Thesis In Bioethics 2009

I. INTRODUCTION

Cloning I think nobody can afford to ignore the progress that is made in science today. Scientific research gives us knowledge about things that nobody ever thought about just a few years ago, for example the cloning of humans. In this essay I want to focus on this topic with special regard to the advantages and disadvantages and the social and ethical problems. I will start with a definition of cloning. The next part of the essay will be about the beginning of life followed by a listing of arguments about advantages and disadvantages of human cloning. Furthermore my essay will involve a look on cloning and sciene fiction and finish with the economic reasons for cloning humans. My motivation to do the essay about this topic is not only that it is crucial for everybody to think about cloning but in my mind it is also very interesting and exciting to learn more about it. It is a scientific possibility that has become reality. Maybe cloning and genetic engineering will someday even affect my life or that of my children. I hope that I will be able to learn enough about cloning by writing this essay so that I can make up my mind on how I feel about this topic.

II. BODY

THESIS: There are several opinions regarding this question but the only one that is biologically demonstrable is that life begins with the fertilization of the egg cell. The reason to support this argument is that with fertilization the genetic identity of the new life is already determined completely since the mother′s and the father′s genes4 are fused together. From this point on the embryo steadily develops and during this process the genetic identity doesn′t change any more. You could say that the genetic identity is like an instruction for the creation of the embryo, it just takes nine months till this instruction is realized. From fertilization on the embryo develops as a human and not to a human. Some other opinions to the question where life begins are the following:

1) Life begins with birth because before birth the embryo isn′t able to stay alive on it′s own. It needs the mothers body to survive and to develop to full maturity. 2) Life begins when a human has the consciousness to live. Supporting this argument one has to believe that some mentally sick people and coma patients are not living either since they probably don′t have the consciousness to live. 3) Life begins after the first fourteen days,the first three months, etc. It is easily explainable why people favor this argument. Many have problems to define a bunch of cells ( that′s all a human is in the very beginning) as living. After some time ( for example three months) has passed one can at least recognize the shape of an embryo. Argument one has at least a reasoning but the others a hardly acceptable from the biological point of view as there is no proof for them. The reason why it is important to define the beginning of life is that with its beginning every human has basic human rights that are unimpeachable.These rights are granted to every human without regard of attributes like age, race, sex, state of health or anything else and involve the right of human dignity and the right to live. With cloning we would

hurt these human rights, if one believes that life begins with fertilization. When a scientist takes stem cells from an embryo for therapeutic cloning and kills the embryo afterwards it is a violation of the right to live. Furthermore the scientist didn′t respect the human dignity of the embryo because he uses it like a rat for his experiments and then "throws it away". Some people still defend therapeutic cloning by saying that this kind of cloning is a very valuable technique for scientists in order to learn more about certain diseases but that doesn’t change the crucial point that human dignity is hurt and that’s a violation against the law, at least in industrialized countries where these human rights belong to the law. Before we can make up our mind on how we feel about cloning we definitely have to ask us where we see the beginning of life. Finally, the inevitable question. Is it possible to clone humans? Actually, the question is unanswerable. Until Dolly( the sheep, the first mammalian clone, born in 1996) came along no mammal had been cloned by transferring a nucleus into an egg. Quite considerable efforts had been made over several years to clone mice in order to understand how gene activity changes during embryonic development. None met with success and it was acknowledged that cloning mice was not going to be straightforward. One reason why sheep, a far less well understood and less used experimental animal than mice, should have proved easier to clone may relate to differences in the very earliest stages of mouse and sheep embryonic development. The unfertilized eggs of all mammals accumulate a supply of proteins, and the means of making more protein, as they mature in the ovary of the mother. In this way, the egg brings with it a larder for the embryo to make use of until the embryo's own genes become active and it can supply these things for itself. The sheep embryo makes good use of this store and does not start to depend on its own genes until the sixteen-cell stage, four cell divisions after fertilization. In contrast, the mouse embryo gets off to a very quick start, becoming reliant on the activity of its own genes after just the first division when the fertilized egg becomes two cells. Therefore, a foreign nucleus introduced into a sheep egg has a bit of breathing space to adapt to its new role before it has to start running the show. On the other hand, a nucleus introduced into a mouse egg has to acclimatized very fast for its genes to be able to direct embryonic development within one cell division. Perhaps there is just not enough time in the mouse for the extensive re-programming of gene activity

that is required. The human embryo is thought to rely on its own genes after three cell divisions, when it comprises eight cells. This might or might not provide time enough for a foreign nucleus to feel at home. However, were we to understand the nature of the reprogramming that has to take place then there is every likelihood that both mice and humans could be cloned, although probably still with a very low success rate. For now it is merely unanswerable because is it not yet tested by some scientist, human cloning was somewhat possible but can destroy us in different way or in any way. In human cloning of course there some of advantages of how they can benefit us technologically and physically. Like for example, they replace cancer affected organs with new cloned organs, create more population if needed, good for metro sexual people , it can be a solution of infertility, provide organs for transplantation, provides treatment for variety of disease, cloning can eliminate all the worrying regarding the child’s health. Scientist can alter the genes to ensure a healthy child. For example, if a mother has given birth to 2 children which suffered from Down’s syndrome. Doctors can manipulate and balance out the number of chromosomes in the embryo to give the mother a normal and healthy child. Scientists and ethicists who favor human cloning research argue that cloning may provide a better understanding of the nature of genetic diseases and aid in the production of embryos from which cells could be obtained to grow various organs for organ transplant. The cloning of genetic modified animals can have certain medical, agricultural and industrial applications. For example, genetically modified cattle can produce milk with certain drugs inside in mass production.

