Cloning Has Become a Very Contentious Subject.

Cloning has become a very contentious subject. The issue of cloning has moved from the scientific arena into the cultural, religious and ethical centers of debate, for good reasons. The scientific implications of cloning affects a wide range of social and ethical concerns. The theory of cloning questions many essential areas of ethical and philosophical concern about what human life is and raises the question whether we have the right or even the qualifications to alter life and living beings. It is no wonder that in the light of the extremely contentious way that cloning impacts on important issues that there should be strong and forthright opinions on the subject. Bearing this in mind it becomes all the more important to keep an open mind and to also hear the other side of the argument,

There are many reason why cloning should be condoned. On the one hand it is true that many new scientific discoveries or techniques have traditionally met with opposition from many quarters. One only has to think of the furor that the discovery of artificial insemination caused.

Experts say the shift to acceptance of cloning follows the same shift pattern that occurred with regard to artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, the freezing of human embryos and surrogate motherhood. (Is Human Cloning Inevitable?)

Cloning is therefore part of the natural scientific progression and another instance of human discovery through technology. Those who oppose cloning would therefore be opposing progress. The cloning process also offers many medial benefits and can be used in the treatment of illness and disease. Those who oppose cloning on the other hand point out that cloning has the potential to disrupt and destroy many important aspects of society. They state that institutions like the family are in danger if cloning should be generally accepted. One of their main arguments against cloning is that cloning goes against central and important moral and ethical principles

Both sides of the argument make valid and important points. It is obvious that a revolutionary technology like cloning will have an impact on social and philosophical issues. It is certainly true that cloning confronts many of the most essential moral and ethical questions of our time; such as the question of human creation itself. One of the biggest problems that cloning presents is the disruption and even the destruction of human institutions such as the family and parenting. On a different but related level, cloning is a threat to religious perceptions and challenges the very meaning of what it is to be a human being. Besides the scientific debate about the pros and cons of cloning, there in no doubt that ethical dilemma is extremely serious. As many commentators across the intellectual spectrum point out, the idea of cloning and creating genetic duplicates of human beings places the entire concept of what it means to be human at stake. From a religious point-of-view this is tantamount to saying that man can create himself instead of God, which undermines the foundations of many of the world's prominent theologies.

Cloning also brings into question the entire gamut of cultural and societal issues. A question that is often asked by those on both sides of the debate is -- if cloning is followed to its logical conclusion then what will happen to the relationship between parents and their offspring, the structure of the family and the roles of the sexes? There is no doubt on either side that cloning will radically alter these aspects; the only difference is that one group sees this in a positive light, while the other sees it as regression and not as an advancement for mankind. Prominent in the argument against cloning is the view of the Catholic Church, which is representative of the objections of most of the formal religious institutions. Their objection to cloning is one that goes to the heart of what human nature is about. The Church states that cloning relates to the very question of whether human life is a gift from God or just another "industrial product" or commodity that can be traded with.

Those in favor of cloning however present a number of convincing arguments. They point out that the process will have enormous benefits in medical terms. They also point out that the intention of cloning is not to disrupt of destroy but to improve human life. They state that the discovery of cloning itself was not intended to confront or contradict prevailing ideas and philosophies. The basic concept of cloning has a fairly long history in medical terms and was first brought to the public's attention about thirty years ago with the successful asexual reproduction of tadpole clones through a technique known as nuclear transplantation. The scientist responsible for this feat was the Nobel laureate geneticist, Joshua Lederberg. He was of the opinion that "cloning could help us overcome the unpredictable variety that still rules human reproduction and would allow us to benefit from perpetuating superior genetic endowments." (Brannigan) This view is an example of the spirit, which informs the almost irresistible urge towards scientific discovery and revealing beneficial possibilities of cloning. It emphasizes the view that sees cloning as an aid in the progression and development of human science and knowledge. This is indicated by the fact that "... somatic cell nuclear transfer technology may have many beneficial applications for biotechnology, livestock production, and new medical applications, including the production of pharmaceutical proteins and prospects for regeneration and repair of human tissues." (Kass and Wilson xv)

Both arguments have merit. There is not doubt that cloning has already shown positive scientific and medical benefits. In discussing this subject we have to be very careful of one important thing -- that our views do not become prejudices or unmovable and fixated ideologies. Those who oppose cloning on ethical and religious grounds should not become closed off to the scientific possibilities that cloning offers. It should not be forgotten that the cloning process does have potential to save lives. However having stated this one should not be blind to the dangers of the cloning process. If one considers the various arguments carefully there can only one rational conclusion - these dangers outweigh the possible medical and scientific benefits. The question that has to be asked and answered in all honesty is whether the possible benefits are worth the risk to our society, the family and out religious and moral beliefs. If one considers the present evidence he answer can only be a resounding no to the unbridled use of cloning technology.

