Discussion 2

Cloning, for Better or for Worse….

Is the possibility of cloning humans a reasonable question for these modern times---does it seem a suitable request morally, ethically, religiously or politically? Or what about cloning various organs to replace the malfunctioning ones in the body? Imagine the thought of through scientific research expanding life, as we know it by diversifying the human race through lab raised human genomes? With science, the possibilities seem endless. Or do we let our religious beliefs, get in the way--dying hard and interfering with the modern day technological advances, to the extent that our own personal lives and children are affected? What if we miss out on that healthy life, “we could have had,” by not supporting the cure of a disease through gene cloning or stem cell research? With this in mind, lets take at look at the benefits of science and the concerns raised by moral and religiously right people to gain more insight into where we might stand on this issue of reproductive cloning.

Through science, in Christine Willgoos’ article, “FDA Regulation: An Answer to the Questions of Human Cloning and Germline Gene Therapy,” Germline gene therapy is a new cloning technology. It “…begins by isolating an affected embryo. The disease causing gene may then be removed or inactivated.” Although this form of therapy has not been used on humans yet, she says that it can help further along and assist with advancements in for example, “The Human Genome Project,” and “will lead to easier targeting of affected gametes.” Although it’s fairly well known that many scientists and policy makers at this time still believe human cloning, which is created though somatic cell transfer, to be considered unsafe and cloning technology not that far advanced yet, there are other cloning techniques and therapies that are out there now, which may contribute to cures for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, organ transplantations and other diseases. (Willgoos, 2001, p. 102). Willgoos goes on to claim that one possible benefit of somatic cell cloning is we could eventually eliminate organ donor lists. Through “creating an embryonic stem cell,” which could, “…then be directed to differentiate into a liver, thereby creating a spare organ which can be transplanted without fear of immunorejection.” (Wilgoos, 2001, p. 112). With this thought in mind, who would ever have thought we would have come this far?

From a perspective of opposition, religious people have the greatest concern with cloning in general. For this group of people, which is a huge percentage of the world, the topic of cloning brings up huge roadblocks and raises serious moral and ethical issues. With the debate of cloning and the many benefits and positive effects that it could have on humans, it should be no wonder why scientist and lawmakers are concerned with what this group of believers believes. Their arguments and concerns can be a strong influential force behind the future support and research on the technology of cloning. An Internet study, conducted by William Bainbridge, Ph.D., stated that the percentage of religious church going people conclusively opposed cloning higher than any other group--close to 90 percent over the agnostics or non-believers. Bainbridge reveals, “31.7 percent feel that research on human cloning should be encouraged and that 52.3 percent want human cloning banned by law.” (Bainbridge, 2003, pg. 4). A lot of these people against human cloning believe that “ The only person who should grant a life is God.” “…not by splicing genes in a lab.” Their are others who believe, “Cloning should be limited to medical reasons only, and only allowed to continue so far.” Bainbridge goes on to say that when people are logically thinking and “citing,” their own health conditions: ”Cloning elements for some things, like stem cells, should be allowed for the medical benefits, which could help me with my lungs, would be good.”

For myself, and with the information I’ve learned and obtained so far about cloning, no, I don’t believe science is advanced enough to be safe with human cloning--yet. Although, I agree with science using therapeutic cloning to replace malfunctioning organs with new healthy ones, or using stem cell research in a therapeutic cloning environment for the sake of helping to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s. As science keeps moving forward into the future, I believe the possibilities are boundless with what can be achieved through cloning technology.

The debate over reproductive cloning is “primarily” a moral and ethical dilemma at this time—manipulating a human genome is still outrageous to even think about. There is still much public upheaval about the topic of debate due to ignorance, misinformation and that information being misunderstood. Although many fear that because there is still so much unknown about cloning in general that the “potential benefits” still don’t outweigh the health risks. Maybe as science expands its research and discovers deeper knowledge about this very heated topic, we can decide how much further we want to take it as a human race. Will people in the future produced from cloning be considered a-sexual “its” or just possessions? The question still remains.

References

Willgoos, C. (2001), FDA regulation: An Answer to the Questions of Human Cloning and Germline Gene Therapy, American Journal of Law and Medicine, 27 (1), 101-124.

Bainbridge, W. (2003), Religious Opposition to Cloning, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 13, 1-23. http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html