Martha Carmen Medina Rhetoric Spring 2001 Should Human Cloning be Banned? What is cloning? An article by Anne McLaren states that Aldous Huxley published Brave New World in 1932. In it he writes about humans being copied and created in the Hatchery: "Perhaps plants fired his imagination" (McLaren). Ideas about copying humans from other humans are found in such fictional works as the movie, The Boys from Brazil. The act of cloning is to create a duplicate living organism by extracting DNA from a somatic cell and injecting it into a blighted reproductive cell, that is, one without a nucleus, of another organism. The cell is zapped with a bit of electricity, and the embryo is then implanted into the uterus of the same species. This almost sounds like the story of Frankenstein's creation. Scientists have not only reached a point in their research where it is possible to clone human tissue, but also to clone human embryos and implant them for fertilization. Are ethics involved? Are we supposed to play God? Soon it will be possible to choose from a list of physical traits and create the next generation. Could it be possible to create a master race? Do we want to? Should we? Opposition to cloning humans comes from those who feel each human being is unique and a gift from the Creator. Laws have not caught up with technology. Now is the time to make moral decisions about how far we want to go and why. Daniel Garcia Ordaz quotes Chicago physicist Richard Seed as saying, "[God's] plan for humankind is that we should become one with God, [and] this is a significant step in the right direction" (1). Furthermore, Meredith Wadman has reported that Seed announced plans to produce a human baby by cloning within the next two years. Worldwide debate has been sparked after Dolly, the sheep, was cloned from a mammary gland as was declared by Kelly Morris. Reproductive physiologist Panos Zavos of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori told a meeting of fertility experts on January 26 that they with other collaborators would attempt to produce a baby through cloning within the next two years also. The project would take place in a Mediterranean country (Vogel). At the University of Wisconsin scientists reported they have successfully cloned five species, including primates, using cows' eggs, which are far more readily available than human ova or eggs. One problem has occurred; more than ninety percent of the embryos created do not come to life, or are destroyed because there are errors in the genetic makeup (McKinnell 103). This is definitely playing God. Experts, such as Professor Robert Gilmore McKinnell, say there is no reason that cloning ought to be attempted in humans. Since ova, or eggs, must be extracted from healthy women, there would be unnecessary experimentation to harvest the ova. Dangerous multiple ovulation would be imposed on these healthy women. To extract the ova, invasive procedures would have to occur, and dangerous drugs would have to be administered (101). In Peter Spotts' article, an explanation of the procedure is offered. After ova and sperm cells are harvested, both types of cells being considered as living but not organisms, they are brought together for fertilization in vitro, that is, in a test tube. A fertilized egg is the goal. This is considered a living organism. This organism must then be enucleated, or the nucleus must be extracted. A nuclear donor must be found, so another embryo is enucleated, and that nucleus will be implanted into the first embryo. The embryo is then transferred to the donor uterus or womb. At this point, two viable embryos have undergone enucleation. A donor female has undergone unnecessary administration of drugs and invasive surgery, and another female has undergone implantation with hope for a pregnancy. Ninety percent of the embryos do not survive. The goal is a human child being brought to term. And at whose expense? There are recent instances of families having children for the express purpose of creating bone marrow donors for other siblings who have cancer and need bone marrow transplants. Embryos were created in the lab, and most died. Others, that were implanted, miscarried. This brings up ethical and moral issues concerning the value of human life. Shannon H. Smith states that many court cases are sited where law is unclear and where the courts decide in favor of parents who give permission for minors to donate cells / tissue for another sibling in the family. Law has not caught up with modern technology. How can it catch up with the future technology? Cloning humans isn't the only reason cloning research is so important. There are prospects in the area of repairing devastated tissues and organs because an adult cell that has become specialized to do a particular job, say, to be a liver or blood cell, can unlearn its role and work to do something quite different. A patient with a terrible liver disease will be able to see another type of cell in his body reprogrammed to act as a healthy liver cell and forgo the risk of immune rejection that accompanies transplanted organ tissues. A cancer patient, says Wadman, whose bone marrow has been destroyed by radiation, could be treated with bone marrow grown from another cell from his own body. As it stands, there is controversy over reproductive cloning versus therapeutic cloning. "If we reject reproductive cloning, but accept therapeutic cloning, we should know why, and clearly explain our ethical ground for making a distinction," said Eija-Riitta Korhola, a conservative member of the European Parliament from Finland (qtd. in Morris). China seeks to continue its research in tissue and organ engineering. Cloning can help produce less expensive transplants and improve the quality of life in rural and poor China. In