The reason for this rejection of cloning is not a rejection of the process itself but the way this process is being managed and the obvious dangers of its misuse. The central danger is that the cloning technology will be used for commercial purposes. Another related reason is that human reproduction will almost certainly be seen as "production" ands lose its essential vital social meaning. This will in turn result in the loss of family values in society. I think that even those who advocate cloning on a scientific basis will have to concede that cloning would have to strictly controlled to make it less dangerous to society.

The fear that cloning will result in the destruction of the value of human reproduction was expressed in early reactions to the reality of cloning and serves an exampled of what could go wrong. "Commentators were quick to speculate about the possibility of cloning humans. The Los Angeles Times opined that such a discovery 'opens the door to a 'Blade Runner' world of human replicants'; tabloid newspapers warned of "master races" and promised production lines of movie and sports stars. (Kass and Wilson xv). At the time many considered these fears to be unfounded, but these speculations have recently been substantiated by even more alarming and radical claims relating to the possibilities of cloning. This refers to those who claim that cloning will usher in a new and unrestricted era of human creation. An Italian doctor, Severino Antinori, recently announced that he was in the process of cloning a human baby. Claims of conducting experiments to clone humans have been made by an American religious sect, "Clone Aid," which shortly expects a "new creation" to arrive through cloning technology. They intend to use the cells of a dead baby for cloning, with the express purpose of bringing it back to life as a newborn. (Bedford-Strohm. 203)

Statements like these have raised eyebrows and created doubts in the minds of liberal thinker who were previously in favor of cloning. The opposition to cloning is growing from within very scientific community and from those liberal thinkers who previously advocated cloning on the basis of scientific advancement. The fact that a previous advocate like Jeremy Rifkin is opposing cloning is a clear warning sign that the dangers of the process far outweigh the benefits. Rifkin, the author of The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World, recently added his voice to the growing chorus of opposition to cloning. ." We worry that the market for women's eggs that would be created by this research will provide unethical incentives for women to undergo health-threatening hormone treatment and surgery. We are also concerned about the increasing bio-industrialization of life by the scientific community and life science companies; we are shocked and dismayed that clonal human embryos have been patented and declared to be human "inventions." We oppose efforts to reduce human life and its various parts and processes to the status of mere research tools, manufactured products, and utilities." (Rifkin) This view tends to epitomize the serious concerns that are felt in many sectors about the future implications of cloning.

The fact that has to be faced is that cloning raises many issues that extend well beyond the technical and medical benefits. While we concede that it has scientific and medical potential, this possibly is overwhelmed by the potential for misuse of the process and the dangers to our society are far too extreme to condone cloning without rigid and restrictive legislation.

Cloning: Annotated Bibliography

There are literally hundreds of articles and books on the contentious issues of cloning. Very generally, the views on cloning tend to fall into three broad categories or trends. The first is the pro-group who are adamant that issues against cloning are simply fabrications without any real foundation and at best reactionary. Secondly there is the larger group which is against cloning. The rationale of this category ranges from religious objections to scientific reasons why cloning is not acceptable. The third category is those who see both negative and positive aspects to cloning and tend to have a more balanced view of the issue.

In assessing the different debates and viewpoint with regard to the cloning issue is Michael Brannigan, editor of . Ethical Issues in Human Cloning Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. (New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2000) This book provides a comprehensive and balanced overview of the various and often contrasting ethical views relating to cloning. Similarly, a very comprehensive overview can be found in The Ethics of Human Cloning by Kass and Wilson. (Kass, Leon R., and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1998.) This work is particularly illuminating as it is clearly written and provides a very open and accessible perspective on the ethical dimensions of the problem.

Another good general starting point which provides a gauge of the different views associated with cloning can be found in the multitude of articles available online. It must be noted that the quality of the online articles vary. However there are a number of excellent introductions and overviews of the subject matter. One of these is Human Cloning -- the Process. (University of Virginia) This is extremely useful particularly as it provides detailed background to the events that led to the cloning controversy, as well procedures of human cloning and how "Dolly" was produced.

