Cloning Argument

Andre Szyszkowski

Psy 130

04/28/05

Cloning: Choice is Ethical

Thousands of people a year are placed on the organ donor's list. Thousands of people a year are diagnosed with diseases that are dubbed fatal unless a transplant or transfusion is given. This has created a large demand for some alternative method to the present donor practice. Research in the "taboo" science of cloning seems to provide a viable method in which to aid the problem aforementioned and many others as well. But is it ethical?

Cloning technology is expected to aid the result in several medical breakthroughs. It is thought that there may one day be a cure for cancer. This is because the cloning process helps us understand the process of cell differentiation. Theories exist that if a cure for cancer can be found, then further testing may lead to a cure for heart attacks and cloning organs for organ transplantation. Scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged (Smith). The cloning of organs would eliminate individuals waiting on a list for an organ transplant. Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys could be produced or regenerated. This could provide a means for suffering patients in desperate need of a transplant, which also eliminates the risk of rejection, for these new organs will be compose of their own tissue (Garg).

Human cloning though, has always been an issue of controversy, be it in terms of its ethics or religious reasoning, and there are many who will counter these ideas at any means to see it not happen. They would argue that it is not our right to dabble in such research, but why not? In a science where the possibilities for good are endless and many lives can be saved why not? Others counterarguments may include the worry that there would be no line drawn, cloning would go too far. For example, in this war, would it be ethical to clone "soldiers"? Creating an army to win a war, using these "soldiers" as a type of disposable robot to fight and help win. This can also be called the 10,000 Hitler objection, since it is most commonly stated as fear that someone would use the technology to create an army of Hitlers. It's a fear generated from too much bad science fiction (Hume).

Cloned soldiers would still have to be carried to maturity by an army of mothers, and raised by an army of nannies and teachers. It would still take about two decades to come up with the first batch of useful soldiers or slaves.

Even then, getting the clones to all believe the same thing would be impossible. Neither knowledge nor experience can be cloned, and knowledge and experience heavily influences what type of person we become. To hear some people speak, one would think that Hitler's clones would all grow up speaking German regardless of the language spoken by those around them. Just as the clone may learn a different language, he is certainly going to have different experiences, and is likely to draw different lessons from those experiences (Hume). But if this remains a worry to some it can be simply taken care of with the passing of strict legislation, guidelines to what extents and directions that the science may go and not go.

One major supporter of cloning, the Roslin Institute, is sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and obtains funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), European Union, Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC), Milk Development Council (MDC), and other public and private organizations. They believe that cloning to produce the 'ultimate' product, is essential in our world's development. By producing quality products (meat, milk, etc.) we are eliminating the use of artificial items (flavoring, coloring, pesticides) in our food. This also provides for a plausible method that may be used to combat famine and starvation (Roslin).

Americans for Cloning Elvis (ACE) believe cloning great individuals with exemplary talents, genius, or character can be reproduced. Another Einstein, Mozart or Michael Jordon could benefit our society. They could teach us and help us teach our children, thus creating a stronger and healthier society. However the opposition party believes otherwise. The majority of the anti-cloning population believes that although cloning may produce an individual with the same genetic inheritance, it is not possible to replicate the environment in which the individual was raised. The individuals environment is where the talents become enough to become "great." Though this may be on certain levels a true belief, the potential of the individual is still present in the clone, and if grasped fully we mat be able to gain sought the after knowledge.

This theory as well can be adapted to animals. Biologists believe that endangered species could be saved. They hope that through the research and perfection of the technology to clone mammals, preservation of endangered species will become available.

Many others especially many doctors believe that with cloning, infertile couples could have children. Despite getting a fair amount of publicity in the news current treatments for infertility, in terms of percentages, are not