Research Cloning - Book Report/Review Example

COMPARISON/CONTRAST (EVALUATION) ESSAY This is a comparison and contrast essay on the two opposing views regarding human cloning. "Yes, Don't Impede Medical Progress" by Virginia Postrel is in favor of research cloning. "Crossing Lines" by Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, is a secular argument against research cloning. Postrel is pro research cloning. Her last statement serves as her thesis: "We should let the process continue." According to her, research cloning as of this time is still at its initial stage, "ACT and others in the field are still doing very basic research, not developing clinical therapies." Then she shows the difference between science and politics: "Science is about exploring the unknown and cannot offer guarantees" while "politics feeds on fear, uncertainty, and doubt." She then refutes the three basic arguments for banning therapeutic cloning: that a fertilized egg is a person; someone may be tempted to implant a cloned embryo in a woman's womb and produce a baby; and that random reproduction may lead to "manufacturing" that "robs one of autonomy." Moreover, she cites specific examples from actual results of the researches by the Advanced Cell Technology that "it took 71 eggs to produce a single success, and in the best case, the embryo grew to only six cells before dying." She adds that since it is difficult to obtain eggs so "therapeutic cloning may ultimately prove impractical for clinical treatments" and "could be more important as a technique for understanding cell development or studying the mutations that lead to cancer." She also uses definition and analogy to prove her points. Postrel presents the positive side of research cloning that it is a normal scientific endeavor that is still at its beginning stage with high hopes of solving medical problems like cancer, and it posits no enormous danger to humankind. On the other hand, Krauthammer thinks otherwise. He thinks it is unethical or immoral and is dangerous. Krauthammer's essay is divided into several parts: The Problem; The Promise; Objection I - Intrinsic Worth; Objection II - The Brave New World Factor; Objection III - The Slippery Slope; and Objection IV - Manufacture. He questions if it is ethical to do human cloning. He defines and contrasts reproductive cloning and research cloning. According to him, permitting the conduct of one may lead to the conduct of the other; since research cloning is allowed for therapeutic purposes, there is a tendency for a temptation to pursue reproductive cloning for other purposes aside from giving a childless couple an offspring. Like Postrel, he defines the scientific terms and processes involved in this issue. He also gives analogies and examples. He contrasts science and morality. He cites the different issues debated in the House regarding this. He is very specific and clear in his arguments, and passionate too. His passion about his belief makes his argument effective. According to him, "reproductive cloning is universally abhorred" despite its promise of "study or cure." He argues that research cloning is not therapeutic. He then proceeds to discuss why he considers cloning as "ruthless exploitation of the embryo" and "dangerous" through his three objections: "First, the Brave New World Factor: Research cloning gives man too much power for evil. Second, the Slippery Slope: The habit of embryonic violation is in and of itself dangerous. Violate the blastocyst today and every day, and the practice will inure you to violating the fetus or even the infant tomorrow. Third, Manufacture: The very act of creating embryos for the sole purpose of exploiting and then destroying them will ultimately predispose us to a ruthless utilitarianism about human life itself." Both writers have strong arguments. Postrel is more credible because of her presentation of actual facts about cloning that it takes 71 eggs to produce a single success and that it is even difficult to secure eggs in the first place. However, her credible presentation seems to end abruptly. The reader is left hanging. Krauthammer presents his ideas in a more coherent way, however, his evidences are quite general and his attack is based more on fear and politics. I believe Postrel's and Krauthammer's issues are still relevant today since not much has happened in this area of research in the past five years and it is still in progress. Works Cited: Krauthammer, Charles. "Crossing Lines." Strategies for Successful Writing." Ed. James Reinking, et. al. 7th ed. New .Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2005. 610-616. Postrel, Virginia. "Yes, Don't Impede Medical Progress." Strategies for Successful Writing. Ed. James Reinking, et.al. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2005. 