Another very useful study which provides essential background to the debate is Cloning: Techniques and Applications in Human Health by Calvin Harley. (Generations (2000): 65-71.)The article reviews trends on the scientific process as well as the positive aspects of cloning. There is adequate resource and research documentation.

As one enters into he complex arguments surrounding cloning a good article that opens up the various complicated aspects is Barglow, Raymond. "A Reply to Rifkin." (Tikkun 17.4 (2002): 26-30) In this article there is a distinction made between therapeutic and full birth cloning. The article argues the case for therapeutic cloning as the banning of this type of cloning would prevent the development and possibly of the treatment of genetically related diseases such as leukemia, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. This is a very important aspect that many critics mention as a point in favor of cloning.

One of the better and more rational approaches to the issue of cloning which does not become dogmatic or insistent on a single point-of-view is Brock, Dan W. "Human Cloning and Our Sense of Self." (Science 296 (2002): 314-16) This is an important article in that it addresses one of the most significant and contentious issue in the cloning debate: namely the effect that cloning could have on the idea or concept of human identity. Those against cloning state that cloning will confuse and possibly even undermine the idea of human identity This article also explores the way that the "worth" or value of a human being may be affected by a reproductive process which is not based on normal sexual reproduction. It competently explores the fear that many opposed to cloning have that human beings will become 'manufactured' and seen as products. The article is well researched with documented references.

Another well researched article which explores the ethical and moral aspects as well as relating these to the more scientific points of contention is Caplan, Arthur L. Cloning Human Embryos, (Western Journal of Medicine 176.2 (2002): 78-79.) This article discusses in detail the ethical implications and responsibility for cloning. Interestingly, it also explores the idea that the public should be aware of the developments that are being made in the field and that information should not be hidden by closed corporations or the authorities. The issue of "false hope" that cloning might give to people is also discussed at length. This article is very well researched with a good range of sources.

While ethics is one of the central concerns in the literature other studies also look at the actual physical dangers of cloning -- an aspect which is often ignored in the ethical debate. This is dealt with in Ronald Green's article "The Ethical Considerations." (Scientific American.com. 2001. November 29, 2004. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CE1B1-CC78-1CF4-93F6809EC5880000). The study discuses aspects such as the dangers to the female donor, it also explores the more speculative dimension of whether cloning will turn human reproduction and reproduction material into a commodity for sale. While the article is written to suit the layman it is well referenced,

One of the central aspects that Mary Warnock deals with in A Question of Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985) is the ethical and moral concern of whether human embryos are used in cloning research. This is a heated topic as many feel that embryos are in fact children. The study contrasts this view with those who assert that the embryo is merely a conglomeration of cells and does not have the status of a fetus. The book tends to offer arguments for the latter view and is well documented.

An article which provides a clear and concise explanations of why cloning should be banned is What's So Bad About Human Cloning? By Yitzchok Breitowitz, (Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12.4 (2002): 325-41.) This study takes a particularly religious perspective on the subject and clearly explicates the view that it is wrong to play God. The argument clearly follows the line that cloning is an unnatural process and counters the laws of both God and nature. The article also offers a perception of the psychological and judicial aspects of cloning. It provides a concise and clear rationale for the banning of cloning in principle. The article is competently written and flows well.

An important topic is the religious of the religious dimension of the cloning debate. There are a number of aspects that need to be understood in order to acquire the overall picture of all the various views. A study which deals very well with the research into the connection between religion and cloning is Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data, by John Evans. (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41.4 (2002): 747-58) The study also deals with the controversial group and advocates of cloning for religious purposes known as Clonaid. This group is associated with the Raelians. The article also discusses the different views in therapeutic as opposed to reproductive cloning. The article is well written and extremely useful in understanding the different religious aspects of the cloning debate.

A controversial topic which opens up the debate and presents some radical views on both sides of the argument is The Perfect Baby A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics by Glenn MacGee. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997.) This study explores the idea of cloning as the creation of exact human replicas and the possible benefits as well as the negative aspects of this train of thought. This is an article that purposely explores the edges and extreme aspects of cloning, while at the same time presenting arguments for and against cloning. In this sense, while controversial, it is a well balanced study.

Julian Savulescu's article Should we clone human beings? (Journal of Medical Ethics 25.2 (1999): 87-95.) outlines in some detail the many arguments for and against cloning. It tends to focus on the positive medical aspects of therapeutic cloning and the central trajectory of the study is that cloning can have many valid and worthy medical benefits.