Introduction: This scientific study will examine a scientific and ethical argument against human cloning in regards to the problems with “Dolly”, the first animal to ever be cloned. In this manner, the problems of Dolly’s death will be examined through the science of cell research to realize the premature death of this pioneering animal. In this respect, Dolly died at an early age due to severe arthritis, which may be an error in the development of the cells that created Dolly from her “mother.” Through an examination of the details of this erroneous cloning, there needs to be far better research and development before human beings should be considered for the cloning process.
The science of genetic manipulation in regards to cloning is a serious issue when the age of cells is not added into the reproductive equation. Scientists have been unaware of the possibility that mutating genes are a serious threat to an animal, not to mention a human being. Of course, experimentation will have it tragedies and abnormalities, but the fact that humans are not ready to be cloned reflects the problems that scientists are having with appropriating healthy genes in the cloning process. For mutating genes in the cloning process critics have been skeptical as to the validity and overexcitement cloning has brought to this process. The age of cells is a serious threat to the success of cloning:
“A particular worry is the possibility that the genetic material used from the adult will continue to age so that the genes in a newborn baby clone could be - say - 30 years old or more on the day of birth. Many attempts at animal cloning produced disfigured monsters with severe abnormalities. So that would mean creating cloned embryos, implanting them and destroying (presumably) those that look imperfect as they grow in the womb. However some abnormalities may not appear till after birth” (Dixon para. 1)
This scientific perspective relates the obvious problems of human development that research has proven to be a problem with cloning. In this manner, the cloned human being is not accurately being forecasted in growth, and there is little information as to how mutating genes will distort this growth. In Dolly, the fist cloned animal, this issue became manifest as the genes of the 30 year old sheep Dolly was cloned from created severe arthritis in Dolly’s body. This abnormality made life unbearable for a young sheep with older genes virtually distorting the aging process. Early aging has been one symptom of Dolly’s problems. Through this information, to clone a human being without proper research done on this phenomenon will surely bring disaster and unimaginable hardship to the victim of this process. In this manner, science is not ready to use human beings in the cloning process by the obvious evidence of issues surrounding mutating genes within the host.
Another major issue is the ethical foundation for human cloning. The secular argument against human cloning is the issue of ‘property’ or who delegates the right to life over another person. The major societal assumptions on moral grounds are that humans are not ‘property’, which can be designed for the parents by a bio-geneticist, virtually giving no rights to the human being created in the womb. This issue is brought forth by the President of the United States through his Presidential Council on Bioethics:
“To understand what it would mean to clone a child, we do well to consider most generally what it means to bring a child into the world, and with what attitude we should regard his or her arrival and presence. Our children are, to begin with, our replacements, those who will one day stand in our place. They are, as Hans Jonas has remarked, "life's own answer to mortality." Though their conception is the fruit of our activity, and though we are responsible for saying "yes" to their arrival, we do not, in normal procreation, command their conception, control their makeup, or rule over their development and birth” (President of the United States para. 19).
This secular view offers a law-based evaluation that gives a good standard for how socialization of cloning is to be perceived. By these means, it is clear that ownership is in question here, and property is how secular thinkers counteract a cloned child in these early stages. Without seriously realizing that others, perhaps those in power, are creating human beings cloning is a serious issue in regards to creating life. For instance, if an irresponsible human being should murder another, and simply have them cloned; this can be a serious problem not only with identity, but also with ownership. The idea of property is the mainstay argument for secular ethics in presenting the life of another human being not from nature, but through the science created by other human beings. The duplication takes the life of a person born naturally, and places them into the realm of human knowledge, which can behold immense power. Can human beings be entrusted to create another human being without ethical abuses? The issue as to who decides what humans should be cloned is a serious issue, which poses a problem for cloning. In this manner, human cloning should be practiced, since human beings should have the right to decided who will exist and who will not. Find more papers at PhDify.com
The process of mankind’s scientific curiosity will always be experimental, pushing the boundaries of reality into science fiction. In the case of cloning, one can verifiably justify that no progress would be made unless experiments crudely expanded human knowledge to new frontiers. This is one aspect of science that is supported by those that wish to see human beings cloned with the new gene and stem cell research being accomplished. This is a valid argument that must be realized, and holds a great deal of promise for humankind when delving into the mysteries of human creation, and in this case, duplication. However, the proper scientific aspect of research should already be warning scientists that the process is too flawed for human experimentation at this point. If animals, such as Dolly, are not taking the genetic dispositions given to them by scientists, then there should be a lesser urgency to experiment on humans until the problem of cell mutation is solved.
Surely, this can be the dividing line between being hasty, and allowing more time for animals to provide answers to the many dilemmas that arise from abnormalities in cloning. The issue of experimentation should be applied cautiously, so that human beings will not have to suffer, as Dolly had within her short life. In this manner, life should be respected and science should use caution when experimenting with the lives of other human beings, which they will ultimately being creating in their laboratories. The benefits of experimentation in science have been immense in advancing the human condition, but human beings are not ready to be cloned.
The ethical issues surrounding ownership and property in the case of creating a cloned human being are far from answered. However, some supporters of cloning do not commit two willing parents as any less of an “owner” than scientists who use stem cells to recreate another living being. The science of birth is mysterious, yet biology does show the formation of life in a similar vein as the processes used to develop cells in a laboratory. Of course, the familial aspects of two willing parents do possess more variables, such as love, intimacy and support for the child, which scientists cannot possibly give their clones. However, the fact the science can duplicate another human being does decrease the problems of creation in a scientific manner, and the idea of ‘property’ will have to take on a whole new course.
By realizing the ethical arguments that help make science a ‘God’, if you will, there is still no real ethical or moral argument that would replace the love parents would bring to a child born ‘naturally’. Although a human being would certainly be the property of the laboratory that created the clone, the real ethics of human interrelationships is not answered. Ethically, human cloning does not serve to unite familial chains of life, but would sever the emotional love and human contact a child would need to live. In this case, humankind is not ready for human clones, which would ultimately be parentless beings without any nurturing or love. Through this ethical stance, human cloning cannot happen until other variables (societal, environmental, moral, etc.) outside the laboratory are addressed.
This scientific and ethical argument against human cloning presents the pros and cons of this serious issue. The problems of experimentation on animals have not been adequately addressed suggests that human beings should not be cloned at the present time. Furthermore, the ethical grounds of the ‘property’ aspect of a cloned human being are not being explored in the environmental or societal ramifications that would logically need to be understood. By creating a child or adult in the seclusion of a laboratory there are other outside variables that need to be constructed before a parentless being is created. Human cloning is a fascinating idea, but needs more animal research and ethical development before it can be presented as a enlightening development in the sciences.
The topic of my dissertation seemed easy but only at first glance - I couldn't sleep well any more. I was stressed and I felt broken. Phdify saved me from a total disaster, and now I have my PhD.
Most friends of mine encountered the same difficulties. I wrote some chapters by myself, but another chapters were moving on slowly! So, I never hesitated to ask for a help and I've got a great experience at phdify.com!
At one moment I felt an absolute despair to finish my thesis! To my luck a good friend of my gave me this site, and I understood: this is my salvation! Thanks to Phdify team I finished my thesis in time!