The biological definition of a clone is an organism that hasthe same genetic information as another organism or organisms(“Cloning”, 1997).
From this definition and from informationabout the science behind cloning, my current view on cloning isthat it is ethical. This statement ignores information about howwe can misuse cloning and what consequences occur when theprocedure is unsuccessful. I currently do not think cloningshould be used until it is perfected. I doubt however that wewill allow cloning to be misused, and think most people wouldprobably have this opinion on cloning, but their lack ofknowledge on cloning, or their belief that cloning would bemisused, is the reason for differences of opinion. Thus, anelaboration on the history, techniques, ethics, and reasons forresearching the technology of cloning is necessary. The first thing that must be cleared up is what is cloning,and what is a clone.
A clone is an organism derived asexuallyfrom a single individual by cuttings, bulbs, tubers, fission, orparthenogenesis reproduction (“Cloning”, 1997). Parthenogenesisreproduction is the development of an organism from anunfertilized ovum, seed or spore (“Parthenogenesis”, 1997). Hence, cloning, biologically speaking, is any process in whichproduction of a clone is successful. Thus, the biological termcloning is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an organism.
However, people can use the word cloning tointend other meanings. For instance, we generalize many olderand new techniques as cloning. This is not a good practicebecause these techniques are different and impose unique concernsIn the world of scientific technology, cloning is theartificial production of organisms with the same geneticmaterial. Scientists actually call the transferring of a nucleusfrom the cell of one organism to an enucleated egg cell nucleartransfer (Wilmut, 1997).
This will produce an organism that hasthe exact genetic material as that of the donor cell. Scientistsare using current techniques exceedingly more, and with a varietyof species. Astonishingly, more clones are present in the worldIn nature, and even in the lives of humans, clones arepresent. As stated earlier, a clone is an organism that has thesame genetic information as another organism.
From this we cansay that cloning occurs with all plants, some insects, algae,unicellular organisms that conduct mitosis or binary fissions,and occasionally by all multicellular organisms, includinghumans. Monozygotic twins, or identical twins, are clones ofeach other. They have the same exact genetic information due tothe division of an embryo early in development which produces twoidentical embryos. About eight million identical twins are alivein the world, thus, already eight million human clones inhabitthe world. In unicellular organisms, a cell will produce twodaughter cells that have the same genetic material. Today, the only cloning research is occurring in scientificmodel organisms.
These are organisms that research scientistsfrom around the globe have collected copious amounts of data. All this data is necessary so that advancements in research cancontinue more efficiently. The most common scientific models areE. coli, mice, fruit flies, and frogs.
The first organisms that were cloned using nuclear transfer were frogs. This is becausethey have large egg cells and scientists can obtain up to twothousand of them from one ovulation. (McKinnel, 1979) Successful cloning has occurred with livestock. The drivetoward success is not because livestock like cows and sheep aremodel organisms. Instead, the farming industry has made andcontinues to make a big effort toward finding a way to implementthe technique of nuclear transfer for livestock. Research incloning is also occurring in primates.
The reason for studyingprimates is the similarities with humans. This leads us to themost talked about aspects of cloning, the use of the techniquesThroughout this century, conversation, novels, magazinearticles, newspaper reports, and movies have focused on theimplications of cloning humans. Part of this media createsthoughts of a utopian society, while some a horrific world; theFor those who have had these frightening thoughts, Dr. Richard Seed states he can accomplish the task of cloning a humanusing nuclear transfer. Dr. Seed is a physicist who researchedfertility sciences in the 1980’s and is now specializing inembryology.
He states that he has set up a fertility clinic thatcan conduct nuclear transfer. Dr. Richard Seed is creating anuproar regarding the ethics of cloning. This is ironic becausecloning has occurred. (Flock, 1998) Cloning of humans in a biological sense already has and isoccurring. Scientists are researching by splitting embryos toexecute experiments to find data relating to celldifferentiation, the use of stem cells, and genetic screening.
Amazingly, genetic screening is occurring in Britain quite often. Fertility clinics aim this service toward couples where themother or father has a genetic disorder. A fertility clinic willclone an embryo, then test it for genetic disorders. If theembryo is tested negative for genetic disorders, then thefertility clinic implants a clone of that embryo.
This shouldguarantee that the child will not have any genetic disorders. That is the current work with cloning. It is becoming apart of our society already. Cloning is currently a technologythat many people could use. I believe it will become morepopular as prices for the technique decreases, and as the use ofcloning becomes increasingly acceptable.
That is if we humansconsider cloning an acceptable technology, and that we would liketo use for the twenty-first century. Cloning has progressed soquickly, few of us know if we should be even fooling with thistechnology. Some scientists say that we put technologies to useonce the pros outweigh the cons. A good place for us to findthat information is to look at the past and current researchresults with cloning and why scientists research it.
