This paper examines the multifaceted debate surrounding human cloning, using the American Medical Association's definition of somatic cell nuclear transfer as its foundation. It traces the issue from the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 to contemporary stem cell research, addressing the legal landscape in the United States—including the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's moratorium and state-level legislation. The paper evaluates ethical concerns identified by the AMA, such as physical harm, psychosocial damage, and effects on the gene pool, while also presenting arguments in favor of cloning related to therapeutic applications, organ transplantation, and personal autonomy. A synthesis section assesses where compromise may be possible and where the dangers outweigh the benefits.
The paper effectively uses a dialectical argument structure: it states a thesis (cloning is harmful and unnatural), develops an antithesis (cloning offers significant medical benefits), and then synthesizes both into a nuanced conclusion. This technique shows how to engage opposing views seriously rather than dismissing them, a hallmark of strong academic argumentation.
The paper opens with a formal definition from the AMA and a thesis statement establishing its position. It then moves through the legal framework governing cloning in the U.S., followed by a detailed ethical analysis using AMA findings. The antithesis section presents pro-cloning arguments organized around utility and autonomy. The synthesis evaluates the straw man fallacy risks in the debate and identifies limited applications where cloning research may be acceptable. A brief conclusion raises the humanistic question of what life would mean for a clone.
The subject of human cloning was once the stuff of science fiction novels and television programs. As technology and science have improved, the creation of clones has become a real possibility in the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this paper, the definition of human cloning is that designated by the American Medical Association:
"The term 'cloning' will refer to the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer. 'Somatic cell nuclear transfer' refers to the process in which the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing (or previously existing) organism is transferred into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed. 'Human cloning' will refer to the application of somatic nuclear transfer technology to the creation of a human being that shares all its nuclear genes with the person donating the implanted nucleus" (Ethics 1999).
Scientists are proceeding with research into this field with little consideration for the humanitarian implications involved. Considering that the world is already endangered by overpopulation, it is imprudent to add humans conceived unnaturally.
Although many have considered human cloning a scientific breakthrough and cannot wait for their duplicates, the reality is that people were not designed to be duplicated. Human cloning is, by its very definition, an unnatural process. This debate has continued since well before the first successful cloning of the sheep Dolly in 1997. Since then, however, the debate has escalated. It was one thing when the potential for cloning remained in an abstract state, but quite another when a physical representation of that idea exists. In the years following that historical event, scientists have been able to artificially create exact duplicates of many smaller creatures, such as mice and cats (Human 2007). It must be acknowledged that this technology is still new, and for every 100 cloning experiments attempted, scientists are only able to produce one or two viable offspring (Touchette 2002). Researchers are many years away from successfully cloning a whole person, but progress in the replication of stem cells has brought the debate back to the forefront of discussion. The question is fast becoming whether or not clones should be created, rather than whether or not they could be created.
The medical community has argued that discussion of human cloning should include their input as well as the opinions of genetic scientists. The American Medical Association conducted its own research in 1999 to determine the official position of the medical community on the subject. Their statement of purpose was that:
"Human cloning is a matter for the medical profession's attention since it would involve medical procedures and technology, and it may result in the creation of new genetic and psychological conditions that would require professional care. Therefore, the medical profession must evaluate the ethics of human cloning, and in particular, the potential role of physicians in the practice" (Ethics 1999, p. 1).
The process of cloning individuals for the purpose of increasing population will be detrimental to the quality of life. There are more than six billion people in the world at this time, and that number is rising exponentially every year.
Besides technical and ethical considerations, there is also the question of whether or not human cloning is legal. In the United States, legislation involving human cloning is the responsibility of the United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). In 1997, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, the NBAC ruled that the most advisable action would be to place a moratorium on research into human cloning, which meant that "no Federal funds could be allocated for human cloning" (Human 2007). More recently, legislation has been presented to the government that would potentially ban human cloning in the United States, whether private or public funds were used to finance the research. Violators of this law could face a fine of up to $10 million as well as up to a decade in prison. So far, these federal proposals have had little success in passing, primarily because United States laws regarding reproduction respect autonomy and individual choice. As one scholar notes, "Law that would prevent the birth of a first clone is difficult because it traverses complex jurisprudential ground: protecting an as-yet nonexistent life against reproductive dangers, in a western world that, in statutory and case law at least, favors autonomy" (McGee 2011).
Part of the continued debate over cloning is the lack of a definitive government decision on the issue. Individual states, however, have had greater success. Fifteen states currently have legislation prohibiting or restricting human cloning (Human Cloning 2008).
More than legality, most discussions about human cloning and the pros and cons of further research center on the ethics of the procedure. Is it ethically right to clone a human being? In their research, the American Medical Association identified several ethical considerations regarding cloning: potential physical harm introduced by cloning, psychosocial harm, the impact on family and society, and the effects on the human gene pool (Ethics 1999, pp. 4–6). Each of these points is an important factor in determining the appropriateness of human cloning and the potential consequences of continuing the research.
Current laws dictate that anyone pursuing artificial conception must be screened to ensure a child will be placed in a home where the primary goal is the development of a healthy child. Genetic research into cloning currently has a very uneven track record, with only one percent of samples yielding viable embryos. When scientists are dealing with less complex life forms, failure is more acceptable. In order to advance research into human duplication, there would inevitably be failed experiments — a simple fact of scientific research. Sample clones could be created with missing limbs, blindness, or other severe defects, yet would still be genetically human. The AMA has therefore determined that "the risk of producing individuals with developmental anomalies is serious and precludes human cloning for the time being" (Ethics 1999, p. 5).
The AMA has also found that human cloning carries the potential to create psychosocial harm in the individuals involved. For example, if a person with genetic medical conditions is cloned, their duplicate will — by the very definition of human cloning — also possess those genetic conditions. Additionally, if the clone were made aware of his or her origins (and this seems warranted given an individual's right to information about their own medical history and hereditary illness risks), he or she would inevitably be compared to the original. "If a clone-child saw that he or she was likely to develop diseases or had failed at certain tasks, his or her undertakings might be bounded by what the clone-parents had done. Therefore, cloning might limit the clone-child's perception of self and increase external pressures" (Ethics 1999, p. 5). Some proponents of cloning have argued that geniuses such as Einstein could be cloned and brought into the world again. However, raised in a different environment, a cloned Einstein would not be the same person as the original, and would face immense social pressure to live up to that first version — an almost certain impossibility.
Some people who desire to clone themselves or their loved ones hold on to a misconception that this process is what is best. Among the many issues discussed above — issues that could harm the world at large — there are also profound emotional considerations. What would life be like for a clone?
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.