FREE ESSAY ON FAREWELL TO THE FICTION IN THE SCIENCE OF CLONING

FAREWELL TO THE FICTION IN THE SCIENCE OF CLONING

In his 1930's futuristic novel, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley predicted a society where
the human race was created in a laboratory and carried to term in incubators. At the time
it was regarded as being ludicrously impossible. The idea of cloning in the eighties
required multiple reproductions of specialized cells. Even then, the possibility of
cloning was unachievable. Recently, scientists cloned a lamb, simply by replicating the
cell in the skin tissue. It is now happening in all parts of the world: Scotland,
England, America, and Australia. As technology increases, doubts and "what-ifs" turn into
realities. Three essays were examined concerning cloning endangered and extinct animals
and the benefits and detriments of therapeutic cloning.
Matt Ridley, from the article "The Lure of Detinction", claims there is "finally a noble
use for cloning. To date," he states, "it has only been promised to serve the human
race's vanity, by producing doppelgangers, and hypochondria, by providing spare livers.
But with the announcement that cloning has been applied to vanished species, to reverse
their extinction, it suddenly seems a rather higher calling" (1-4). A Massachusetts's
company has taken the first steps by cloning a rare Indian wild ox embryo called a guar
and implanting it into a cow. Once successful, the company plans to do the same for a
recently extinct Spanish goat called a bucardo. The possibilities are limited for the
time being however, as long-extinct creatures can not be included in the "wish list" due
to inadequate knowledge of their molecular biology. Even reptile, bird, and amphibian
cloning are quite a ways off because they lay eggs. However, by allowing research to
continue, time will produce stunning results.
In addition to reviving extinct animals, Great Britain is currently requesting permission
to pursue what is called therapeutic cloning. According to Mike Pezzella, Prime Minister
Tony Blair said he would introduce legislation to change the ban on human cloning passed
in the 1990 Health Act to allow creation of human embryos for scientific research (3-4).
Therapeutic cloning involves replacing the nucleus from a donated egg with that of the
patient. Since an embryo younger than 14 days is essentially a ball of cells, scientists
believe they can tweak the ball to develop into the kind of specialized tissue or organ
needed for the patient. This act, if approved, would still strictly prohibit the mixing
of human adult cells with the live eggs of any animal species. Transferring a cloned
embryo to the womb of a human mother would also remain a criminal offense.
In contrast, the article "Human cloning is wrong" provides an opposing viewpoint over
therapeutic cloning. It states: "This government, however, sees no problems with human
cloning, other than anxiety at a possible public outcry" ("Human cloning is wrong", 2-3).
Additionally, not all "experts" are in favor of this field. The Donaldson committee was
set up initially because the government's consultative procedure had been discredited by
the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, which stands to make huge profits from
"therapeutic" cloning. The article continues to state that why lift the ban when it would
encourage other means of going about the same technology, such as Adult stem cell
research. The author concludes by stating that the word "therapeutic" is misleading; it
is not therapeutic for the embryo, it is cannibalistic.
After digesting the material, I have come to the conclusion that cloning, both
therapeutic and reproductive, is essential and inevitable, aside from human reproductive
cloning. Matt Ridley's article proves the technology is obviously available. We are able
to clone rare goats in the uterus of a cow, and nearly all domesticated animals have been
cloned. The facts are also numerous: the first cow was cloned successfully years ago, and
is doing very well to date. Fears of "shorter cloned life expectancy" are do not hold
water. In one case, the cells of six cloned calves lived twice as long as sexually
reproduced calves. It is also possible to bring back some of the species mankind
destroyed without damaging any existing animals welfare. To this, some argue that the
more money we put into reproductive cloning, the faster funds for protecting those
species that are endangered will dwindle. If this is the case, there was never enough
money present in the funding to begin with. As far as therapeutic cloning, Dr. Liam
Donaldson, Britain's Chief Medical Officer, personally handed in the recommendation over
lifting the ban for therapeutic cloning research to the Prime Minister, as documented in
"UK gives OK to human cloning for research," by Pezzella. This action clearly shows the
noted Doctor's belief and support in the cause. The one essay aforementioned I disagree
with is "Human cloning is wrong." The arguments used I found to be one-sided and
judgmental. For instance, this essay suggests dropping therapeutic cloning for adult stem
cell cloning. Why drop a highly possible treatment before its potential can be realized?
To do so would be anti-intellectual and unscientific. As Dr. David Turner has stated,
"There is no use in trying to put the genie back in the bottle... Dolly has happened."
The debate over cloning, as one can see, has many different fields of discussion. Many
feel that cloning will only provide negative effects for the future. There could be
nothing farther from the truth. As long as therapeutic and reproductive cloning are
closely monitored and regulated, only benefits are possible. After studying the topic, I
feel it is futile to ignore this technology or to attempt to argue against it. Whether
sanctioned by the government or carried out in hidden laboratories, cloning should and
will take place.