Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Human cloning negative effects
Human and animal cloning
Moral and ethics of cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Human cloning negative effects
Greg Jaffe, a spokesman for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, once said that “one of the issues [I have] had all along with cloning is that just because we can do something scientifically, [does not] mean we should do it.” Just because technology has developed and cloning has a slight chance of becoming successful, does not mean that it should be everyone’s first priority. The positives, negatives, and side effects of cloning should first be thought about. A clone is an “organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived.” Many think that clones are exact identical twins in both appearance and personality; they are not. As clones grow up, they start emerging different personalities just like everyone else. There also can be minimal or immense differences in the appearances since a large portion of clones are born with awful deformities and defects. Cloning both, animals and humans, has been proved to be very risky. Furthermore, there is a very slim chance that the cloning process will even be successful. Through somatic cell nuclear transfer, one of the processes used for cloning, only 0.1%-3% of cloning works. Still to this day, there have been no successful human clones made. There have been many rumors, but there has been no scientific evidence of those rumors to be deemed true. There have been plentiful animal clones made, though. Many scientists and civilians believe that human and animal cloning should not be used for any type of research or reproduction.
Notably, Dolly, a female lamb, is the first mammal to ever be cloned by Dr. Ian Wilmut from Scotland. She is the most well-known animal clone in the world. She did not have a good chance of being born, but...
... middle of paper ...
...it is a possible solution for future problems. Dolly, the first mammal to ever be successfully cloned, did not have a likely chance of becoming a successful clone. Out of 29 of the embryos, only one resulted in a pregnancy. SCNT and artificial embryo cloning are the two major processes used to clone. They should end up producing two genetically-identical clones. There are also many types of cloning that have a chance of being successful such as gene, reproductive, and therapeutic cloning. A lot of cloning experiments leave side effects on the human or animal. Altogether, every religion has its own point of view on the aspect of cloning. Cloning animals and humans can leave the clone with many side effects and deformities. Why should someone have to suffer just so a scientist can perform an experiment? Cloning is wrong and an artificial way to reproduce.
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.
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
When the novel “Frankenstein”, by Mary Shelley came out in 1831 the general public was introduced to the idea of man creating another man scientifically; without the use of reproduction. This idea is still very interesting today, however many ethical problems are implicated when scientists, like Victor Frankenstein, disrupt the moral and ethical standards like many modern day scientists have done today with cloning. The astronomical effects that followed after the creation of The Monster, demonstrates the horrid fact that creating a human was not natural or ethical.
Cloning is a procedure of creating genetically indistinguishable organisms through nonsexual means (Devolder 2008). After years of countless research and experimenting, scientists successfully cloned their first mammal using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In Devolder’s paper she states, “Somatic cells are any cells other than the reproductive system cells” (Devolder 2008). Scientists realized they could take fully developed somatic cells from any part of the body and, through the SCNT system, use the cells to make a genetic copy of the cell. This growth in cell research is binding scientists in a race to establish their findings so they could be the first in the finish line. This pressure to be renowned has driven scientists to attempt to control the very natural process of life. Our world is plagued by disease, an increase in population and poverty with limited resources to satisfy the basic needs of mankind, so cloning is often regarded as the solution. Cloning for reproduction and therapy has improved drastically displaying a lot of potential uses but is vastly outweighed with larger risks.
But on the contrary, many scientists believe that cloning can be such a positive achievement, not only for medical purposes, but for fighting extinction. For example, what if they could clone many of the endangered species that exist today? There are very few hundred of many beautiful animals that if something isn’t done to save them, they will be extinct in a few years. So if scientists could successfully clone and create these endangered species, although it would still depend on the clone maturing correctly and being able to reproduce successfully, it could be a great
successful clones often have problems with their body and are subject to a short lifespan ridden with health problems. This hurts the person or animal cloned rather than to help them, making cloning an immoral
The reasoning against the use and application of such technology, have mainly been established on common misconceptions regarding the psychological aspect of the process. For example, many still associate, [despite the profound evidence against the notion], a clone as being an exact mental and physical copy of the original organism. There isn’t, nor there has ever been, any scientific indication to support this theory. In terms of physical appearance however, yes, the newly produced organism will possess eerily similar features to that of the original. However, transfer of conceptual and emotional characteristics is not possible at this stage in time; the technology is far too inferior. In relation to therapeutic cloning, an extremely common reason used to oppose the idea, is the use of fertilised embryos in order to derive stem cells. Many activists and religious leaders believe that it is classified as eradicating potential life, and therefore is morally unacceptable. Scientists continue to discredit these claims, believing that the opposition’s reasoning, is a dogma that has outlived its
The Roslin Institute, is known for being one of the world's primary research centers on farm and other animals. In 1996, Professor Wilmut, along with his assistant, Keith Campbell, made history by creating the first organism to be duplicated (cloned) from adult cells. Their creation infamously became known as Dolly, the first cloned adult sheep.
