Human Cloning: Ethics, Law, and Scientific Debate
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.
- Introduction: Defining Human Cloning: AMA definition, Dolly, and thesis statement
- The Legal Landscape of Human Cloning: NBAC moratorium and U.S. cloning legislation
- Ethical Concerns Identified by the Medical Community: AMA ethical analysis of cloning harms
- Arguments in Favor of Human Cloning: Therapeutic, transplant, and autonomy arguments
- Synthesis: Weighing Benefits Against Dangers: Balanced assessment and straw man fallacy risk
- Conclusion: Humanitarian question of life as a clone
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper employs a clear thesis–antithesis–synthesis structure, presenting opposing viewpoints fairly before drawing a measured conclusion, which demonstrates intellectual balance on a contentious topic.
- It grounds its claims in credible institutional sources, particularly the American Medical Association's own reports, lending authority to both sides of the argument.
- The paper transitions smoothly from abstract ethical concerns to concrete examples—such as organ transplantation wait lists and the cloning of Dolly—making complex ideas accessible.
Key academic technique demonstrated
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.
Structure breakdown
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.
Introduction: Defining Human Cloning
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.
Works Cited
"Cloning Fact Sheet." (2009). Human Genome Project Information. Retrieved from
"The Ethics of Human Cloning." (1999). Reports of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association.
"Human Cloning." (2007). Stem Cell Research. American Medical Association. Retrieved from
"Human Cloning Wars." (2008). National Conference of State Legislatures.
Kilner, John F. (2002). "Human Cloning." The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
McGee, Glenn. (2011). "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning." American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2007). Critical Thinking (Custom 8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Touchette, Nancy. (2002). "Cloned Mice Have Genomic Flaws." Genome News Network.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.