This paper argues that animal cloning should cease due to significant ethical concerns. While proponents cite benefits for endangered species and livestock, the paper contends that the process inflicts considerable suffering on animals, produces abnormal offspring, threatens human food supplies, and violates theological principles about humanity's proper role in creation. By examining the pain animals endure during cloning, the psychological and practical ramifications for humans, and religious objections to human usurpation of divine creative authority, the paper concludes that animal cloning cannot be ethically justified and should be abandoned.
There is no shortage of controversy surrounding animal cloning. The general public first became aware that animal cloning was a reality when Dolly the Sheep was successfully cloned in 1996. Since that time, scientists have continued efforts to clone animals with little sign of abating. However, in the wake of what these scientists regard as progress, myriad ethical considerations have emerged and continue to persist. Many of these ethical considerations revolve around the perceived pain animals endure during the cloning process, implications for other animal populations, and effects of cloning on humans. A careful examination of these ethical issues reveals that animal cloning should stop and likely should have never started.
Those who favor cloning attest to the perceived good that it will create. When cloning an adult animal, scientists can almost guarantee a perfect replica of that particular specimen. Additionally, proponents argue that cloning technology is viable for endangered species and can help prevent revered and difficult-to-find animals from extinction. It is also purported to help farmers obtain the best animals for livestock (Pecorino, 2000). Although these intentions are noble, animal cloning should not take place—even for endangered species. In the first place, animals become endangered when significant issues exist with their habitats or with other species involved in their food chain. Balance is needed to eliminate the danger to endangered species; cloning will not restore such balance. Moreover, too many complications occur during the cloning process that, from an ethical standpoint, such attempts are not worthwhile and certainly not defensible.
The pain animals must endure to successfully clone a particular animal is considerable. In fact, the cloning process is little short of torture for most animals. Animals endure significant agony while being used in scientific experiments related to cloning. Additionally, animals incur side effects related to the cloning process even after it is completed. The fact is that there is no guarantee that cloning will work without producing negative effects on the cloned animal. Gurdon notes (2005), "most cloned animals are abnormal" (p. 43). Due to these facts, as well as the general "pain and suffering" (Fiester, 2005, p. 328) animals endure during cloning, this practice should cease.
Another significant concern regarding cloning involves its ramifications for humans. These ramifications include not only the possibility of cloning people but also the potential for exploitation of human nature. One example is a pet owner who, grieving the death of a companion animal, attempts to reverse this natural occurrence through cloning. Such a practice can lead to unrealistic expectations that disappoint and produce negative psychological impacts, such as depression. Additionally, success in animal cloning raises the possibility that scientists will further attempt to clone people. As valid as this concern is, a more practical one is that the utilization of cloned animals in the food supply can endanger the safety of food that people eat regularly and produce detrimental effects on public health (Fiester, 2005, p. 328). According to Pecorino (2000), less than 2 percent of attempts to clone livestock have been successful. In light of these considerations, animal cloning should definitely not take place.
The final ethical consideration regarding animal cloning relates to theology and humanity's role within the universe. At the heart of the cloning issue is the notion that God is the divine creator of all things and that only He should retain this authority outside of nature. Thus, humanity's attempt to clone other animals is merely an attempt to act like God and usurp humanity's role as God's creation. Cloning, therefore, represents an overstepping of human boundaries and human role in the universe. Additionally, these "deontological" (Fiester, 2005, p. 328) objections hold that animals are objectified and commoditized, with humans simply creating or cloning at will. Animals are part of God's kingdom and should not simply be created based on human whim. It is not possible to defend such actions from an ethical perspective, since they contradict the natural course of life and the will of God. As such, animal cloning should not take place.
Overall, it is readily apparent that animal cloning should abate. This practice simply is not defensible from an ethical point of view. In the first place, it causes great suffering and pain to animals utilized in the cloning process. In fact, this process can continue to produce harmful impacts on animals even after cloning is completed. Additionally, the impact of cloning on humans is considerable. It can create unrealistic expectations for pet owners as well as potentially harm the food supply for the population as a whole. Lastly, cloning is not ethically defensible due to religious or theological reasons, in which this practice represents humanity's usurpation of God. Therefore, it is best to reduce this practice as much as possible before abandoning it entirely. Scientists should finalize their current cloning efforts before ceasing to attempt to produce new clones. Doing so will positively impact both animal populations and people on the planet.
You’re 92% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.