* INTRODUCTION: The world of science and the public at large were both shocked and fascinated by the announcement in the journal Nature by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues that they had successfully cloned a sheep from a single cell of an adult sheep (Wilmut 1997). Scientists were in part surprised, because many had believed that after the very early stage of embryo development at which differentiation of cell function begins to take place, it would not be possible to achieve cloning of an adult mammal by nuclear transfer.
In this process, the nucleus from the cell of an adult mammal is inserted into an ennucleated ovum, and the resulting embryo develops following the complete genetic code of the mammal from which the inserted nucleus was obtained.
But some scientists and much of the public were troubled or apparently even horrified at the prospect that if adult mammals such as sheep could be cloned, then cloning of adult humans by the sameprocess would likely be possible as well.
Of course, the process is far from perfected even with sheep— it took 276 failures by Wilmut and his colleagues to produce Dolly, their one success. Whether the process can be successfully replicated in other mammals, much less in humans, is not now known. But those who were horrified at the prospect of human cloning were not assuaged by the fact that the science with humans is not yet there, for it looked to them now perilously close. The response of most scientific and political leaders to the prospect of human cloning, indeed of Dr. Wilmut as well, was of immediate and strong condemnation.
In the United States, President Clinton immediately banned federal financing of human cloning research and asked privately funded scientists to halt such work until the newly formed National Bioethics Advisory Commission could review the “troubling” ethical and legal implications. The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) characterized human cloning as “ethically unacceptable as it would violate some of the basic principles which govern medically assisted reproduction. These include respect for the dignity of the human being and the protection of the security of human genetic material” (WHO 1997).
Around the world similar immediate condemnation was heard, as human cloning was called a violation of human rights and human dignity. Even before Wilmut’s announcement, human cloning had been made illegal in nearly all countries in Europe and had been condemned by the Council of Europe (Council of Europe 1986). A few more cautious voices were heard, both suggesting some possible benefits from the use of human cloning in limited circumstances and questioning its too quick prohibition, but they were a clear minority.
In the popular media, nightmare scenarios of laboratory mistakes resulting in monsters, the cloning of armies of Hitlers, the exploitative use of cloning for totalitarian ends as in Huxley’s Brave New World, and the murderous replicas of the film Blade Runner, all fed the public controversy and uneasiness. A striking feature of these early responses was that their strength and intensity seemed to far outrun the arguments and reasons offered in support of them— they seemed often to be “gut level” emotional reactions rather than considered reflections on the issues.
Such reactions should not be simply dismissed, both because they may point us to important considerations otherwise missed and not easily articulated, and because they often have a major impact on public policy. But the formation of public policy should not ignore the moral reasons and arguments that bear on the practice of human cloning— these must be articulated inE-4 order to understand and inform people’s more immediate emotional responses. This paper is an effort to articulate, and to evaluate critically, the main moral considerations and arguments for and against human cloning.
Though many people’s religious beliefs inform their views on human cloning, and it is often difficult to separate religious from secular positions, I shall restrict myself to arguments and reasons that can be given a clear secular formulation and will ignore explicitly religious positions and arguments pro or con. I shall also be concerned principally with cloning by nuclear transfer, which permits cloning of an adult, not cloning by embryo splitting, although some of the issues apply to both (Cohen and Tomkin 1994).
I begin by noting that on each side of the issue there are two distinct kinds of moral arguments brought forward. On the one hand, some opponents claim that human cloning would violate fundamental moral or human rights, while some proponents argue that its prohibition would violate such rights. On the other hand, both opponents and proponents also cite the likely harms and benefits, both to individuals and to society, of the practice. While moral and even human rights need not be understood as bsolute, that is, as morally requiring people to respect them no matter how great the costs or bad consequences of doing so, they do place moralrestrictions on permissible actions that appeal to a mere balance of benefits over harms. For example, the rights of human subjects in research must be respected even if the result is that some potentially beneficial research is made more difficult or cannot be done, and the right of free expression prohibits the silencing of unpopular or even abhorrent views; in Ronald Dworkin’s striking formulation, rights trump utility (Dworkin 1978).
I shall take up both the moral rights implicated in human cloning, as well as its more likely significant benefits and harms, because none of the rights as applied to human cloning is sufficiently uncontroversial and strong to settle decisively the morality of the practice one way or the other. But because of their strong moral force, the assessment of the moral rights putatively at stake is especially important. A further complexity here is that it is sometimes controversial whether a particular consideration is merely a matter of benefits and harms, or is instead a matter of moral or human rights.
I shall begin with the arguments in support of permitting human cloning, although with no implication that it is the stronger or weaker position * The possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep “Dolly” (Nature 385, 810-13, 1997), aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of “cloning” –an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material. Historical Background: The history of human cloning human cloning is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating chapters of our lives. Essential question to be discussed to understand the ramifications of human cloning is when human life begins? C. Ward Kischer, a famous American embryologists, wrote in a recent article: “Since 1973 when Roe vs. Wade was won there were many socio-legal issues related to human embryo. Abortion, fertilization in vitro research on human embryos, research on stem cells, cloning and genetic engineering are substantive issues of human embryology”.
