Jamal El-Danaf:Cloning: Ethics and Science

RUNNING HEAD: Cloning Cloning: Ethics and Science by Jamal El-Danaf Cloning: Ethics and Science Outline Claim: I believe cloning should be legalized because it has countless benefits. I. Benefits the humanity A. Cures diseases B. Poses health risks C. Diminishes health problems II. Condemns ethics, morals and human dignity A. Plays the role of God B.Is everyone’s right C. Violates human dignity Abstract The Canadian novelist Doug Coupland says: “Cloning is great. If God made the original, then making copies should be fine”. After that cloning started to be a controversial issue with the success in cloning the first sheep “Dolly”. However the American physician, scientist, educator, and public intellectual Leon Kass says: “Cloning looks like a degrading of parenthood and a perversion of the right relation between parents and children”. Proponents of Kass agree that parent-child relationship is much more precious than creating bodies and identical copies. Unlike these views, David Baltimore, the American biologist, university administrator, and Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine was neutral and says: “I think we can allow the therapeutic uses of nuclear transplant technology, which we call cloning, without running the danger of actually having live human beings born”. Advocates of David view cloning as advantageous and harmful simultaneously. In this paper I will discuss the issue of human cloning, shedding the light on its benefits and taking ethical principles into consideration. Key words: cloning, ethics, morals, benefits, harms, social status, embryos, lives, copies, human dignity Cloning: Ethics and Science The history of cloning began with the innocent sheep “Dolly” and scattered to enroll several other victims who fall for the sake of science. “Dolly” offered the chance for new lives by encouraging cloning. In the light of this tremendous technique, two conflicts appear. Either advocate cloning for the purpose of remedies, or surrender to religious and moral principles. In fact an unpretentious genetic change might become gainful or mortal in the scuffle for existence, and what might be illegal in the past can become legitimate because of the evolution towards the industrial age. I believe cloning should be legalized because it has countless benefits. Human cloning, the act of creating an exactly genetic individual of the other, is a controversial issue. In my opinion it is key for solving serious health complications. Scottish scientists declared the success in cloning the first sheep which awakened people to the outlook of human cloning. The sheep “Dolly” has sacrificed its body for the sake of science and offered the humanity an unforgettable service. Furthermore artificial insemination, fertility drugs and in vitro pollination were the reason of the existence of children that have no chance to exist without contemporary science. So why should we deprive them from life? Addionally cloning springs the chance for homosexual men to have a child because it does not embrace the association of any other person (Anderson, 1999, par I, III) .Moreover Skin cells are taken and efficiently used to treat patients with cancer (Suvelscu, May2007, p.4). Can you imagine that simple cells can really treat cancerous patients and give them hope? Obviously, if everyone feels with the needy, things might be much better, but disappointingly our goodness is hindered by egoism. Cloning produces normal offspring during reproduction by banning transmissible diseases (Robertson, 1994b as cited in Brock, 1998, E-7). It is worth mentioning that cloning treats nervous system and other body tribulations by making use of embryonic stem cells (Ian & Jaenisch, March28, 2001). It also permits a twin to find an organ or tissue needed for transplants (Robertson, 1994b, 1997; Kahln, 1989; Harris, 1992 as cited in Brock, 1998, E-8). On the other hand human cloning poses serious health risks. Unfortunately, it kills potential cells of the body such as human skin cells (Suvelscu, May2007, p.7) and requires experimentation on monkeys because human eggs are frail (Mundell, May15, 2013, par.I). Besides it leads to various psychological distresses in twins despite there is no infringement to human rights (Callahn, 1993; Labar, 1994, Macklin, 1994; McComrik, 1993; Studdars, 1978; Rainer, 1978; Verhey, 1994 as cited in Brock, 1998, E-14). Despite being twins, one cannot reveal the same identity as the other. For example my twin and I sometimes experience telepathy, but my self-concept of who I am is different from hers. This makes my unique identity. Erick Erickson illustrated this point by the theory of human developmental stages that states: “Identity formation develops more during each stage of life”. Nevertheless