Automatically when people talk about human cloning that tend to be negative. Most reaction is people shouldn't play god or interfere with nature. Of course there are negative consequences that could come from cloning. On the other hand there is so many positive things that could save more lives than it would cost. Yes Cloning involves risky techniques that could result in premature babies and some deaths. That is why public policy needs to be changed on cloning. The medical possibilities are endless if federal money is given to research and develop cloning techniques.
Ever since the successful birth of Dolly on July 5, 1996, the scientific community as well as the public have been engulfed in the idea of reproductive cloning, its benefits, and its potential threats. This well-publicized event was a giant steppingstone in understanding and using the techniques of gene cloning and reproductive cloning. By using a technique known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, scientists at the Roslin Institute removed the nucleus from an oocyte (unfertilized egg), and then fused this newly enucleated cell with a donor cell (with complete nucleus). This new embryo was then implanted into the womb of a surrogate mother ewe. In total, out of 277 fused cells, 29 successfully developed into embryos, while only one of these resulted in a successful live birth (a total success rate of 0.4%) (Wong, 202). Dolly was the first living mammal to be cloned by this fast and accurate process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, but was by no means the first animal to be cloned. The first...
In order to strongly argue against cloning, there must be an understanding of its process and what exactly it is. Simply stated, a clone is a duplicate just like a photocopy. A good example of such “copies” that occur are identical twins, which are duplicates of each other. “The first step of DNA cloning is to isolate a complete gene and is to chromosomal sequences and then to gradually begin flaking the chromosomal sequences of a single DAN molecule. Then the DNA clone can be electronically labeled and used as a probe to isolate the chromosomal sequences from a collection of different types of genes, which should contain cloned sequences that would represent the whole gene. This action will produce new sets of cloned cells identical to the mother cell. The new set of cells are isolated and likewise the simplified process is repeated all over again until the cells form a complete organ. In order to produce a complete organism the DNA must be altered in a variety of way to come out with the finished product to be the complete organism.” In simple terms, a cell is taken from a donor woman. Then an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman. The DNA from the cell is removed and transferred to the egg. The egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The resulting baby is genetically identical to the original donor.
Cloning, especially human cloning attracts increasingly more attention after the first mammal cloning animal Dolly born in 1997. Cloning is divided into two categories: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is more related to tissue level cloning to transplant healthy cells and reproductive cloning is individual level cloning. Thus, the term cloning in this essay is used to describe both individual level and tissue level cloning. Public have different views. Some people support it because of its medical value, yet some people argue that it may bring many safety risks and moral problems. Hence, decisions ought to be made to identify the extent of cloning. Therefore, this essay introduces two major benefits of human cloning on disease therapy and analysis two arguments against it on safety and ethical issues.
Secondly, “the most the human race has to loose by playing around with cloning is that the genetic diversity would be lost (Andrea Castro, 2005).” Reducing the genetic differences will produce clones that are grossly overlarge, many animals will be born with genetic mutations, and there will be a higher “risk of disease transfer (Saskaschools, 2003). “A review of all the world's cloned animals suggests that every one of them is genetically and physically defective (Leake, 2002).” Mutations will be passed on to the younger generation because if a cloned species has a mutation in their DNA this mutation will be passed on. Cloning has been linked with diseases of ageing, arthritis and, cancer.
been made possible but yet a majority of them have died in early stages of development or after birth according to the study of the cloned sheep, Dolly (Magalhães 1). Those who make it suffer from several defects acquired from birth (Magalhães 1). During recent experimentation it took scientist Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, and his colleagues who created Dolly (a cloned sheep) 277 tries before they got a healthy, feasible lamb (Human Cloning 1). Due to the complication of human cloning even more deaths and deadly birth defects can be expected (Human Cloning 1). Even though human cloning has never been performed, one likely possibility is that babies born through this process will as well feature lethal birth defects (Magalhães 1).
The Benefits of Human Cloning 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 the 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).