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 peoples 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. Lets 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 doesnt 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.