Cloning? Cloning Is the Exact Replication of

¶ … Cloning? Cloning is the exact replication of a single individual gene or a part of a single individual gene achieved with the use of specialized DNA technology. The result may be used for further scientific research or for nay other purposes that it was cloned for. The Human Genome Project that conducts cloning experiment on a regular basis refers to the entire process as the method of 'cloning DNA', and the cloned or the copied DNA molecules are called 'clone libraries'.

Another type of cloning method is that whereby the entirely 'natural process of cell division' is utilized to make numerous copies of one single cell. In this particular process, the genetic makeup of the particular cell that has been cloned will be the exact same replica of the original cell from which the copies were made, and this is referred to as the 'cell line'.

The third type of cloning involves the process of making complete and genetically identical animals, one example of which is the famous Scottish sheep that was cloned, Dolly. (Genome Glossary) When Dolly was created, in the year 1997, there was a worldwide interest and concern and also a certain amount of controversy, as only expected.

The very possibility that cloning could be applied to human beings raised quite a few eyebrows and the scientific and ethical considerations behind such an eventuality became major issues that took up a lot of time and energy. In fact, when the sheep that was cloned actually lived, it was termed as the breakthrough of 1997, and raised numerous questions as to what exactly 'cloning' is, and how it can be done. The three types of cloning as stated earlier, are 'recombinant DNA technology', 'reproductive cloning', and 'therapeutic cloning'.

The recombinant DNA cloning is also referred to as 'molecular cloning' and 'DNA cloning', and also as 'gene cloning'. (Cloning Fact Sheet) The technical process is like this: the DNA fragment of interest is transferred from any particular organism to a self-replicating genetic element that is also called a 'bacterial plasmid'. After this, the DNA can be propagated in a foreign host cell, and this means that it will then create a completely identical replica of the original cell, eventually.

Generally, scientists who are studying a particular gene will use a bacterial plasmid in order to generate and produce several copies of the same gene. Plasmids are noting but self-replicating extra-chromosomal circular DNA molecules, and this is different from the normal ordinary bacterial genome. Therefore, when undertaking the process of cloning a gene, the scientist initially isolates the DNA fragment that contains the gene of interest by using certain restriction enzymes, and then uniting them with a plasmid that has been treated with the very same restriction enzymes.

After this process, the fragment of chromosomal DNA will combine with its cloning vector in the laboratory, and at this stage it will be known as the recombinant DNA molecule. This will then be introduced into a suitable host cell, and this will in turn produce the recombinant DNA as well as the host cell DNA in a suitable combination. (Cloning Fact Sheet) It is a fact that plasmids can contain up to 20,000 bp of foreign DNA.

The second type of cloning process is that of 'reproductive cloning', and this will be used to generate or produce another animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another animal that was already living. The animal Dolly was reproduced using this method of cloning.

In the method, also referred to as 'somatic cell nuclear transfer', or in other words, SCNT, the genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell will be transferred to an egg whose nucleus, or n other words, its entire genetic material, has been eliminated previously. Thus the egg is reconstructed using the material that has been obtained from the donor cell, and it must be treated with certain strong chemicals or even electric current so that the process of cell stimulation will be started.

An embryo is formed, and this will be transferred to the uterus of a female host, where it will progress in a natural way until it is born in the natural way. This was the process that made Dolly, the cloned sheep. What makes the process amazing is the fact that it could be proved beyond doubt that the genetic material from a specialized adult cell could in fact be re-programmed in order to create an entirely new organism.

The third type of cloning is referred to as 'therapeutic cloning', and is the process by which human embryos are used in scientific research. What has been often misunderstood is the fact that the process is used to create another human being.

The truth is that therapeutic cloning is not meant to create another human being, but to harvest the human stem cells so that the result can be used for such scientific purposes, such as the best method to treat a particular disease, and the study of human development, and so on. Stem cells are extremely important to a scientist and to a biomedical researcher because of the fact that they are capable of regenerating virtually any type of specialized cell that may be present in the human body.

These stem cells are generally extracted from the body after the cell division has been taking place for about five days, at which stage the egg is known as a 'blastocyst'. (Cloning Fact Sheet) What is crucial here is that at the time of extraction, the embryo would have to die or give up its life, and this is taken as an issue of grave concern by the ethical and moral brigade.