ANTI THESIS: There are many things to be cautious about when considering whether or not to clone humans. Diversity in genes is beneficial to our society. Adaptation in genes allows human beings to strengthen the Cloning would limit this ability severely. Copying something generally weakens it, and scientists have found this true of cloning. All

cloned

animals

have

died

early,

of

diseases

or

genetic

issues.

The cloning of human body tissue also brings up several ethical questions. Who will own the tissue? The carrier of the DNA, or the scientists who create it? Will

the

monetary

costs

of

cloning

be

worth

the

final

result?

Finally, there are those who worry that cloning allows man to "play God." Is it really a good idea for one human to be able to create another human? Science fiction gives rise to many misconceptions about cloning. Some common misconceptions include the idea that people who are cloned would be exactly like their genetic donor. This is not true, because our environment and experiences shape who we become. Others think that cloned people would be perfect, that all imperfections would be "weeded out." Again, this is not scientifically possible. Others think that clones would go "crazy," as in the movie "Jurassic Park," where cloned dinosaurs escaped and went on a rampage. Some think that cloning means humans would no longer believe in God, and that society as a whole would go downhill as a result. All of these are misconceptions, rumors, or wild theories. There are a lot of ethical considerations that would cause most people to protest. One of these ethical concerns is that cloning is unnatural, and considered “playing God.” Another concern is the treatment of clones. Clones would have the same needs as non-clones of their species. Humane treatment guidelines would still apply. There is always a risk of cloning technology being abused. One of the main disadvantages of cloning is that the technology would have to be kept closely monitored. For example, imagine what a corrupt dictator could do with cloning. There will always be someone looking to use cloning for their own personal use, and many feel that the best way to prevent this is to not pursue cloning at all.

III. SYNTHESIS On the downside, cloning has many negative affects it could have to life. The technique of nuclear transfer is also early in its developmental stages. Therefore, errors are occurring all the time when scientists carry out the procedure. This is the main reason science is holding out on cloning humans. If the scientists who do this for a living take such a long time in accomplishing this feat, with so many errors, obviously further advancement would be needed before serious consideration was taken for cloning humans. I believe we should not attempt nuclear transfer to produce an adult human until the technique is perfected, and also because there are many ethical issues that are still unresolved. Ethical issues are yet unanswered, if we clone humans, is that considered taking nature into our own hands? Would the government place regulations on human cloning or animal cloning? In fact, Great Britain and many other European nations have already passed congressional legislation to regulate the use of cloning, both for humans and animals. Many religious organizations consider nuclear transfer to cause men to be reproductively obsolete, because they are not used in the process. Religious groups also claim that cloning defies the rule or their belief that humans have souls. They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. People question when we will draw the line for getting involved in natural events. There is also a debate as to the moral rights of clones. One could see how we would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple that conceived naturally, even though if natural reproduction were to occur, genetic variation would occur. They say cloning would deprive someone to have any perception of uniqueness. I believe this to be true, because although a clone would be identical in every way, his/her personality would be different in every case, depending on how the person was raised, and the surrounding environment. Equally important, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of in-vitro fertilization. Nuclear transfer could also provide children who need

organ transplants to have a clone born to donate organs. Cloning could also provide a copy of a child for a couple whose child had died, but there is a line to be drawn here.

There are many advantages to cloning, such as the chance of curing certain diseases and being able to breed ideal stock for research and consumption. However, the disadvantages of cloning are seen by many to far outweigh any benefits that might be seen. Because of the risk taking involved in cloning, it is a technology that many experts say may be better left alone, at least until it is better understood. As what my clinical instructor states that “technology can help us, but otherwise can destroy us”. We need to consider cloning as ethical issue which is unresolved, many professionals still debate for its significance, benefits and its environmental results for us humans.

IV. CONCLUSION

In the end cloning is hear to say. Cloning may benefit the world and it might destroy it. But it is not just going to go away just by a few people stopping the funding of cloning. Cloning was science fiction. But now it has become science fact. This as said before is scaring people. They think if one science fiction idea can come to life what will stop more science fiction ideas from coming out. So no matter how much people fight it, cloning is heard to stay no matter if it is good or bad. Because it is an idea, and their is no person in history that has been able to stop an idea. At this point, I therefore conclude that we should not use cloning. However, if we venture more into cloning we must make many precautions, and I think the best way to be aware of these precautions is through more research. Research that involves human cloning is the hardest of the ethical and moral dilemmas to resolve. Currently, even in the case of animal cloning, the extreme inefficiency and cost of the procedures inhibit the true benefits that make it worthwhile. If the ethical issues of cloning included resolving the lack of respect for the lives of animals and humans, it would be more acceptable to allow technology to advance in this promising area.

Research in Bioethics “Cloning”

Submitted By: Petche B. Tomale Bsn2-A

Submitted To: Mr. Joseph Dinoy RN Clinical Instructor

REFERENCE:

1. Peter J. Russel (2005). iGenetics: A Molecular Approach. San Francisco, California, United States of America: Pearson Education. ISBN 0-8053-4665-1. 2. Human Genome Project Information website. 3. Cloning News Website with a Resource to Cloning information in the World 4. McFarland, Douglas (2000). "Preparation of pure cell cultures by cloning". Methods in Cell Science 22