Amazingly, the first attempts at artificial cloning were asearly as the beginning of this century. Adolph Eduard Drieschallowed the eggs of a sea urchin develop into the two-blastomerestage. Then he separated it by shaking it in a flask andallowing them to grow. The cells developed into dwarf seaurchins. Driesch could not explain his experiments and gave upembryology for philosophy (McKinnel, 1979). The first implantation of a nucleus into an egg celloccurred in 1952 by Robert Briggs and Thomas J.
King inPhiladelphia. They had transferred the nuclei of Leopard Frogs’eggs (McKinnel, 1979). The egg cells did not develop. Successful cloning of embryo cells was accomplished later in the1970’s by Dr.
John Gurdon. The frogs did not develop beyondtadpoles. In 1981, investigators announced they had transplantednuclei from mouse embryos into mouse eggs. However, otherscientists tried to duplicate the experiments, but found thatthey fabricated the cloning results. (Kolata, 3 March 1997) During the late seventies and early eighties, there were fewscientists still studying cloning. Many had predicted that itwas impossible to clone embryonic mammal cells.
Few continuedwith research. Many gave up and went into other fields. However, some persisted and were rewarded for their efforts. In 1984, Dr. Steene Willadsen announced that he hadsuccessfully transferred nuclei from embryos of sheep to produceclones (Kolata, 1997).
He also was successful with cows and evenmonkeys. He advanced his methods, and began cloning embryos thatwere in the 64-128 cell-stage. This suggested that perhapsnuclear transfer was possible with differentiated cells. Moreexciting was when Dr.
Neal First produced cows by nucleartransfer from more developed embryos in 1994 (Kolata, 3 June1997). Dr. First produced four calves. Two years later, Dr.
IanWilmut and Dr. Keith Campbell, of the Roslin Institute inEdinburgh, Scotland, produced for the world Megan and Morag, thefirst cloned sheep from embryo cells. Their new techniqueinvolved the starving of the donor embryo. This would put thecell in the right moment in the cell cycle, thus allowing thegenetic material to integrate more successfully with the eggcell. This was the integral step of nuclear transfer. Dr.
Firsthad executed the same step, but a laboratory staff member did itaccidentally, and First did not realize the significance of hisstaff member’s blooper (Kolata, 3 March 1997). Dr. Wilmut andDr. Campbell became world famous. Their fame was not finishedOn July 5 at 4:00 P. M.
lamb number 6LL3 (Campbell, 1997), orDolly, was born in a shed down the road from the Institute. Sheweighed in at 14 pounds and was healthy. Scientistsaccomplished this by using frozen mammary cells taken from asix-year-old pregnant ewe and fusing them with an enucleated egg. The trick to fusing the cells is giving a small electric currentto the petri dish on which the egg cell is. This stimulates theegg much like a sperm would, and usually takes the geneticmaterial from the cell and becomes a zygote. They let thiszygote grow into an embryo, and then transplanted the embryo in arecipient ewe, acting as a surrogate mother.
This procedureoccurred late in January of 1996. This was the day of fusion datefor Dolly, which is the natural equivalent to a conception date. An interesting note is that three different sheep were involvedin producing Dolly, versus the usual two or one (in-vitrofertilization). Furthermore, the Roslin scientists used threedifferent breeds for each sheep to prove that the experiment wasAfter Dolly came other sheep, cows and even rhesus monkeyscloned using similar techniques but with slight variations. These cloned animals came from Roslin and many universities fromacross America.
They even produced clones which had genes thatwould produce certain proteins. For instance, at Roslin,scientists are trying to produce sheep that produce milk withbeneficial proteins for Cystic Fibrosis patients. (Kolata, 24The goals and purposes for researching cloning range frommaking copies of those that have deceased to better engineeringthe offspring in humans and animals. Cloning could also directlyoffer a means of curing diseases or a technique that could extendmeans to acquiring new data for embryology and development oforganisms as a whole. Currently, the agricultural industrydemands nuclear transfer to produce better livestock.
Cloningcould massively improve the agricultural industry as thetechnique of nuclear transfer improves. Currently, change in thephenotype of livestock is accomplished by bombarding embryos oflivestock with genes that produce livestock with preferredtraits. However, this technique is not efficient as only 5percent of the offspring express the traits (Kolata, 25 July1997). Scientists can easily alter adult cells. Thus, cloningfrom an adult cell would make it easier to alter the geneticmaterial. A transgenic organism has had its genetic informationartificially altered.
The goal of transgenic livestock is to produce livestock with ideal characteristics for theagricultural industry and to be able to manufacture biologicalproducts such as proteins for humans. Farmers are attempting toproduce transgenic livestock already, but not efficiently, due tothe minimal ability to alter embryos genetically. Scientists canharvest and grow adult cells in large amounts compared withembryos. Scientists can then genetically alter these cells andfind which ones did transform and then clone only those cells. Scientists also ponder the idea of cloning endangered species toincrease their population. The possibilities are endless.