Researchers however contend that when the technology of extracting stem cells has been perfected, it would be possible to treat heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, and other often incurable diseases with the help of stem cells. They also hope that the extraction of stem cells would serve to generate tissues and also organs for the purpose of transplanting them into a human body, an amazing miracle that would not be possible if the extraction of stem cells were to be banned.

When an organ needs to be generated, the DNA from the person with the disease would be extracted and inserted into an enucleated egg, after which the egg starts to divide.

After the division has been taking place for some time, the embryonic stem cells could be utilized for organ transplantation because of the fact that it is at this important stage that the embryonic stem cells can be changed and transformed into the patient without having to face the possibility and the very real risk of tissue rejection that is a major cause for the failure of organ transplantations.

This is because of the simple fact that when the stem cell extraction method is used, the resulting cloned organ would match the genetic profile of the recipient. Therefore, when cloning is performed, then organs could very well be generated from cloned human embryos, and this could also mean that the need for organ donation could be reduced and over a period of time, even eliminated totally.

In November 2001 scientists from Advanced Cell Technologies- ACT announced that they had managed to produce a human embryo for the purpose of therapeutic research. The method that they used was this: eggs were collected from a number of women's ovaries with a minute needle, and a skin cell was effectively inserted into the enucleated egg so that it would serve the purpose of a brand new nucleus.

A chemical referred to as 'ionomycin' was used to provide appropriate stimulation to the egg so that it could start to divide, and soon the process of cell division began, with very limited success. Although eight eggs were used in the study, only three began to actually divide, and even then, only one egg was able to divide into six cells before it stopped too.

(Cloning Fact Sheet) Though cloning may have its benefits and advantages, but however important and beneficial the process is, is it really moral to go about cloning another human being or even an animal? There has been immense and intense debate on this issue, and there has been no conclusion reached as yet on the important question of whether cloning is moral and ethical.

It must be remembered that plant cloning has been going on for many years in the past, and it was only when animal cloning was successful, in the form of the cloned sheep, Dolly, that the entire world sat up and took notice and stated that it was not morally right to clone a life.

Bob Gast, the Acting Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies at MSU said that though it was indeed a great breakthrough for the staff at MSU, it was doubtful as to whether they would continue the research, because of the moral implications in the subject. (U community members debate morality of cloning) Leonard fleck, a philosophy and medical ethics professor, stated that though the issue was a sensitive as well as an unsettling one to most people, the innate benefits of such technology must not be ignored.

He opined that the cloning technology was not 'evil' as stated by some individuals, nor was it morally wrong, as looked at by some others. Therefore, imposing restrictions and banning it would serve no good purpose other than create a controversy, said the Professor.

When taken in the proper sense, the cloning technology could serve many important purposes, like for example, if a couple both suffer from the disease referred to as 'cystic fibrosis', which means that both the lungs and also some other organs within the body will be filled with mucus, and therefore would have a chance of passing it one to their offspring.

However, if their offspring were to be cloned, then the risk of the child carrying the disease of cystic fibrosis would be reduced to a mere 25% chance, which in other words, means that the innate risk could be avoided.

(U community members debate morality of cloning) Despite the fact that cloning could prove advantageous to such couples, as well as to numerous others for whom cloning would be a veritable boon in all respects, there is quite large spread opposition to cloning from religious groups, saying that cloning not only interferes with natural human reproduction, but is also fundamentally and religiously wrong.

The Communications Director for the Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Michael Diebold, opines that cloning for the purpose of reproducing animals that may be used for the purpose of research and scientific purposes meant for the advancement and improvement of the human race may be permissible, but cloning on human beings is something that would not be accepted by society at large.

Diebold also stated that any type of activity or actions that would separate the extremely natural act that happens between a husband and his wife in the hope of creating a child of their own flesh would be taken to be 'highly immoral' by the Church and all its members. Therefore, cloning would not be accepted, he said. Meanwhile, Fleck says that what people don't understand or comprehend fully, they fear.

Therefore, since the subject of cloning has not yet been fully explored and understood, people in general tend to fear it. Fleck also stated that the cloning technology would only create a twin, who would, when he grows up into an adult, become an entirely different person from the person he was cloned from. Therefore, there is no great danger in utilizing the cloning technology for the purpose of creating another human being.

