Governments Should Not Allow Human

Governments Should Not Allow Human Cloning

As society comes closer to the reality of cloning humans, we should pause a moment and look at what we are doing and where it will lead. As children, we are taught to take responsibility for our actions and face the consequences of our choices. We are also expected to think ahead and use foresight when making decisions. While it is easier to think in the here and now, it is wise to think of the implications of what our choices will mean tomorrow. This is especially true with cloning. No doubt, it is in our future, but the questions we should be asking relate to the notion if we are actually ready to deal with cloning. At present, we are not ready - thee are still many unanswered questions regarding the subject. While the issue is hefty when it comes to debate and while it offers the possibility of hope, it also offers just as many, if not more, dangers. We should wait until we are sure about the ramifications of such an endeavor before stepping forward. Governments should not allow scientist to experiment with human cloning because we cannot know the outcome or the long-lasting ramifications of it.

While the promise of new technology is exciting and holds promise, we should not become blinded by that promise to what the worst case scenario could be. We should move ahead with our eyes open and until we know everything there is to know, we should not move on. Ian Wilmut, cloning pioneer, even admits that there is still so much about cloning that we do not know. He states that this lack of knowledge lies primarily with the aging of a cloned organism. He states:

As we grow older, changes occur in our cells that reduce the number of times they can reproduce. This clock of age is reset by normal reproduction during the production of sperm and eggs; that is why children of each new generation have a full life span. It is not yet known whether aging is reversed during cloning or if the clone's natural life is shortened by the years its parent has already lived" (Wilmut).

Wilmut also notes that automatic genetic systems that seek out and correct errors in our genes is a system that occur "during normal reproduction" (Wilmut) and "it is not known if that can occur during cloning. Research with animals is urgently required to measure the life span and determine the cause of death of animals produced by cloning" (Wilmut). This major issue lies unaddressed and society must know the answer to this question before moving ahead. We are adults and we should act responsibly before we do anything.

James Watson is correct in stating that we should not postpone experiments that we can conduct today, we should not simply do something because we can. We should remember is the fact that we can take nothing back. Once a process has started, it is almost impossible to stop it or even slow it down. Watson is willing to create cloned lives regardless of their quality of life, the life expectancy, and other consequences we cannot even image simply because he believes that we can "react rationally only to real (as opposed to hypothetical) risks" (Watson). What he does not consider is how these "hypotheticals" are not justified because they are dealing with human life. We cannot create life to "see what happens" to a cloned individual. If it were his child or grandchild, he might have a different opinion - especially if that child was horrifically malformed or only lived a short time, dying of a painful debilitating disease.

Watson is not the only one that seems to look at the debate with a lax attitude. Lori Andrews, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, believes that more caution should be taken when experimenting with life. She states, "It's like we've become deadened to the ethical dimensions of this... We're viewing biology as playing with Tinker Toys. There seems to be less resistance to the whole idea of tampering with life" (Andrews qtd. In Lyon). Richard Hayes also sees the lack of concern disconcerting. The executive director of the Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies sees the lack of an outcry to be "chilling" (Hayes qtd. In Lyon). He states:

Many of these academics have become almost apologists for genetic engineering and cloning... You rarely find a bioethicist who thinks there's anything fundamentally wrong with these technologies. In Europe it's very different, because they had the Nazi Holocaust. But here we have consumer-driven markets" (Hayes qtd. In Lyon).

Hayes has a point. As a nation, we should put something other than our desires first - especially when we are dealing with issues of human life. Life is not something that should be played with at any time for any reason.

Jeff Lyon agrees that we should take extra care when we are dealing with these kinds of sensitive issues. Cloning is becoming more and more a reality with every passing day and we should not turn a blind eye to science but instead look carefully at all sides. Lyon claims the science involved is still "rudimentary" (Lyon), noting:

Most cloned animals die in the womb, and even those that initially seem healthy often develop fatal defects of the heart, lungs, kidney, brain and immune system down the road. Something about cloning seems to disrupt normal gene activation in the developing fetus. This could prove catastrophic if an attempt is made to clone a human. (Lyon)