Cloning: Moral or Amoral - Term Paper Example

Cloning, Moral or Amoral? Introduction The concept of human cloning is a controversial that isproblematical to comprehend as the physical and psychological needs, present and future, of someone produced by this method are unknown. Though this process has produced many live successes, it has proved considerably less likely to produce successful pregnancies than those conceived through sexual reproduction. In addition, the majority of cloned animals have experienced some type of birth defect. Replication of an organism’s DNA identity does not occur naturally within mammals. Only plants produce offspring through replication from one generation to the next. The continued cloning of animals is essential because this method will provide a more substantial and beneficial food source for a growing world population as does the cloning of plants. However, the cloning of humans is not in societies or an individual’s best interest, at least not yet. Part I: Thesis The Dolly Dilemma On February 23, 1997 Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, with his colleagues at the Roslin Institute announced the successful cloning of a sheep by a new method. The technique concerned transplanting the genetic material of an adult sheep into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The resulting birth of the sheep, Dolly, was another landmark in mankind’s ability to rule over nature. The birth of Dolly and “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 experiment was different from prior endeavors in that it produced an animal that was a genetic twin of one adult sheep instead of being the identical offspring from a pair of adults. Dolly was the first successful clone of a mammal as the sheep contained the genetic material of just one parent. For more than 40 years, the practice of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg using nuclei derivative from non-human embryonic and fetal cells continued. Evidence suggested genetic material contained in differentiated somatic cells may retain the potential to direct the development of healthy fertile adult animals. Biologists had examined whether, once cellular differentiation transpires, this process is reversible. However, until Dolly was born, the capacity to do so remained 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 the past decade, scientists have regularly cloned sheep and cows from embryo cells but Dolly was the first animal that matured to a fully developed state by the usage of the nucleus of a somatic cell from one animal. Scientific Autonomy The freedom of the ethical and responsible pursuit of knowledge is supported by scientists and non-scientists as well. Historically in the U.S., scientific experimentation has been encouraged but many argue that simply because there may be importance attached to science that is free from constraints, this does not mean the pursuit of science without regard to a measure of limitation based on society’s ethical and moral standards. All acknowledge the immense public gain in maintaining the ‘sanctity of knowledge and the value of intellectual freedom.’ 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 example, scientific study must not jeopardize rights or safety of the public or impose unnecessary distress to animals. At present, both federal and state governments regulate the researcher’s methods so as to monitor community safety concerns and to ensure the rights of research subjects. It is a socially and legally accepted precept that research may be restricted, to guard the subject’s sovereignty by requiring their consent, for example. “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). Consequently, even if scientific experimentation were found by the courts to be a constitutionally protected right, the government could regulate this activity in order to protect the public against harms it might inflict. An example is the bodily risks created by use of somatic cell nuclear transfer methods to produce human children. Government regulation may not disallow research in an effort to stop the development of novel invention or knowledge but it may conditionally restrict or even forbid the means used by researchers if those means involve harm to individuals or the public 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). Researchers themselves are ultimately liable for upholding ethical and scientific principles and must endeavor to incorporate this within the performance of their work. Part II: Anti-Thesis The Dolly Dilemma Those who oppose human cloning argue that this unnatural style of reproduction has an overwhelming potential for decisions being made based on reasons of vanity in regard to children. Their concern is that the very nature of the traditional family is in danger of evolving in a strange, unknown and undesirable direction. Advocates of cloning practices say that it may, among other things, serve society as an effective alternative treatment for infertility. The cloning of animals has stirred the debate about the ethical, legal and social aspects regarding human cloning. Because of the rate of failure as compared to natural conception in animal testing, scientists, scholars and politicians generally agree that human experiments are also likely to result in a number of clinical failures. At least at this stage of cloning development, attempts to duplicate human DNA would lead to an unacceptable number of miscarriages, abortions and births of massively 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). Societies throughout the world generally believe that human cloning experiments will violate a moral barrier, taking humans into a sphere 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). Scientific Autonomy Moral concerns have generated new ethical apprehensions regarding the impressive advances in biomedical science. Society has become increasingly perceptive to the dangers of cloning research and its future consequences, particularly to human participants. Although there have been exceptions, scientists and their innovative experimentations, for the most part, have benefited from a great deal of autonomy in regards to the direction and regulation of their research plans. Since the mid-twentieth century however, public demand for peripheral regulations of scientific experimentation techniques have amplified. This is because, in part, much scientific exploration is publicly funded, especially in the biological sciences and therefore requires an additional degree of answerability to the public. According to Bernard Davis of Harvard Medical School “society sometimes seeks to regulate or restrict research when it poses the specters of dangerous or unfamiliar products, powers, or ideas” (Davis, 1980). Part III: Synthesis The Dolly Dilemma The event was a momentous scientific occurance with profound