cloning results in extracting limitless cells and tissues from a diseased person to examine why certain infection occur upon experimentation (Suvelscu, May2007, E-4). This facilitates the gradual monitoring of disease progression by scientists, thus specifically determining the incidence and prevalence of contagious diseases. This facilitates making the appropriate step-wise measures for the sake of human health and wellness. Moreover cloning gives stroke patients a working brain tissue (Suvelscu, May2007, E-4) thus saving their lives and enhancing their cognitive abilities as well. Not forgotten that stem cell differentiation offers nerves, muscles and bone tissues by cloning thus saving our sacred bodies (Mundell, May15, 2013, par.3). Focusing on the empty surface of the cup is illiteracy while recognizing the full part gives a sense of optimism. Ethics, originated from “ethos”, are our interpretations of the principles of evil and good. Morals are lessons deduced from any event or situation. Unlike ethics, morals are more about religion. Human dignity, the theoretical foundation of human rights, states that every individual has the right to be valued and respected regardless cultural backgrounds. From the ethical perspective, human cloning is a crime because it plays God and encourages vanity in the spirits of people (Anderson, 1999, par.I). Ethical principles state that only God is supposed to create life and we cannot muddle with Mother Nature. Likewise, cloning undermines embryo’s status because it is created for experimentation (Suvelscu, May2007, p.9). Yes scientists cannot guarantee the success of cloning and more likely to repeat the method more than once. Additionally, cloning targets the use of operative -nascent stem cell rather than the use of fertilized germ (Mundell, May15, 2013, par.9). This reflects the possibility of failure thus diminishing human rights before birth. Opponents argued that religion is a completely separate field from science and suggested that it should look at the beneficial outcome of human cloning. They added that the right of reproduction like any other right should be discussed by law and every individual should acquire it in their preferable way (Robertson, 1994a; Brock, 1994 as cited in Brock, 1998, E-4). Freedom of election, living, participating and marriage should balance the freedom of reproduction. From this view cloning satisfies the right to choose the best mean of reproduction including IVF, oocyte endowment and so on (Brock, 1998, E-5). Furthermore, the right to select our own style, color and major should equalize the right of forming our own identity. Identity is not only formed by personality and self-image, but also genetics. So humans have the right of forming their own genetic identity (Ian & Jaenisch, March28, 2001). Nonetheless, social status as viewed by sociologists and anthropologists is ones position in society. Religious men view it as ones respect and dignity. But unfortunately cloning reduces ones reverence in society because of being viewed as replaceable (Macklin, 1994 as cited in Brock, 1998, E-17). Addionally, it is a crime and violation of human dignity because it incorporates the use of technologies to meet several requests (Harris, 1998, pp.279-282). Technology might cease but reality is never gone. Cloning used to be science fiction, but now it is the fact of science. Through its combinations a precious product is produced; the human being. However, the moral and ethical codes cannot be ignored in the field of science regardless what cloning offer the society. There is no good or evil. A balance can be drawn between the therapeutic uses of cloning and moral standards simultaneously. Reference page Anderson, S. (1999). The cloning of Human Beings. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Bioe/BioeAnde.htm on June 5, 2013 Brock, D. (1998). Cloning Human Beings. Retrieved from http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf on June 5, 2013 Harris, J. (1998). Goodbye Dolly? Journal of Medical Ethics, 24:279-282. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377577/pdf/jmedeth00311-0019.pdf on June 6, 2103 Jaenisch, R. & Wilmut, I. (March28, 2001) Don’t Clone Humans. Science, vol.291, Iss5513, 2552-2552. Retrieved from http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0104/8.htm on June 8, 2013 Mundell, E.J, (May15, 2013). Scientists Use Cloning Techniques to Produce Human Stem Cells. HealthDay News. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/news/20130515/scientists-use-cloning-technique-to-produce-human-stem-cells?page=2 on June7, 2013. Savulescu, J. (May2007). Ethics of Stem Cell and Cloning Research. Retrieved from http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/28153/ethics_stemcell_cloningresearch.pdf on June6, 2013.