However, he says, cloning of animals may have an adverse impact on the quality of livestock, because of one important reason.

The reason that Fleck sates is that the genetic diversity of the animal would become affected to a great extent, and the animal would become more and more prone to suffering from the exact same disease that their peers suffer from, because, after all, they share the same genetic material, and when some sort of disease takes hold of the animals, then there would be a widespread epidemic, that would end up wiping out a large extent of the livestock.

This could be catastrophic, both economic as well as biological, if it occurred once too often, he felt.

There are many more questions as yet unanswered, like for example, could a lung or a heat be cloned, would it be possible to clone an entire army of excellent fighters or soldiers who would be able to defend the country against any sort of adversity in the future, and is it ethical even to discuss such topics? Most humans state that cloning is something that must not be done, in spite of all the proven advantages, and most opine that copying and cloning and duplicating must be left to someone else, and not confined to a research laboratory or to a scientific research lab.

(U community members debate morality of cloning) In an article on the 'Moral Implications of Cloning' by Professor Qiu Renzong, the Director of the Program in Bioethics and the Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was responsible for initially introducing the subject of cloning and the historic development of cloning from its inception to its early and then its later stages into the curriculum so that everyone could study the subject and arrive at their own conclusions.

The Professor stated that as far as the scientific and bio-medical implications of cloning are concerned, it was possible that mankind would in fact benefit greatly from this amazing technology, and also said that as far as he was concerned, he saw absolutely nothing wrong with all the aspects of cloning human cells for the purpose of research.

However, he also pointed out threat the cloning of n animal would be different, and this was because of the fact that these cloned animals would be prone to infections and diseases, and human beings who had never been exposed to some of these diseases before may be affected by theses diseases and infections.

Furthermore, he says, it is not ethically or morally right to clone animals just for the purpose of them being of great benefit to mankind, and that human needs would be satisfied by the existence of these hapless animals. (Moral Implications of Cloning) Professor Qiu delineated a comprehensive list of five basic moral principles that would serve as the moral and ethical yardstick for measuring the process of cloning. These are, according to him, the issues of 'non-malfeasance', 'beneficence', 'respect', 'justice', and 'mutual help'.

The Professor states that if these principles were to be followed, then all the various techniques of cloning would prove to be harmless both to the human being as well as to the animals. If, he says, the patient were to be kept well informed about the various techniques of cloning that he would be experiencing, then he would not only benefit from the impact of the techniques, but also from knowing about them.

All the individuals who would want to undergo some part of cloning must be treated impartially, and their age, sex, social status and their race must not be considered; rather, everyone must be treated as equals. In addition, some sort of special care must be given; he stated, to the socially vulnerable class of people, like for example, the physically handicapped, and the elderly.

Cloning would be extremely beneficial, Professor Qiu says, to certain sectors of people, in the main for infertile people who found that they were incapable of reproducing a child of their own in the natural manner due to some reason or the other. In addition, if these couples were to produce a child by the cloning method, then it may be possible to avoid, happily, certain genetic and hereditary diseases and illnesses that are carried from parent to child, if the child were produced naturally.

In addition, cloning would help scientists understand the development of the human race in a better manner. Cloned human beings could ultimately serve a very important purpose of 'organ donors', as it would be possible to harvest human organs from these cloned people.

(Moral Implications of Cloning) Another important advantage, the professor states, is that cloning would be able to provide great relief for those homosexual couples who want to have children of their own to take care of and look after, just like any other normal couple would, and more important, cloned human beings could be made to live long years, in fact, he says, long enough to be able to live hundreds of years, that would help them travel in a space craft that was researching space.

Professor Qui puts across these arguments against cloning: he feels that since children are basically 'gifts from God', no human being has the right to interfere with nature's own way of reproducing and creating another human being through technology that was developed by a fellow human being. Therefore, cloning goes against all the moral tenets of religion and religious beliefs, and therefore must never be used to help and aid in human reproduction.

Most people regard life as precious and 'holy' and this therefore means that no type of intrusions and interferences would be tolerated from anybody who claimed to be able to make another human being with relative ease. More importantly, cloning would inevitably have the result of decreasing the availability of the human gene pool, and may also destroy the integrity and the stability of the 'gamily system' that all human beings live in and have been following century after century.

