Detriment is subject to conjecture and cannot truly be established until after experimental tests are performed, not only in the context of cloning people, but in any novel clinical procedure. “The first transfer into a uterus of a human embryo clone will occur before we know whether it will succeed” (Robertson, 1997). Many people, intellectuals and otherwise, argue that initial efforts to clone people would be immoral and unethical experimentation on potential people who never consented and because the results are tenuous at best, it would perhaps result in children who have physical and mental handicaps as well as other developmental issues. The opposing viewpoint proposes that the resulting human would not have lived at all if not for being cloned. The scientific perspective is that cloning benefits that child because it gives them life. “This (cloning) should be classified as experimentation for the child’s benefit and thus it would fall within recognized exceptions. We have a very different set of rules for experimentation intended to benefit the experimental subject” (Robertson, 1997). Those against to this line of thinking assert that the advantages of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning experiments can be measured only against the argument concerning the advantages of being born compared to that of being not being born. “This metaphysical argument, in which one is forced to compare existence with non-existence, is problematic. Not only does it require us to compare something unknowable non-existence with something else, it also can lead to absurd conclusions if taken to its logical extreme” (Macklin, 1997). To claim that being born is adequate reason to suppose wide-ranging benefit supposes that there is no amount of anguish that cannot be justly placed on a human, provided that the alternative is not to have been born. “The two sides agree though, that the tangible possibilities of physical and emotional harm to the person born by somatic cell nuclear transfer cannot be known with confidence unless research is conducted on humans” (Robertson, 1997). The contention that society should consider efforts at cloning as experimentation for the person’s benefit is not convincing to many; however, where the line should be drawn between harm and benefit is a thoughtful, essential debate. “If we insisted on absolute guarantees of no risk before we permitted any new medical intervention to be attempted in humans, this would severely hamper if not halt completely the introduction of new therapeutic interventions, including new methods of responding to infertility” (Macklin, 1997). Individual Autonomy In America, one of the most essential values common to all persons is the promise of personal liberty which is sustained because of the prevailing belief that a person’s life choices may be repressed if dependent on the decisions forced by majority opinion. To the extent that making a personal decision is a form of personal achievement, to exploit our collective personal achievements is to make readily obtainable as many personal choices as is realistic. Additionally, personal autonomy is regarded as important in and of itself, because it is thought of by many as a genuine expression of one’s personality and individuality such as the sincerest expression of one’s self. “Many people contend that the society’s obligation and responsibility to perpetuate the individual’s autonomy requires that people remain free to create children using somatic cell nuclear transfer if that is their choice” (“Human Cloning,” 2002). Conclusion Creating humans by the cloning technique described in this paper is immoral. Overwhelming scientific data suggests that this method is not safe at this point in cloning technology. Even if the uneasiness regarding the psychological and physical well being of patients were to be eased, important concerns would persist regarding the damaging influence and the prospective for abuse that the new technology would bring about to both individuals and society. The public remains divided on this matter. Some think that cloning humans, via the somatic cell nuclear transfer, can never be a principled consideration because it undercuts critical social values that bind together the very structure of society and that human cloning will always create the risk of causing physical and psychological harms to the potential child. Many significant questions remain unanswered, for example the character and degree of our ethical interest in the liberty to make choices regarding reproductive and whether or not autonomy should include producing a human through cloning. Works Cited Brock, D. “Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con.” [Paper prepared for NBAC]. (1997). “Cloning Human Beings” Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Rockville, Maryland (June 1997) August 4, 2011 Downey, Robin Geransar, Rose “Stem Cell Research, Publics’ and Stakeholder Views” (2008) August 4, 2011 < http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/userfiles/Downey-Geransar.pdf> “Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry” The Presidents Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C., July 2002 August 4, 2011 < http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/cloningreport/fullreport.html> Isles, Anthony R, William Davies and Lawrence S Wilkinson “Genomic imprinting and the social brain.” The Royal Society (2006). August 4, 2011 Macklin, R. Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C. (March 14, 1997). McGee, Glenn. “Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning.” Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia. (February 2001). Nussbaum, Martha C. & Sunstein, Cass R “Clones and Clones Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning.” New York: W. W. Norton & Company. . (1998). Robertson, J.A. “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. (March 14, 1997). Wilmut, I; Schnieke, A.E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A.J.; & Campbell K.H. “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.” Nature. Vol. 385, pp. 810-13. (1997). Read More