Cloning Banning
Banning on human and organ cloning is posing a
problem on those educated ones in
academia. Researcher and scientist Dr. Ian
Wilmut has successfully cloned a
sheep, and has gathered from this experiment
evidence that strongly proves that
human and organ cloning could be performed
– safely and effectively.
Unfortunately, our government has almost
immediately banned such cloning in this
country. Did they realize the
benefits of such a discovery? Perhaps they simply
believe that it is some
sort of unethical, immoral experiment that is not
beneficial to our society.
Perhaps they should take a closer look at exactly
what these researchers have
derived from years of experimenting. In this paper,
I will propose a
possible plan to persuade our government to take another look
at human and
organ cloning. Many positive benefits could come out of this, and
it is our
responsibility, for the sake of a healthier future, to push policy
makers to
change their minds and loosen their grips on such a banning. Cloning
of
various organisms has been going on for years. This concept of cloning
was
conceived in 1938, but it was not until 1994 that a method using an
embryo was
used to clone a cow (Business Week). Much to many people’s
surprise, the idea
of cloning humans is not an aged concept. It is fairly
new, but that hardly
means that the amount, or rather quality, of research to
support safe human
and/or organ cloning, is poor. This bioethical issue is
quite debatable, and it
has caused further debate, especially after the March
4, 1997 banning of the use
of federal funds for research leading to human
cloning (Time). The government
was pressured. Due to time restrictions, they
had to make a challenging decision
on whether or not to ban human cloning in
the United States. Their ruling has
left a large number of researchers and
curious citizens alike in a cloud of
confusion. My solution to the problem is
this: an elaboration on the history,
technique, ethics, and reasons for
researching the technology of cloning is
necessary. Our government must be
further educated on this issue. Let’s take a
look at how to go about proving
this solution. The first thing that must be
cleared up for the government and
for all those who believe otherwise, is what
is cloning, and what is a clone.
A clone is an organism derived asexually from a
single individual by cutting,
bulbs, tubers, fission, or parthenogenesis
reproduction (Cloning, 11). The
biological term "cloning" is the production
of a genetically identical
duplicate of an organism. In the world of scientific
technology, these exact
definitions mean the difference between false
premonitions of cloning, and
the real-life phenomenon of good, ethical cloning.
Let me pose an
interesting idea for you. Human cloning already happens by
accident.
Monozygotic twins, or identical twins, are clones of each other –
they have
the same exact genetic information due to the division of an embryo
in
development, which produces two identical embryos. A human clone is really
just
a time-delayed identical twin of another person. The government doesn’t
ban
the birth of identical twins, does it? It is unheard of to think that
identical
twins are zombies without souls or personalities. So how can the
advances in
science having to do with cloning organisms be so rash in their
moral and
ethical implications? The government should take a closer look at
this marvel.
Is this hypocrisy? You decide. An important issue that could
be resolved is
infertility. Infertile couples could have children with human
cloning. On
Saturday, October 17, 1996, the Board of Directors of RESOLVE
of Northern
California adopted a resolution and policy statement saying
that cloning may
offer infertile individuals a legitimate way of forming
families, that they
support research to make human cloning safe and
effective, and that they oppose
governmental efforts to deny infertility
patients the option to use cloning
technology to have children (HCF). Many
infertility patients have tested with
various forms of treatment, some which
are not exactly the safest, and many have
proved unsuccessful. This cloning
method is safe and with more research, has the
potential of high success
rates. This is factual information based on research.
With so much
support for human cloning, how did the policy makers decide against
it? Step
by step the technology to clone people is advancing. Of course,
the
procedures and applications have not been perfected, but many clinics in
the
U.S. already have the equipment to start cloning. Many fear that
these
institutions may try to do something before the levels of risk are
reduced to an
acceptable standard. President Clinton only put a ban on such
experimentation
for five years, which means that thereafter the ban will be
expired and human
cloning may have another chance at production (Business
Week). But why did they
decide upon this in the first place? Scientists need
to research human cloning
for the future. In five years, when they are ready
to prove to the world that
they are finally ready and advanced enough to
start cloning humans, due to the
lack of decent government funding, they will
be unable to provide accurate data.
Once again, senate will reject the
idea, and such projects will be further
delayed. So what is the answer to
this bizarre cycle? The government must fund
research and experimentation to
allow scientists to clone humans. They need to
take another look at these
simple facts and realize that in order for the
perfection of human cloning
procedures to occur, large amounts of funding must
take place. This funding
needs to come from our government. In this society,
where everyone is out to
be an individual, the line between what is moral and
what is immoral is very
distorted. I, Carlos Ortiz, a twenty-year-old college
student, have been
researching this matter for approximately a month. After
reading through just
a few internet sources, outlining two or three books on the
subject of
cloning, and writing one single research paper on the benefits of
human and
organ cloning, I have become so educated on the subject of cloning.
Not
only have I learned a great deal on this much debated bioethical issue,
but
I have also grown an interest for cloning possibilities and formed a
strong
opinion on this topic. Throughout my explorations in the past month, I
have come
across unbelievable amounts of studies, papers, and websites
devoted to proving
the benefits of human cloning. This procedure is only here
to benefit the human
race. How is it that we have so much information proving
the beneficial aspects
of human cloning, yet our government so harshly voted
against it? In a nutshell,
it is due to the lack of knowledge. We need to
educate these people. Modern day
scientists must keep working at trying to
convince the government and our
society that human cloning will not endanger
the human race. They must keep
working at discovering new and interesting
data to support these beliefs. We
must educate those who are ignorant to
these beliefs, and demonstrate for them
how much our society actually has to
gain from this scientific phenomenon. If we
do not take advantage of human
cloning, then we might never know what we might
have benefited from. The best
approach is to provide positive theory to our
policy makers, and prove to
them how this procedure can be perfected. With their
funding and support, we
can research the consequences, alter them if they are
harmful, and allow the
future of the human race to benefit from a truly
magnificent discovery –
human cloning.
Bibliography
"Human Cloning." Business Week. 10
August 1998: 32-33 "Human
Cloning." Time. 09 February 1998: 81-96 "Human
Cloning Foundation." 2
February 1998 http://www.humancloning.org/
Winters, Paul A. "Cloning." San
Diego: Greenhaven Press