Disadvantages Of CloningEssay Preview: Disadvantages Of CloningReport this essayBreyanMs. WhiteEnglish 1213, 023November 3, 2003Disadvantages of Human Cloning – Loss of Human IdentityCloning has always been a subject whose thoughts both fascinates and frightens the world. On February 27, 1997, a stunning announcement appeared in the British journal Nature that rocked the scientific world: for the first time ever recorded, a mammal- a lamb named Dolly had been successfully cloned from an adult cell. Coinciding with this shocking proclamation, scientist reported the successful cloning of a rhesus monkey, a primate whose reproduction and development is almost identical to man. With these two previously unthinkable strokes, science fiction was transformed to science fact, which inevitably unleashes a torrent of questions that can change the future of mankind- the possibility of cloning a human body.
Since 1994 America itself has grown some 3.5 trillion genetically modified plants and is being sold to satisfied customers all over the world. But with the reading of the human genome completed and with the advances that are taking place with stem-cell research, by which you can genetically modify human character traits, cloning is also forcing its breakthrough into the news which has a lot of people distressed about its consequences (Americas next ethical war). “The idea that humans can exercise control over reproductive process evokes in many, notions such as genetic determinism or the co modification of life” (Gogarty). But from the viewpoint of science and technology, who regard cloning as a revolution and an astounding achievement, are proceeding with their work, and are reaching unrealistic limits.
The possibility of cloning being used as a practice is a real possibility today. Scientists on 12 May 2002, claimed to have cloned a human embryo which had developed farthest to 6 cells. On an another instance according to Gulf News on 3 April 2002, a claim by Dr. Antinori said that he had successfully implanted a cloned embryo into a women who had become 8 month pregnant. Even though these claims seem controversial they have increased the concerns and world-wide public reaction against human cloning (Dinc). Even with these boundaries and laws passed by the government, determined scientists cant be stopped as they still claim to conduct research undercover, and are making those advances into cloning of human beings.
The scientific public is divided on the matter, with a minority (in the UK as one term) asserting that humans do not need to be caged to live as much as there are “human beings”.
A spokesman for the European Society for Human Genetics (ESPGI), which has worked on the cloning issue, did not return a request for comment. A spokesman for the National Association for Genetic Medicine (NAGM) also responded to this article on the issue of cloning by saying there were “many different views and concerns”. He said he believed there were important and acceptable points that should not be made of the issue. He wrote:
This is important because there is a serious scientific debate about the viability of cloning.
This is especially so when it comes to human cloning.
The cloning of humans has been carried out for a good many years without any major injury caused or even harm to the man, woman or child. There had to be a serious medical or medical institution involved, or an individual involved who can provide appropriate care.
To give you an idea of how common it is for cloning to be performed without any apparent risk, a doctor would be required to have an operation for two reasons. The first is to save sperm cells from being contaminated with cancer cells, such as breast cancer. Other cancer cells are also likely to be injected with a cancer hormone that is not already present in humans. (The second reason is to ensure humans can be raised artificially for breeding, in a laboratory cell. The first method uses the fertilised human body to remove the first viable child. At the same time the child is taken from the mother and implanted with the embryo.) The second is to ensure that there is no disruption in the human body by the operation. By using the fertility hormone spermatogen, an animal can be injected with an embryo at will to produce a fertilised human. This procedure does not only make the embryos healthier. It also reduces the likelihood of birth defects, so a parent can have offspring with both normal and abnormal characteristics. This may also reduce the genetic risks of implantation into healthy individuals who normally have such risk.
There is more to it than just this, of course: the science of cloning can be complicated. The issue of human cloning is not the subject of much academic talk and debate. It is the subject even of the BBC series The Science of Life (2007-2012). It is a topic which also came to an end under BBC News. On one level this is very much something which should be of considerable interest. On the other, it represents a good opportunity to explore the ramifications of the creation of genetically diverse humans. The issues are complicated and there are questions that need to be asked for answers.
Human cloning is the topic in question.
The scientific public is divided on the matter, with a minority (in the UK as one term) asserting that humans do not need to be caged to live as much as there are “human beings”.
A spokesman for the European Society for Human Genetics (ESPGI), which has worked on the cloning issue, did not return a request for comment. A spokesman for the National Association for Genetic Medicine (NAGM) also responded to this article on the issue of cloning by saying there were “many different views and concerns”. He said he believed there were important and acceptable points that should not be made of the issue. He wrote:
This is important because there is a serious scientific debate about the viability of cloning.
This is especially so when it comes to human cloning.