Japan, though, laws exist against human cloning, even though interest is high in expanding the population as Japan has one of the world's fastest declining populations (Spotts). "With the world population reaching five billion, is there a reason to create more?" (McKinnell 105). Other reasons cited by Ruth Deech, chair of the HFEA, include "the generation of genetically identical tissue for use in cancer treatment" (qtd. Morris 785). "There are a lot of people highly motivated" to be the first to clone a human. The Zavos-Antinori plans "are forcing us to look at reality and to acknowledge that this is going to happen" (Spotts). "I'm sure it is doable," said Michael Bishop of Infigen, a biotechnology company in DeForest, Wisconsin (qtd. in Vogel). In the article, "The Prospect of Cloning Human Beings," the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention stated that seeking to clone human beings demonstrates man's spiritual and technological arrogance which aims at usurping God's prerogatives as Creator. The belief that there is a divine spark in humans is what separates man from beast. Mary B. Mahowald writes that where the sperm donor for artificial insemination is not the father of the child, then the egg donor for cloning would not be the mother. Who, then, would be the parents? The parents would be those people who cared for and loved the child. Because ethics and morals must be involved as human life is at stake, some considerations must be made. Research in tissue cloning ought to continue. As this is written, it has been reported that fat cells contain millions of stem cells which could be used to create kidney, heart, or liver cells, thereby creating organs necessary for transplants. To have transplants with one's own cells is preferable to donor organs as there is a greater percentage of success. There would be no immune rejection as the cells belong originally to the person, and health would be restored more rapidly. Research in cloning human beings should be banned, whether for infertile couples or to create the perfect human being. Laws need to be enacted that would not only include the technology we have now, but also include the technology of the future. Life creates life. To have thousands of human embryos die because of failures at implantation or laboratory error or problems with the procedure would be saying that human life is worthless to the community. Attempts to create nearly perfect human beings give scientists the power that has been ascribed only to God. At this time cloning can happen between two living cells. What of the scenario of the deceased child and the grief-stricken parents? Would technology go so far as to try to clone cells from the deceased, bringing a baby into the world who is the image and likeness of the deceased? Would the parents be the same after having such a child? Would grief never be ended, once and for all? And what about cloning great people in history? Would Mozart be Mozart if he were cloned and raised in the twenty-first century? Would Hitler still be Hitler? Will there ever be an answer to the controversy concerning nature versus nurture? Would the people of the past bring their talents and passion with them if they were cloned and raised now? Would the copying procedure of cloning actually diminish some, if not all, the gifts given by the Creator? Controversy rages between those who consider reproductive cloning versus those who consider therapeutic cloning. As hard as this is, it would be wrong of us to think that parents of a deceased child could have that child back. It would be wrong to populate the earth with copies of humans. It would be wrong to expect a perfectly healthy female to undergo treatments that are invasive and dangerous for no illness present. However, if there were a way to clone healthy tissue for transplant or to replace necrotic tissue from the ravages of cancer, then there is a place for cloning human tissue. If we study Seed's thoughts concerning human beings becoming more like God, then let us look to God for the example (qtd. in Ordaz). He treated each creation uniquely. So, then, should we. The twenty-first century is here. The technology is here. The choice is ours. |
Sources Cited Mahowald, Mary B. "Genes, Clones, and Gender Equality." DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 3 (2000): 495-526. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/univ>. McKinnell, Robert Gilmore. Cloning of Frogs, Mice, and Other Animals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979. McLaren, Anne. "Art Imitates Life Relevancy." Science June 2000: 100. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com/s/eduma>. Morris, Kelly. "UK Hears Evidence on Cloning of Human Beings." Lancet 349 (Mar. 1997): 785. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/univ/>. Ordaz, Garcia Daniel. "Debating Cloning." Pan American [Edinburg, TX] 1 Mar. 2001: 1, 4. "The Prospect of Cloning Human Beings: Has Knowledge Leapt Ahead of Wisdom?" DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 2 (1999): 605-638. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/univ>. Smith, H Shannon. "Ignorance is not Bliss: Why a Ban on Human Cloning is Unacceptable." Journal of Law-Medicine 9 (1999): 311. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/univ>. Spotts, Peter N. "Human Cloning goal set; Despite Opposition, 'This is Going to Happen.'" Washington Post 12 Feb. 2001: 12. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com/s/eduma>. Vogel, Gretchen. "Reproductive Biology: Cloning: Could Humans Be Next?" Science Feb. 2001: 100. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com/s/eduma>. Wadman, Meredith. "Cloning Without Human Clones." Wall Street Journal 20 Jan.1998. 2 Mar. 2001 <http://www.junkscience.com/news/wadman.html>. |