Finally, there may be quite a few legal complications and implications involved in the issue of cloning, which would be better avoided. In conclusion, Professor Qiu stated that though the fact that cloning would be of great advantage to some people, what must be remembered is that it is not morally and ethically right to clone and produce another human being, and it is best to avoid it if possible.

(Moral Implications of Cloning) In an argument entitled 'Human Cloning, is Making People Wrong?' where cloning, that is achieved by removing the DNA from the nucleus of an egg cell that has been taken from the mother of the clone, and replacing this with the genetic material that has been taken from the father's cells, like for example, from a skin cell.

This is not the same as therapeutic cloning where scientists can create embryos through the cloning method and then extract stem cells from the embryo and then use these cells that are virtually capable of transforming themselves into any other type of cells that would have as the basis the treatment and cure of certain diseases. In this method, the embryo would die when the stem cells are extracted, and this is an issue of great moral and ethical concern.

There are some people who say that though cloning may not produce great advantages for the human race, it does not also do any great harm to the human race, and therefore, must not be banned, because, there may be a scientific breakthrough after all, and this may lead to light to many individuals who would benefit from the cloning techniques.

(Human Cloning: Is making people wrong) The Roman Catholic Church has in fact issued a public statement that cloning is 'intrinsically evil' in every way, and nothing that is said in its favor can ever justify the act of cloning and creating another human being, for whatever purpose, and for whatever reason. In a similar manner, the several different faith communities that exist everywhere all over the world have many and varied degrees of objections, but objections all the same, to every aspect of cloning.

Some of the objections are the following: people must never attempt at playing God, because it is just not possible for a mere human being to be God, and to create another person. Cloning also violates innate human dignity and turns people and human life into some sort of product that can be easily produced and reproduced as well as disposed of and replaced with ease whenever the fancy took them.

(Human Cloning: Is making people wrong) Cloning also means that a human being would be made and created in the image of Man and not in the image of God, which is just not acceptable, because can Man transcend God? Cloning also inadvertently destroys human embryos, and this is also not at all an acceptable fact in the general scheme of things, because nowhere and at no time would it be possible legally and morally to get away from killing a human embryo that has no voice and say of its own, until the time when it is born into the world and becomes a human being in its own right.

Cloning also means that certain unethical experimentation on human beings would be permitted to be carried out, and this is not acceptable. In addition, were cloning successful, and a human being were to be born and to survive, he would always be considered as being 'inferior' to 'real' people, and quite naturally, through no fault of his. This would lead to the cloned person never being able to live a completely normal life like all the other human beings around him.

The cloned person would be totally confused as to who his family members are, and this would lead to a natural disintegration of the solid family unit that has been the boon of human existence on the planet earth for countless numbers of centuries. There are a number of arguments that are in favor of cloning and the making of life through this controversial method.

One of the statements that says that banning something is not such a good idea, and that by banning something, the so-called 'burden of proof' must rest on those people who want it to be banned fro reasons of their own, and because of the fact that there are actually certain advantages in cloning, like for example, the better treatment of diseases, and the better facilitation of organ donation, and so on, the need for banning of cloning must be considered, and it is still a highly debatable issue.

Another argument that states that cloning is good says that after all, cloning does not hurt or harm the person who is being cloned, or in other words, the actual source of the genetic material that is being used for cloning.

Cloning cannot be done without the permission of the person who is being cloned, and if it were to be carried out without his permission, then he would have the same recourse to law that any other patient with any disease at all, would have in a hospital that would have carried out some sort of operation without his specific permission to do so. (Human Cloning: Is making people wrong) Cloning also dose not affect or hurt the baby at all, in any way.

After all, why must the baby be hurt, just because he has not actually been created in the traditional and conventional way? In addition, and most importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that supports the statement that babies who are born through methods of assisted reproduction are inferior or under developed or even different in any way form the others who are born the natural way.

For example, are test tube babies valued less just because they were conceived in a test tube in a laboratory? The answer is an emphatic 'No', and there may yet be some hope for those infertile couples who would want to attempt the cloning method in order to have a baby of their own flesh and blood.

