Cloning - Just Another Field of Science
One can imagine lying in bed with the knowledge that they have only
a week to live. This prognosis is brought on because the person needs a
new heart, liver, kidney, or any other life saving organ. Now that the
realization of what has transpired hits this person it is time to find an
organ donor. It could be the next car crash victim or someone from the
immediate family. However, the odds of finding a donor grim. Wouldn't it
be nice if the technology to clone a perfectly matching organ to replace
the faulty one existed? This is the problem with today's society. Too
many people are afraid of the future. Cloning, like any other science is
hindered by the general public's fear of the unknown. Whether it is a
single cell to a full human, cloning research is a major next step in
scientific development. It is easy to understand why people fear the
unknown, but it is hard to figure out why they can't take a step back and
realize that cloning is basically an extension of current and accepted prac
tices. Also, the general public's fear shows up in the nation's
congress and even the president. Who knows the real opinions of the
individuals in congress, but as long as the general public is against
cloning, politicians will be too, so they can gain support from voters.
Even with all these setbacks, there are still major uses for cloning
research. Uses that will never present themselves unless people put down
their moral, ethical, and religious shields and allow the research to take
its course. Regardless of the majority opinion, cloning is just another
science. It deserves the time and mind straining efforts given by today's
scientists. It doesn't deserve to be shut out or pushed aside because
people are too paranoid to let the future take its course.
Cloning has been around for several years. It has just recently
hit the spotlight with Dr. Richard Seed's announcement that he will start a
project to clone the first human in one and a half years (Krieger 1). With
all the media coverage, the general public's knowledge of cloning has
shifted from nothing to forming biased opinions on a topic they really
still don't have all the facts about. In some cases, cloning is an
extension of current and accepted practices that will very likely improve
over time. This includes reproductive therapy like in vitro fertilization.
The American Life League in the following states information on the
advantages of cloning over in vitro fertilization:
"Consider couples going through IVF. [There are] many reasons why they
might choose to clone embryos either by blastomere separation, or by
nuclear transfer. One would be to obtain enough embryos to achieve
pregnancy and offspring. If a woman produced only one or two eggs or one
or two embryos, it might be difficult for that couple to have a family.
Splitting the embryos or cloning them by nuclear transfer would enable them
to overcome that problem. Or they may want to do that to avoid having to
go through a second IVF cycle which not only is very costly but is onerous
for the woman involved, including hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval.
A third [reason] would be to have a back up supply of embryos from which
tissue or organs could be obtained if a tragedy befell a first child.
Obviously in that scenario the cloned embryos could be transferred to the
uterus at the same time leading to simultaneously born intended twins or
they could be transferred at later points in time. Now an important point,
indeed a crucial point, about cloning as part of IVF is that such
activities would appear to fall within the fundamental freedom of married
couples, including infertile married couples to have biologically related
offspring. If the ability to clone an embryo and transfer it to the uterus
is essential in determining whether that couple will reproduce, then
cloning should receive the same legal respect and protection that other
means of noncoital reproduction receive" (39).
Many scientist use genetic screening to create perfect genomes for
whatever their research might be. The possibility of screening human
embryos for genetic diseases and replacing the disrupted genes with
perfectly cloned genes remains if the research is allowed to continue.
This opens many doors for the medical field. It would be an enormous feat
if genetic diseases like Muscular Dystrophy could be destroyed before the
child was even born. Or if the child wasn't going to grow an organ or
appendage, new genes to stimulate growth and function could be cloned and
placed with the embryo to aid the development of the child (American Life
League 40).
In the future, cloning could prove to aid in organ donor programs.
The ability to clone an organ would be incredible because it would allow
patients that would almost certainly die another chance. This procedure
has already been developed by Dr. Anthony Atala, director of tissue
engineering in the urology department at the Children's Hospital in Boston,
and his partner Dr. Dario Fauza. Together, they have experimented with a
method of growing replacement organs for babies while they are still in the
womb. Dr. Atala cited underdeveloped and disrupted bladders and windpipes
as organs that could be cloned and replaced in a baby inside the womb
(Price 1). Dr. Atala states, "As surgeons, that's what we dream about-
having a shelf full of body parts" (Price 2).
One of the major problems a scientist has in trying to develop a
science like cloning is the politics behind it. Soon after Dr. Seed's
announcement President Clinton tried to revive a bill he proposed that
would put a five-year ban, or waiting period on cloning (Chayes and Edwards
2). Clinton's intentions are to give an American Bio-ethics team time to
decide if cloning is morally acceptable and should be permitted. It is not
certain whether President Clinton is totally against cloning or not.
However, with all the media coverage, the major opinion towards cloning is
that it isn't wanted. It is conceivable that most politicians are going to
sway on their personal beliefs about cloning because of their political
agendas and obligations to registered voters. Richard A. Vierling Ph.D.,
director of the genetics program at Indiana Crop Improvement Association
and Purdue, refutes congress's intentions on banning cloning or any
technology. Dr. Vierling said, "We will never be able to stop technolog y.
If we try, it puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage in
technological advancement. This is especially troubling, since countries
are judged not by their manufacturing capabilities, but on their
technological status. Technology is power." In all aspects, cloning is a
new science that is being criticized and hindered by a biased opinion
largely brought on by the media. It is unfortunate that this opinion
generates initial action by congress to ban cloning.
The sheer facts on cloning are easy to understand. It is a simple
process and deserves further study. As a whole there are many reasons
people feel that cloning shouldn't be allowed. Fear is a major
complication to science. Fear is an interesting thing. It plays with
people's minds and forces quick judgment. Sometimes those judgments are
for the better. With the cloning issue, they aren't. While fear is a
great contributor to the hindrance of the science of cloning, religion adds
another aspect to be dealt with. Many peoples' beliefs on cloning are
affected by their religion. The American Life League stated,
"The gift of life which God the Creator and Farther has entrusted to man
calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and
to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at
the center of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral
problem raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on
the processes of procreation" (6).
Basically this quote is a very eloquent way of interpreting the Bible so
that it is against cloning. The Bible has been studied for hundreds of
years, but its interpretation can suggest just about anything the
particular person reading it wants to believe. The Bible is a long history
book. Whether it is entirely true or not is another debate. For all
intents and purposes, the Bible is an "ace in the hole" for anyone who
wants to debate the morals and ethics against cloning. However, the Bible
is only a worthy source if the person expressing its ideas has what they
believe is faith. If the Bible and teachings of the church controlled
scientific development, this society would probably still believe the world
was flat or the center of the universe. It is impossible to defend against
the teachings of the Bible because that is all they are, teachings.
Teachings, that reflect a countless number of peoples' opinions and
religious beliefs. The bible should not be used as a weapon to slow or
stop the development of cloning or any other science.
Cloning is just another science. It is almost redundant in that
fashion. Its only uniqueness is that it has such a controversy around it
caused by fear and misconception. Any science is too valuable to be
brushed aside. People must look past the politics and the morals to see
that cloning is an extension of current practices and could prove to be
better then those practices. There are too many conceivable uses for
cloning to let the technology die. No one knows what the future holds, but
the technology must be permitted to go on. Like it or not, sciences like
cloning are here and here to stay. It is up to society to put aside its
fears and stop trying to control the rate at which scientific development
advances because it is the only thing that is going to make a better
tomorrow.Partner sites: Labrador Retriever, Study Spanish in Costa Rica, and Free Essays and Term Papers