How Human Cloning Works

Cloning

Human Cloning

The cloning of human beings is both fascinating and highly controversial. It creates a copy of a human that is genetically identical to one that is already in existence (Russel; 27). When people are born, they are all genetically different from one another, so cloning would produce a very different dynamic between one person and his or her identical clone. The exception to this difference is identical twins, who are basically clones of one another (de Grey & Rae, 44). However, human cloning does not refer to the natural process that produces identical twins, but rather to taking tissue and cells from a human being and using them to produce a genetically identical human being through artificial means. There are two types of artificial cloning that takes place: reproductive and therapeutic (de Grey & Rae, 51). The ethics of these issues differ, as do the perceived uses, risks, and benefits of them. Addressed here will be an exploration of the ethical issues as well as the risks, benefits, and process of cloning one human being from another.

Therapeutic cloning is the least controversial of the two cloning types, since it does not involve making a copy of an actual person. Instead, this type of cloning is used to make new organs and tissues that are genetic copies of something that came from a specific person. The plan with this type of cloning is to use it for the creation of new organs and tissues to replace those that are failing or damaged (Russel, 49). It is used in medicine for transplants, generally in adults, and is an area of research that is active and accepted by the majority of individuals. There are two subtypes of therapeutic cloning, which are pluripotent stem cell induction and somatic-cell nuclear transfer (de Grey & Rae, 43). The latter kind, somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) involves using a donor who will provide the nucleus of a somatic cell (de Grey & Rae, 59). This nucleus is then placed into the host egg cell, where the genetic material has been removed (de Gray & Rae, 60).

The cell is fused with the nucleus, allowing it to become one and use either an artificial medium or a surrogate in order to grow to an acceptable level of development (de Gray & Rae, 61). This is an area that is found to be acceptable by most people in the scientific community and a large portion of the actual public, because there is an understanding that this type of cloning could easily save lives. People who need new hearts, lungs, kidneys, or other organs, as well as patients who need skin grafts from burns or other damage, would be able to have their own organs and tissues cloned so that they could have them used in and on their bodies. This has a great deal of value for these individuals, because it stops them from worrying about the possibility of getting a donor in time. It also avoid the risk of rejection and the damage that can occur from the long-term use of anti-rejection drugs (Russel, 84). In short, this subtype of cloning prevents rejection and can make the person's life much better overall, since it is like having their own organ back, yet healthy.

The other subtype of therapeutic cloning, which is the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), is a much longer process that is deeply inefficient in its current state (de Grey & Rae, 121). This is unfortunate, but the technology to use this particular subtype of cloning is also something new that has not yet been fully developed. Once it has been addressed more thoroughly and more has been done with it, it is quite possible that individuals will be able to use it in order to have more cloning success. In this process, a set of genes are introduced into a cell type, which send signals for the cell to become a mature stem cell (de Grey & Rae, 152). One of the advantages of this subtype of cloning is that it does not involve an embryo or an egg cell. Because of that, there is less controversy with it. If the effectiveness can be improved, it could become highly valuable.

Of course, there is another type of cloning, and that is the creation of an entire human being who is an exact genetic copy of another human and produced by artificial means (Russel, 25). That is the most controversial type of cloning available, and one that may never be realized in the United States with true scientific backing. The main issue is that people consider this type of cloning to be "playing God," and they also often cite concerns over viability, privacy, safety, and other issues that have to be considered. Still, there are those who are pushing for this type of cloning in an effort to address aging and "replace" a person's body when it gets old and starts to fail (de Grey & Rae, 154). If it would be possible to, essentially, replace a person with an exact copy each time the person got ill or started to age, it would be as though that person could live forever. This would definitely be a breakthrough, but there are certainly ethical and legal implications that go along with it.

Human cloning (i.e. creating an exact copy of an entire person) is generally considered unethical because it focuses on an artificial way to produce human beings (de Grey & Rae, 156). Not everyone objects to this type of creation, but once there are one or more clones of a person the waters are muddied when considering "who" those clones really are. Picture several people who are identical in every way moving about the same city. They are not just twins, or people who look similar. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same person. If one of them were to apply for some type of benefit, attend school, commit a crime, or do anything that required name, social security number, and other identifying information, it would implicate all of them in whatever took place. That is the main reason why reproductive cloning will likely never be something considered legal and ethical by the general public. There are simply too many hurdles that have to be overcome and that could not easily be sorted out (de Grey & Rae, 157).