However, we are actually doing much of this research for theimprovement of life for humans. Embryologist Dr. SteeneWilladsen, when talking of past research, stated, “I was checkingfences, looking for holes in the scientific fabric, ways to breakthrough what others considered dogma. ” (Kolata, 3 June 1997). Scientists foresee the cloning of pigs to produce organsthat humans will not reject (Wills, 1998). Also, as mentionedearlier, livestock can produce biological proteins helping peoplewho have diseases including diabetes, Parkinson’s, and CysticFibrosis (Kolata, 2 December 1997).
Cloning also provides betterresearch capabilities for finding cures to many diseases. Thereare also possibilities that nuclear transfer could providebenefits to those who would like children. For instance, coupleswho are infertile, or have genetic disorders, could use cloningto produce a child. Equally important, women who are singlecould have a child using cloning instead of in-vitrofertilization. Nuclear transfer could also provide children whoneed organ transplants to have a clone born to donate organs. Cloning could also provide a copy of a child for a couple whoseCloning does offer some negative affects it could have tolife.
The biggest problem with asexual reproduction is thatgenetic diversity becomes limited. If a population of organismshas the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe outthe population. This is because not one organism has anadvantage of fighting the disease over the other. The techniqueof nuclear transfer is also early in its developmental stages. Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out theprocedure.
For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly, andRoslin scientists produced many lambs with abnormalities (Wilmut,1997). This is the main reason science is holding out on cloninghumans. I also believe we should not attempt nuclear transfer toproduce an adult human until the technique is perfected. Other arguments for cloning include if we are taking natureinto our own hands by cloning.
Religious organizations considernuclear transfer to cause men to be reproductively obsolete(Post, 1997). Religious groups claim that cloning defies therule or their belief that humans have souls. They also considercloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into ourown hands. People question when we will draw the line forgetting involved in natural events (Bruce, 1998).
There is alsoa debate as to the moral rights of clones. Some say this willoccur because there is no birth of newness (Post, 1997). Wewould not receive clones with such excitement as a child of acouple who conceived naturally. If natural reproduction were tooccur, genetic variation would occur. They say cloning woulddeprive someone to have any perception of uniqueness.
They arguethat identical twins are not unique from each other. However,they are new in genetic variation and unique from anything thatcame before them. People also wonder what mental and emotionalproblems would result if a clone were to find out that he or sheAlthough nuclear transfer produces clones, scientistsconfess that they are not exact clones because the recipient eggdoes not receive all the genetic information from the donor cell. The genetic material that does not make it to the egg cell isfound in ribosomes which are present in the cytoplasm. Inaddition, mutations can occur and genomic imprinting could causeScientists even say monozygotic twins, or identical twins,are not as identical as we thought. Scientists also predict thatdizygotic twins, or fraternal twins, would maintain moresimilarities than clones.
The reason seems that fraternal twinsgrow a bond during their first nine months (Wills, 1998). Thisis an example that genetics does not fully contribute to thepersonality of a person. Time spent intrauterine for nine monthshaves a greater effect than genetics is a good example. Also, the statement that identical twins are unique and newonly in the sense of their new genetic combinations is absurd. Iknow identical twins myself that are extremely unique, andperhaps strive for differences.
Constitutional law scholarLaurence Tribe said that human cloning would ‘alter the verymeaning of humanity’ (Post, 1997). I think a clone wouldespecially find the meaning of humanity and become unique. Ithink Tribe is confusing that we strive to be unique because weare human not because we have chromosomal DNA that is foundSidney Callahan, a psychologist, argues that “the randomfusion of a couple’s genetic heritage gives enough distance toallow the child also to be seen as a separate other” (Post,1997). Yet I cannot stand that I look like my father when he wasmy age, and currently I am under the impression that I was conceived naturally.
Thus I believe the old-fashioned way ofhaving kids is not giving me enough distance, so what is theSo anyone who argues that cloning disregards the laws of Godand the souls of humans, they should reconsider their views. Cloning does not artificially produce copies of adult humans. Nuclear transfer is the artificial making of an embryo that willdevelop into an identical twin. No machine that can producecarbon-copy humans when performing nuclear transfer is involved. At this point, I believe we should not use cloning. However, if we are to venture into cloning we must make manyprecautions.
I think the best way to do this is to research theconsequences. Yet, I do not believe cloning of animals isacceptable. Thus, I do not think we should conduct cloningexperiment on animals. In summary, cloning is ethical, unlessthere is lack of respect for the lives of animals and humans, andfor the ongoing inhabitation of life on earth.Bibliography:
