Nature vs. Nurture and the Ethics of Human Cloning
This paper examines the nature vs. nurture debate as it applies to the theoretical and ethical dimensions of human cloning. Drawing on twin studies and biopsychosocial perspectives, it considers whether a cloned human would share the personality and temperament of the genetic donor or develop as a fully distinct individual shaped by environmental influences. The paper argues that, much like identical twins raised in different environments, a clone would share core temperamental traits with its donor while still developing a unique identity. It concludes that neither nature nor nurture alone determines human personality, and that definitive answers to both the cloning debate and the nature-nurture question remain theoretical.
- Introduction: Human Cloning and the Nature vs. Nurture Question: Context for human cloning and core debate
- Understanding the Nature vs. Nurture Debate: Overview of nature-nurture theoretical landscape
- Evidence from Identical Twins and Natural Clones: Twin case studies as evidence for debate
- The Biopsychosocial Perspective on Cloned Personalities: Biopsychosocial model applied to cloning
- Temperament, Environment, and Individual Identity: Temperament, decisions, and individuality in clones
- Conclusion: Unanswered Questions in Cloning and Human Nature: Limits of science and ongoing ethical debate
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete real-world analogy — natural identical twins — to ground an abstract theoretical debate about cloning, making complex ideas accessible and relatable.
- Integrates multiple disciplinary perspectives, including biopsychology, ethics, and social science, to build a nuanced argument that avoids oversimplification.
- Maintains a measured, balanced tone, acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in both the nature-nurture debate and the ethics of human cloning without overstating any single position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of analogical reasoning: by applying established findings from twin studies to the hypothetical scenario of human cloning, it draws evidence-based inferences about a phenomenon that cannot yet be directly studied. This technique allows the author to engage seriously with a speculative topic while grounding claims in real empirical research.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the ethical and scientific context of human cloning, then pivots to the nature vs. nurture debate as a framework for analysis. It uses twin studies — particularly the anecdote about Margaret and Marie — as its central evidence base. Subsequent paragraphs apply biopsychosocial theory and temperament research to predict how a clone might develop. The paper closes by acknowledging the inherent limits of both the scientific and philosophical questions it raises.
Introduction: Human Cloning and the Nature vs. Nurture Question
Human cloning, though considered highly unethical and even illegal in many nations, is theoretically possible. There is currently a ban on human cloning, despite the fact that science will likely continue to develop the technology to clone humans — mostly for the purpose of reproductive treatments. It is also safe to say that animal cloning will continue unabated even by legal restrictions. Some even contend that the first cloned human pregnancy has already occurred. The presupposition underlying this claim is that human cloning has been used, or will be used in the future, not to produce two identical twins but to produce clones of parents — individuals who will then be biologically related to those parents, serving as an infertile individual's only opportunity to produce biological offspring ("The Case for Human," 2002, p. 20).
It is for this and many other reasons that many argue the nature vs. nurture debate with regard to human cloning. Some ask: would a cloned human have a personality that more closely matches that of the person he or she was created from, or would the individual be a completely unique person as a result of environmental influences? To answer this question, one must develop a more complete understanding of the current theoretical knowledge regarding the nature vs. nurture debate (Myers, 2006). In many ways, current theories attest to the idea that nature and nurture are helpmates of one another, though this does not exclude positions on a spectrum — some believe that nature has far more influence, while others contend that nurture has primacy over nature.
Understanding the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
The nature vs. nurture debate has long been central to psychology and the life sciences. At its core, it asks how much of human personality, behavior, and identity is determined by genetic inheritance (nature) and how much is shaped by environment, upbringing, and experience (nurture). Modern psychological research increasingly supports an interactionist view — that genes and environment operate together, each influencing the expression of the other. This integrated framework is particularly relevant when applied to the hypothetical scenario of human cloning, where a genetically identical individual would nonetheless be raised in a different time, place, and social context than the original donor.
Evidence from Identical Twins and Natural Clones
Consider Margaret and Marie — natural identical twins who are about as close as possible to being pure clones. They share the same genotype and look remarkably alike. They even share a passion for dancing. Naturally gifted, they danced their way together from Newport, Rhode Island, to Stephens College in Missouri, where they became part of its faculty, and eventually opened their own successful studio. At the same time, they are decidedly different in numerous ways — worlds apart in disposition and personality. Even within the domain of dance, they have different specialties; the temperament suited to ballet is radically unlike that suited to modern jazz.
The moral of this example is clear. Even with natural clones such as identical twins, precise genetic copies do not translate into exact duplicates. In contrast to science fiction, scientific fact indicates that exact copies of historical figures such as Hitler or Mozart would be impossible. What is possible has been demonstrated through the birth of Dolly the sheep: just as scientists had formerly produced genetic copies of molecules, cells, and plants, they could now produce genetic copies of animals. The more striking development, however, is that adult cells can now serve as donors — cells that have already become specialized and differentiated (Brannigan, 2001, p. 1).
Conclusion: Unanswered Questions in Cloning and Human Nature
There is no sure way to answer the nature vs. nurture debate, in the same way as there is no way to answer the questions that arise when one thinks about human cloning. The challenges of the debate are obvious, as are some of the logical concerns about the science of human cloning. Regardless of how cloning is used, ethical concerns are sure to be raised — as they should be. Human cloning is likely to remain in the headlines and the debate will likely continue, but clear answers will also remain theoretical, as experimentation on humans — clones or otherwise — is strictly controlled.
References
Brannigan, M. C. (Ed.). (2001). Ethical Issues in Human Cloning: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
The Case for Human Reproductive Cloning. (2002, November/December). Canadian Speeches, 16, 20.
Mathur, S. (2006). Diasporic body double: The art of the Singh Twins. Art Journal, 65(2), 34.
Myers, D. G. (2006). Psychology: Eighth Edition in Modules. New York: Worth Publishing.
Parker, M., & Bergmark, R. E. (2005). Exploring twins: Towards a social analysis of twinship. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36(2), 350.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.