The cloning of humans has been carried out for a good many years without any major injury caused or even harm to the man, woman or child. There had to be a serious medical or medical institution involved, or an individual involved who can provide appropriate care.
To give you an idea of how common it is for cloning to be performed without any apparent risk, a doctor would be required to have an operation for two reasons. The first is to save sperm cells from being contaminated with cancer cells, such as breast cancer. Other cancer cells are also likely to be injected with a cancer hormone that is not already present in humans. (The second reason is to ensure humans can be raised artificially for breeding, in a laboratory cell. The first method uses the fertilised human body to remove the first viable child. At the same time the child is taken from the mother and implanted with the embryo.) The second is to ensure that there is no disruption in the human body by the operation. By using the fertility hormone spermatogen, an animal can be injected with an embryo at will to produce a fertilised human. This procedure does not only make the embryos healthier. It also reduces the likelihood of birth defects, so a parent can have offspring with both normal and abnormal characteristics. This may also reduce the genetic risks of implantation into healthy individuals who normally have such risk.
There is more to it than just this, of course: the science of cloning can be complicated. The issue of human cloning is not the subject of much academic talk and debate. It is the subject even of the BBC series The Science of Life (2007-2012). It is a topic which also came to an end under BBC News. On one level this is very much something which should be of considerable interest. On the other, it represents a good opportunity to explore the ramifications of the creation of genetically diverse humans. The issues are complicated and there are questions that need to be asked for answers.
Human cloning is the topic in question.
If cloning ware to be practiced by doctors and scientists in the time to come, then it can be assumed that those clones might experience serious issues of identity and individuality. Many ethicists worry about the psychological harm that a cloned child may suffer. The concept of creating a genetic twin, although separated in time is one aspect of human cloning that psychologist find troubling. In Flesh of My Flesh: The Ethics of Human Cloning author Gregory Pence states that one of the worst psychological harm that can most frequently occur is the possible loss of sense of uniqueness in the clones child. This lack of distinctive identity of their own may cause the clone to experience psychic burdens of being a twin of his/her parents (Pence 27). A child grows up knowing that his father is his brother, his grandfather is his father. Every time his father looks at him he is seeing himself grown up. A teenager may go through unbearable emotional stress trying to establish his or her identity, and if they lack to achieve that they would eventually resent being a clone (Dixon).
More over there is a strong possibility that the clone will inherit their progenitors years of genetic wear and tear thereby resulting in short life spans. This certainly puts a dent in the hopes of some people who clone themselves to create more youthful copies of them (Weiss). The genetic distinctiveness not only symbolizes the uniqueness of each human life but also the independence that the child rightfully obtains from the parents. This being the case, the cloned person may begrudge being saddled with a genotype that has already been lived. This could lead to another serious implication of human cloning where the childhood and life of the cloned person will be preplanned. Some scientists argue that human cloning is ethical since it already happens naturally in the case of twins. However, in cloning there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twin and so is fundamentally different from homogenous twins starting their lives at the same time. A later twin created by cloning knows or at least believes she knows, too much about herself. A cloned individual will not be a surprise to this world. People are going to compare their performances in life to that of their progenitor. It will seem that their fate has already been determined and the clone will feel cheated in freely and spontaneously creating his or her own future and authentic self (Nussbaum and Suntein 153).
These psychological implications on the clones could lead to an unfamiliar family relationship. Some moralists argue that the disparity between the childs genetic and social identity threatens the stability of the family. Is the child who results from the cloning the sibling or the child of the parents? The child of the grandchild of its grandparents? From this perspective the childs family and social well-being may be in doubt or even endangered. As author Gregory Pence states
For as we shall see, in the very fact of cloning, and of rearing him as a clone, his makers subvert the cloned childs independence, beginning with the aspect that comes from knowing that one was an unbidden surprise, a gift, to the world, rather than the designed result of someones artful project (27).
The cloned child may be compelled to fulfill the dreams or expectations of the parents. If the cloned persons genetic progenitor is of a famous musician or of an athlete, parents may exert an improper amount coercion to get the child to develop those talents (Andrews 251). The child will be forced to lead a life others expect him to a life that has already been lived, but with full of expectations from the blueprint of someone elses life.
Cloning can also result in parents lacking a feeling towards their cloned offspring. For example, if a couples son was slowly dying and needs a kidney transplant in 7-8 yrs, the parents might clone a brother so one of his liver could be used. For the parents the younger brother was a means to saving a really important life, and might treat the second son merely as a clone. In other cases, some people may wish to clone their dying loved ones and