607-609. *Note: Please indicate the page numbers in your book the quoted lines which are enclosed in quotation marks. After the quotation write the number and enclose it in parenthesis. *Additional Questions: Krauthammer directly indicates in his essay "Crossing Lines" (p. 610) that humans lack the wisdom to handle the complex power of nature. Should scientific and technological development that holds powerful implications beyond our wisdom be restricted I believe that man is endowed with wisdom and an inquisitive mind; he/she is gifted with such curiosity and innovativeness that move him/her to invent and discover things that make life more comfortable and easy. This has always been the case since time immemorial. I think some caution and restrictions to a certain degree would not be hindering the progress of science, but these restrictions should be based on valid reasons and not on mere fear of the unknown. If such scientific and technological development is obviously detrimental to human life then restrictions should be imposed but it should be based on solid proof. Postrel argues in her essay "Yes, Don't Impede Medical Progress" (p. 607) that scientific progress is often met with fear. Should scientific progress be unregulated or should society create legal and moral limits on scientific studies What should be the basis of such limits If therapeutic cloning could save large numbers of lives, would it be worth the risks Based on both essays of human cloning (Krauthammer and Postrel), should research in cloning be allowed for therapeutic or reproductive purposes I stand on the belief that everything should be done in moderation; that anything in excess is always dangerous. Scientific progress should be allowed but with some restrictions if it has been proven to cause grave hazard to humanity. For me, human cloning for therapeutic purposes is a good idea but there are also other means of solving the problems of health and diseases. As to human cloning for reproductive purposes, I don't believe it is safe. If couples without children would resort to cloning to satisfy their desire to have children, I think it is subject to moral issues. A couple can adopt children. There are a lot of homeless and street children in orphanages and in the Third World countries. Why not help the poor children and give them a home and shelter instead of cloning which is not yet proven to be safe and effective Style/culture: High Renaissance Period Dates: 1495-1520 A. ART FORMS, METHOD AND MEDIA: Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture are the major art forms of this period that show the unique qualities of the time. Among these are Verrochio's famous painting 'Baptism of Christ'; Leonardo's exquisite painting of an angel in subtle 'sfumato' smudging technique, his unfinished panel 'The Adoration of the Maggi' in chiaroscuro using 'light and dark' to model form, his fresco 'The Last Supper' at Santa Maria del Grazie using a technique of slowing down the drying time to paint in more detail, his anatomical drawing of the cross-section of the human form and other paintings like the 'Virgin of the Rocks', 'Virgin and Child with Saint Anne' and the famous 'Mona Lisa' or 'La Giaconda' painted in oil on wood using both 'sfumato' technique and chiaroscuro; and Michelangelo's 'The Holy Family' or 'Doni Tondo', his powerfully expressive giant marble statue of David and the gigantic fresco paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in The Vatican, Rome (Huber). B. VISUAL CONVENTIONS (characteristics): Unique style traits, methods and media With this rebirth of intellect came the greater interest in Ancient Greek and Roman culture that inspired the revival of Classicism. The High Renaissance sought to create a generalized style of art that focused on drama, physical presence, and balance (Art History). Art of this period is marked with individualism and humanism, a balance between beauty and truth, and perfection is seen as spiritual worth (Huber). C. CONTENT: Subject matter; ideas represented The subject matter of art in this period are: 1) Biblical characters and subjects from Greek and Roman mythology; 2) Emphasis on the importance of Madonna in art, taking inspiration from Classical Roman and Greek art; and 3) Idealizing the human form in physical perfection and purity with expression and unique personality (Art History). D. FUNCTION: Why was this work made For whom Patrons are usually the ones who sponsor the art works such as: The Duke of Milan for Leonardo's painted version of 'Virgin of the Rocks' and the 'Virgin and Child with Saint Anne;' and Pope Julius 11 for Michelangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (Huber). E. Historical /Cultural context: Significant events, places, people High Renaissance started in Italy from Florence and spread throughout Northern Europe. The major artists of this period are Leonardo Da Vinci, Donato Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael and Titian (Art History). The Black Death has ended and the population was growing and a new wealthy middle class of merchants, bankers and trades people had emerged. Trade flourished with the use of the Galleons and Gutterberg's invention of the printing press where books were made widely available, and Marco Polo's description of the world as well as Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World of the Americas were made known. Works Cited: Huber, Lorraine G. "An Account Of The Determining Factors Within The High Renaissance Period 1495-1520 Within Art & Design, With Particular Reference To Two Key Figures: Leonardo Da Vinci, And Michelangelo Buonarrotti." 01 November 2007 Art History. 01 November 2007 Read More