Cloning humans has recently become a possibility. It is achieved by the production of a group of identical cells or organisms that all derive from a single individual (Grolier 220). It is not known when cloning humans really became a possibility, but it is known that there are two possible ways that we can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloning them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular person. With these two methods almost at our fingertips, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: Can we do this, and should we? There is no doubt that many problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future. Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society could actually experience. "It is much in the news. The public has been bombarded with newspaper articles, magazine stories, books, television shows, and movies as well as cartoons¡¨, writes Robert McKinnell, the author of Cloning: A Biologist Reports (24). Much of this information in these sources leads the public in the wrong direction and makes them wonder how easy it would be for everyone around them to be cloned. Bizarre ideas about cloning lie in many science fiction books and scare the public with their unbelievable possibilities. David Rorvik wrote a highly controversial book entitled In His Image. In it he describes the story of a wealthy man who decides to clone himself. He is successful in doing this and causes quite an uprise in his community. This book was written in the late seventies and even then, societies reaction to the issues of human cloning was generally a negative one. We face a problem today even greater than the one in this book and it involves the duplication of human beings in a society that has always been known for its diversity. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at George W...
... middle of paper ...
...nkind,¡¨ Time (June 21-27): 63-76.
Grolier, Thomas. Can We Still Talk. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1994.
Hamilton, Bernard. Cloning of embryos. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1991.
Habgood, John. ¡§Manipulating mankind.¡¨ Nature, Vol. 365 September 23, 1993: 3 04.
Kolberg, Rebecca. ¡§Human Embryo Cloning Reported.¡¨ Science, October 29, 1993, Vol.262: 652-653.
McCormick, Richard A. ¡§Should we clone humans?¡¨ Christian Century, November 17- 24, 1993: 1148-1149. P. J. ¡§The pros and cons of freedom of access to human genome data¡¨, Nature, Vol. 333 June 23, 1988: 692.
McKinnell, Robert. Cloning: A Biologist Reports. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.
Radford, Tim. ¡§Designing the Next Generation.¡¨ World Press Review, March 1994: 22-23.
Rorvik, David. In His Image. New York: Harper & Row Publisher, 1992.
Shah, Dilip M. ¡§Engineering Herbicide Tolerance in Transgenic Plants.¡¨ Science, July 25, 1986: 478.
Watson, Traci. ¡§Seeking the wonder in a mote of dust.¡¨ U.S. News & World Report, October 3, 1994: 66.
Voelker, Roger B. ¡§Who¡¦s Afraid of the Human Genome?¡¨ Hastings Center Report, July/August 1989: 19-21.
Zielinski, Sarah (22 January 2010). Cracking The Code of The Human Genome. Smithsonian.com. Retrieved from www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/?no-ist
Lewin, Tamar. “No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund.” New York Times. New York Times, 23 October, 2010. Web. 18 April. 2014.
If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right to clone humans. Even though technology is constantly advancing, it is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed clones.
Watson, James D. "The Human Genome Project: A Personal View." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 7th ed. Ed.
Morrison, David. "Carl Sagan’s Life and Legacy as Scientist, Teacher, and Skeptic." - CSI. CSICOP, Feb. 2007. Web. 06 May 2014.
...w, the media has framed the cloning debate as an ethical debate and has provided the framework that much of the public views the issue. Among the articles that I reviewed, the main characterization of cloning as an ethical issue centers around two connected worries: the loss of individuality, the motivations behind cloning. In the presentation cloning the media has not always presented an objective view of cloning, but rather has played upon peoples fears about loss of individuality and questionable use of cloning to create uncertainty among the public.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
In earlier times the subject of cloning human beings has been no more than just a fantastic idea to play around with in science-fiction books and movies. As time progresses though, more and more fantasies become realities. Such is the case with cloning. What has only been dreamt up before by artists on pen and paper can now be performed by scientists in laboratories. With the ability to clone humans now possible the question of whether such an act should even be carried out is raised. How far should cloning be allowed to go if it should even be allowed at all? The answer is that cloning should be allowed, but only in moderation.
Would clones understand themselves as creations or copies? Would cloning undermine the conception of a human being’s individuality? (Medicines’ Brave New World) Those are two of the most questioned aspects of human cloning. Everyone always wants to be their own person and have their own thought, basically, be as original as they can be. How original can you get when there’s someone out there thinking, doing, and looking exactly like you? Not very original, if you ask me. Human cloning, cloning of any kind, has been looked at as being creepy, scary, immoral, and in the most dismal way, exciting. Cloning of humans should be prohibited because it is offensive to the human life and religion.
Imagine being a first year medical surgeon just out of the highest-ranking university in the nation. You are placed in the ER, in the Methodist Hospital building, as your days are spent saving people from the cruel realities that they are forced to live among. Day after day, you see handfuls of people coming in with a variety of gunshot, knife, and domestic violence wounds. Your troubles are easily compensated, however, by receiving over $200,000 a year, a brand new Mercedes, and a house upon the palisade shores. Suppose for a moment that one evening while you are on duty, an ambulance radios in and informs the hospital staff that they are bringing in a multiple gunshot wound victim and to prepare the ER for an immediate operation. You begin to order people around and dictate what needs to be prepared before the ambulance arrives. Finally the victim is present, only to show that he is not the average gangster or policeman, instead it is the near lifeless body of your own son. Your blood freezes; your brain shuts down, as you see every precious second slip away through the lifeless gaze of your child's eyes.
Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. New York: HarperCollins.
Smith, Ethan. “Is Glass Half Empty.” NYMag.com. N.P., 18 Jan. 1999. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
In recent years, many new breakthroughs in the areas of science and technology have been discovered. A lot of these discoveries have been beneficial to scientific community and to the people of the world. One of the newest breakthroughs is the ability to clone. Ever since Ian Wilmut and his co-workers completed the successful cloning of an adult sheep named Dolly, there has been an ongoing debate on whether it is right or wrong to continue the research of cloning (Burley). Recently, in February 2001, CNN conducted a poll that stated, 90% of American adults think that cloning humans is a bad idea (Robinson). Even though the majority of Americans are opposed to human cloning, there are many benefits that will come from the research of it. Advancements in the medical field and in the fertility process will arise from human cloning. These advancements make cloning very beneficial to the human society.
Haas, Cliff. “Where has the night sky gone, and why should we care?”(Apr. 2000): 282