Human Cloning

Human Cloning

Is cloning necessary for advancements in improving the quality of life? People often question whether or not we as a scientific nation are trying to play the role of God by the diverse issue of human cloning.

Early in 1997 Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut revealed to the world that he had successfully cloned an adult sheep, known to the world as Dolly. With this invention the world made a collective gasp at the realization that cloning was no longer an element of a science fiction movie. Since then the cloning of human beings has been one of the most largely debated topics in the world. From the schoolhouse to the White House discussions have begun regarding the ethical implications of cloning. In several recent polls by Time Magazine (The Ethics of Human Cloning 1998) it was shown that 75% of the responding population thought that human cloning was a bad idea. Furthermore, 74% of the respondents believed that cloning was against gods' will, and when asked if they would clone themselves if presented with an opportunity, 91% responded with no.

However when asked to define human cloning an estimated 95% could not do it correctly. Human cloning is reproduction without the joining of sperm and egg. Instead, in the laboratory, the nucleus of the egg is replaced with the nucleus of another cell to produce an embryo. The nucleus could come from the woman who donated the egg or any human – male or female. The result is an embryo that is genetically identical with the donor of the nucleus. Opponents of human cloning often argue that it is immoral and unethical to clone human beings for both religious and humanitarian reasons. Moreover others describe human cloning as a luxury for the wealthy and as a tool for the Organ Market Development. Conversely, I feel that cloning is immoral and a bad idea for the following reasons.

First of all cloning may reduce genetic variability. Producing many clones runs the risk of creating a population that is entirely the same. This population would be susceptible to the same diseases. That means that one disease could devastate an entire population. One could easily picture the human race being wiped out by a single virus. However, less drastic but more probable events could occur from lack of genetic diversity. For example, if a large percent of the nation cattle population are clones, a particular strain of mad cow disease could affect the entire population. The result could be catastrophic food shortages. If human identical clones are made and disease strikes, what could we do to stop it from devastating our entire population? How many people would have to suffer and die for the sake of technology?

Second, cloning is currently a very expensive process. It requires large amounts of money and biological expertise. It took Ian Wilmut and his associates 277 tries to successfully create Dolly. Since then a new cloning technique has been created that it is proven to be more reliable. Even this technique has only a 2% to 3% success rate. How much money would the United States be willing to spend on this project? Money that could otherwise be spent on things such as social security, Medicare, defense, roads, education, and towards our environment. Any research would eventually need to be tested on human beings. The ability to clone humans may lead to the genetic tailoring of offspring. It is conceivable that a scientist will be able to determine a baby's eye and hair color. In most cases even the baby's gender, or its' resistance to a certain disease.