The answer is clear embryology that life begins at fertilization of the egg by a sperm (sexual reproduction) or if the SCNT cloning, implantation and activation when the donor somatic cell nucleus into an egg recipient (asexual reproduction). (6) Although non-mammalian cloning was achieved in 1952, mankind had to wait another 44 years until he was finally cloned the first mammal. The first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep was born on July 5, 1996. In this fascinating history of cloning, there has been a major setback in 2003 when Dolly died at the age of 6 years.
Death of the first cloned mammal, was followed by a lively debate related issues / ethical aspects of cloning, debate that continues today. Besides the successful attempts to clone the different species of animals, XX century was marked by several important moments in the development of the genealogy. Deciphering the success of DNA code in 1968 came as an enormous progress around much desired human clone. With nearly 20 years later, by 1988 the human genome, that genome Homosapiens stored in 23 pairs of chromosomes has been released.
As things were headed becoming better by the appearance of a human clone, a major problem has become “human cloning prohibition act” in 2009, which has labeled as cloning illegal, immoral, not unethical activity. Since 2009, human cloning is illegal in 23 countries. So far, experiments were undertaken with five species of animals and the high rate of failure has given rise to many questions about human cloning success. Only 1% of animal cloning made so far have had a positive result, but most of them have suffered serious disorders. The conclusion of experts is that the current level of technology, human cloning is very dangerous.
I discussed two types of human cloning: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves cloning cells from an adult for medicinal use and is an active research area, while reproductive cloning would involve the creation of human clones. Therapeutic cloning could provide unique ways to cure diseases until now considered incurable: diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease. (1) The third type of cloning called replacement cloning is a possibility in theory and would be a combination of therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
Higher probability of achieving a therapeutic cloning is more accessible in terms of technique, but also less morally problematic. * Statement Of The Problem: * What is cloning? Are there different types of cloning * How can cloning technologies be used? * What Animal Haved Been Cloned ? * Can organs be cloned for use in transplants? * What are the risks of cloning? * Should humans be cloned? * How Human Cloning Will Work Cause And Effect: Ethics Ethical issues of human cloning have become an important issue in recent years. Many ethical arguments against human cloning are based on misconceptions.
Many people think that these clones will have the same characteristics / personalities as the person cloned. Although clone and cloned individual have the same genes, traits and personalities are different. People think that a clone is physically identical to the donor and her behavior, but this is not true because although there is a physical identity, living environment shapes an individual’s ongoing behavior and psychology. Many people believe that cloning will lead to loss of individuality eventually, but people have their own personality cloned which personality is similar to those in which they were created.
Lawrence Nelson, associate professor of philosophy at UCS, said that embryos can be used for research if: – the purpose of research can not be achieved by other methods; – the embryos have reached more than 14-18 days of development; – those who use forbid you to consider or treat as personal property. One of the most serious problems of cloning of human embryos for therapeutic purposes, is that with harvesting stem cells, the embryo is formed by cloning practical killed. We can not reduce the existence of a human embryo to “a cell” as long as after both science and teaching of the Church, the human embryo is a carrier of life. 8) For a few years, the legalization of human cloning is in the center of global debate, which was also attended not only scientists but also politicians, philosophers, theologians, psychologists. For example, American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) has spoken out against cloning, drawing attention that some business people might think of trading a human life. (4) What is harder is that it could reach the reproduction of living people without them knowing, to be involved in this process or to give consent.
Questions appeared on the social status of any clone. What will be their status in society? In the U. S. House of Representatives issued a ruling that human cloning is illegal, but the Senate has yet to rule on the matter. The opinions are still leaning toward accepting only therapeutic cloning. Legalization of therapeutic cloning has been proposed as the only way to investigate, the chances of success, the basic criterion for funding such programs as the primary objective should be finding cures for incurable diseases.
A coalition of states, including Spain, Italy, Philippines, USA, Costa Rica and the “Holy Land” have tried to expand the debate on all forms of human cloning, noting that in their view, therapeutic cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to combat any form of cloning. Australia has banned human cloning in December 2006, but therapeutic cloning is now legal in some parts of Australia. European Union – European Convention on Human Rights prohibits human cloning in an additional protocol, but the protocol has been ratified only by Greece, Spain and Portugal.
England – The British government introduced legislation to allow therapeutic cloning in a debate on January 14, 2001. Hope that parliament will pass the law was prohibitive. Roman Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the practice of human cloning, saying it represents “a grave offense against human dignity and equality among the people. ” Human cloning is prohibited in Islam at the Tenth Conference in Jeddah. Saudi Arabia has decided on June 28, 1997-July 3, 1997 as the beginning of human cloning is “haraam” (forbidden by the faith-sin).
Jesse Rainbow explain why there is an aversion to human cloning – a clone would not be a “real person” – cloning is “playing the God” – cloning is not “natural” mention in closing some of the conditions proposed in a provisional list yet, so research on therapeutic human cloning (reproductive one is illegal) to proceed lawfully: it is necessary for embryos to be used only in the early stages of their development, without being allowed to grow further, all programs research must be supervised by government organizations dealing with fertilization and genetic techniques, various research programs will receive funding and approval only if it is scientifically demonstrated that there is no other way of obtaining the same results conventional, will not be permitted to research on human genetic material can be combined with that of animals, there must be a permanent state of public information on research undertaken and to be postulated that the limitations may be required to report the experiences and suffering of animals used for human benefit. (5)