However, what must be remembered is the fact that in the process of cloning, quite a few embryos are inevitably destroyed or damaged, and this is a great tragedy, because no humane person would be able o accept the fact that a lot of embryos had to give up their life for some ulterior motive, and through no fault of their own.

Another argument in favor of cloning is that why must not the human race have the freedom and the right to better themselves and their race, in such a way that if it were successful, the result would be an ideal and optimum race of human beings that never existed on the planet earth before. The reason why this will never be accepted is because when such experiments were conducted in the past, they turned out to be great disasters.

For example, the 'Nazi Eugenics Program', a state run scheme that had as its intention the creation of a perfect society of human beings. This was a dreadful idea and a huge disaster. However, cloning does not aim at the same thing; it rather aims at only creating the perfect child. The problem lies in the fact that were eugenics to be permitted, then suppose it got into the wrong hands, like for example, a bad government, then it may become uncontrollable.

In the same way, were cloning to be permitted to all, then maybe parents would start to choose the child of their dreams, who would be the best person as far as they are concerned, and the chances that one takes in natural reproduction would be totally avoided.

This is not a good idea because to manipulate and change the characteristics of your own child is not at all a good thing, and this tendency may end up in disaster for the future generations, because some parents may end up making the wrong choices through ignorance or a lack of proper education, and this will never be accepted.

(Human Cloning: Is making people wrong) Leon Kass in his essay on 'The Wisdom of Repugnance' that happened to win the second Elie Wiesel prize in Ethics for the best essay in 2000, states that human cloning is not only extremely repugnant but also intrinsically 'evil'. He also says that sexual procreation is fundamental to humanity, and that if this were to be either bypassed or de-humanized or trivialized through the process and techniques of cloning, then this would not bode well for the future of the children of the world.

The inherent teleology of two human beings who belong to different genders produce a child through their bodily union would be bypassed by the cloning technology, he stated. The mystery and the profound nature of the creation of a human life would be essentially ignored in this technical creation of a child in a laboratory, and this, Kass feels, violates the essential spice and essence of human beings and mankind, no matter what the justification and reasons may be.

However, it must be remembered that cloning is not anything new, because since the advent of the several methods of birth control, like for example, birth control pills, sex has been separated from its ultimate purpose, which is that of procreation. (Replication and Repugnance: Leon Kass on Human Cloning) In a similar manner procreation as separated from sex when artificial insemination became popular. This is a method wherein an embryo is created in a laboratory and then implanted into the mother's body.

The method of 'in vitro fertilization' is yet another unnatural method of reproduction, and it is these methods that end up trivializing the every act of sex and the teleology of human beings.

When the image of a child being produced by a Doctor who is clad in his standard white coat, with a test tube in his hands, amidst the highly sterile and white surroundings of the hospital laboratory is compared to the image of two human beings of the opposite sexes coming together in mind and body and spirit and erotically and mentally and personally, for the innate purpose of creating a child who will be much loved because it has been produced in such a manner, then it is obvious to see which image would be more appealing.

After all, life is indeed mysterious and full of mystique and magical and the act of creation must out of necessity be shrouded in complete mystery and not confined to the stark surroundings of a laboratory and in a mere test tube. The former image is that of the enforcement of the autonomous will of an individual, while the latter image is about surrendering to the unknown and experiencing the ultimate physical joy in transcending one's experience.

Kass also opines that were bodily union to be so very trivialized to such an extent that most people would no longer feel the need to indulge in this blissful union, then maybe the entire human race would go backwards to those times in civilization when the lowest forms of life would reproduce without passion and feeling, just for the purpose of reproduction, and after all, man is definitely a higher form of life who must keep up his dignity and pride at any cost and not revert to such low ideals.

Man's sexual drives reveal a type of sexual teleology in that, in general, everyone longs for and hopes for a union with a complementary other person, and even if the initial purpose will not be reproduction, it remains a fact that they will long for a union with another even if just for the purpose of the completion of their own nature. This union is then personalized in the child that these two people create, and the child is nothing but the external personification of the co-mingling of the parents.

(Replication and Repugnance: Leon Kass on Human Cloning) Kass states that this longing for union, the ways and means that a human being uses for the purpose of the achievement of this union, that eventually culminates in the sexual act or 'coitus', as it is better known, and the communion that takes place during the sexual act,.