moral implications as it brought society nearer to the realities regarding the responsibilities involved in the new ability to create human clones. The issues surrounding the cloning of human beings have been a disquieting topic of philosophical, scientific, legal and ethical debate throughout all areas of society. Some observers have postulated that the uproar provoked by the modern opportunities cloning presented as a result of Dolly is well out of proportion to many of the issues it has brought forth. Similar concerns were mentioned during previous cloning experiments and were simply budding again in a uniquely more conspicuous manner. Regardless of that, it is essential to recognize the possibilities raised by this unprecedented and radical step as it has had the most impact on the discussions regarding human cloning and its implications to society. The new technique of cloning involved 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). Several significant uncertainties continue regarding the feasibility in the nuclear transfer cloning of mammals by using adult cells as the source of nuclei. For example, can the procedure that produced Dolly be carried out successfully in other cases and are there true species differences in the ability to achieve successful nuclear transfer? It has been shown that nuclear transfer in mice is much less successful than in larger domestic animals. In mammals, unlike many other species, the early embryo rapidly activates its genes and cannot survive on the components stored in the egg (Braude et al, 1988). Will genetic imprinting affect the ability of nuclei to reprogram development during later stages? “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” (Solter, 1988). The creation of Dolly from a somatic cell nucleus suggests that the imprint can be constant, but potentially, an amount of unsteadiness of the imprint could reduce the effectiveness of nuclear transfer from somatic cells. It is known that instability in imprinting leads to developmental irregularities in mice and has been linked to cancer and genetic disorders but this disparity be the result of intense nuclear transfer research performed in domestic animals rather than in mice in this area during the previous decade. But part of the species differences may simply reflect the greater recent scientific efforts in livestock motivated by agricultural concerns (Fundele & Surani, 1994). Scientific Autonomy The regulation of science has justifiably become accepted as necessary, especially for those science programs that accept federal funding. Scientists are compelled by societal needs to observe animal, human and environmental protection concerns by tolerating restrictions on specific forms of experimentation. Scientific applications impact public ventures therefore society recognizes that the unrestrained sovereignty of scientific experimentation is not an unconditional right. The public expects scientists to perform their research according to the generally held ethical principles of prevailing public opinion. Most agree that there are certain situations where boundaries on scientific liberties must be defined, even if such definitions are perceived as unnecessary limitations by the scientific community. Suitable ethical constraints are a subject for both scientists and the public to together devise and apply. However, limits on freedom of scientific experimentations must be reasonable and justifiable while allowing a continuing public discourse to reconsider legislative limitations as scientific and public knowledge advances. Most also agree that scientific boundaries should not encroach upon long established rights and freedoms, that impositions on any freedoms should always satisfy 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). Conclusion Creating children by utilizing cloning methods described in this discussion is unethical. Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that such techniques are not safe at this progression in the state of cloning technology. Even if apprehension regarding the physical and psychological well being of patients were to be resolved, major concerns would continue regarding the destructive influence and the potential for abuse that the technology would cause to both society and to individuals. Society remains divided on the issue. Some consider that human cloning, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, will never be an ethical consideration because it undercuts essential social values that hold together the fabric of society and that cloning will always pose the risk of causing psychological and physical harm to the child. Fear has been unnecessarily raised regarding the creating of children through cloning based on the mistaken belief that selecting a child’s genetic makeup is comparable to selecting the child’s personality. A benefit that merits more prevalent discussion is that cloning would be lead to a wider understanding that a person’s traits, such as personality and their life achievements is dependent more so on educational opportunities and the social environment, as well as an individual’s genetic history. Undoubtedly, there is a need for further public, scientific and political reflection on the significant moral issues raised by the potential cloning of humans. Many important questions remain unanswered, such as the character and extent of our moral interest in the liberty to make reproductive choices and whether that autonomy should include creating a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. Cloning is a beneficial science but thus far only plants and animals should be used as subjects, cloning humans is not now and may never be considered ethical or moral. References Braude, P.; Bolton, V.; & Moore, S. (1988). “Human Gene Expression First Occurs Between the Four- and Eight-Cell Stages of Preimplantation Development.” Nature. Vol. 332, pp. 459-61. Davis, B.D. (1980). “Three Specters: Dangerous Products, Powers, or Ideas.” Genetics and the Law II. A. Milunsky and G.J. Annas (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Di Bernadino, M.A. (1997). Genomic Potential of Differentiated Cells. New York: Columbia University Press. Fundele, R.H. & Surani, M.A. (1994). “Experimental Embryological Analysis of Genetic Imprinting in Mouse Development.” Developmental Genetics. Vol. 15, pp. 515-22. McGee, Glenn. (February 2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia. Robertson, J.A. (March 14, 1997). “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. Solter, D. (1988). “Differential Imprinting and Expression of Maternal and Paternal Genomes.” Annual Review of Genetics. Vol. 22, pp. 127-46. Wilmut, I; Schnieke, A.E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A.J.; & Campbell K.H. (1997). “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.” Nature. Vol. 385, pp. 810-13. Read More