Human Cloning: a Controversial Issue

Human cloning could become a reality in the near future seeing that techniques are attainable according to Sudipta. Doctor Michael West, the lead scientist, and his team were the first to clone human embryos in 2001, although the embryos died quickly, they are progressing, which roused serious concerns. In this essays on human cloning, the arguments and counterarguments of whether scientists should be allowed to clone human beings will be discussed as well as refutations of the counterarguments, in order to obtain greater insight on the effects human cloning.

Cloning of individuals would cause a lot of controversy and would be viewed as unethical behaviour by most of humanity. Replicating causes many to feel uneased, as it is in contrast to their religious principles. Embryos used for research, by law, must be demolished. Cohen identifies that once embryos are used for cloning, we have no control over how they are used. The only way to get rid of a cloned embryo that is wrongfully implanted is done by forced abortions. Several religions are against this procedure. The term new-born will overlook its meaning, as new-borns won’t be truly new, because their DNA has been tampered with by humans. Cohen explains the procedure of cloning human embryos that refers to a women’s eggs being procured. The genetic material is removed from the egg then the DNA from someone else was inserted, this resulted into cloned embryos which are genetic replicas of an existing person. Thus, genetic material remains interfered with by scientists. Duplicating humans can create an increase in the likelihood of aging faster, when cells from an adult was used to produce an embryo. Miller explains that by using adult cells to form human clones, it is likely that their present age could be implemented by the growing embryos, which leads to premature aging issues. Thus, by the statements made by Miller and Cohen we can understand why scientists shouldn’t be allowed to clone human beings as it can be contemplated as unethical behaviour.

However, there are beneficial sides to human cloning that possibly will influence society in an adequate way. The cloning of humans could remove malfunctioning genes, to help with prevention of disabilities and genetic disorders. Miller explains that as humans reproduce over the years, there is a growth in the damage to their genes that is passed on to generations. This creates flawed and mutated genes, which can be removed by the cloning of healthy human cells. Human cloning might help to conquer infertility, which is useful for parents unable to reproduce as they can be given the chance to generate their own family. Miller states that treatments for incapability to reproduce in current times are somewhat successful, but cloning can be more triumphant. Infertile couples can experience the joy of having their own children without having to endure pain caused by difficult procedures. Cloning human organs that are 100% compatible are one of the greatest, if not the greatest benefit acquired from human cloning. This could be done to save the lives of those on long waiting lists to receive organs for transplantation. Sudipta describes that the cloning of organs could help in producing suitable bone marrow, skin cells and other transplantable organs. Considering the stances made by Miller and Sudipta we can perceive that there are significant benefits to human replicating as it could potentially save lives.

Notwithstanding the fact that the benefits sound appealing there lingers uncertainty in the advantages of human cloning. There hasn’t been enough progress by experts in science, and it would be unsafe to use cloning to abolish defective genes. Miller declares that “over 90% of human cloning attempts have been labeled as “failure”, which means that the human DNA is only put at risk during the process” and this could lead to even bigger problems and health hazards. Human cloning used to overcome infertility can be hazardous to the baby, as cloning used to help with infertility could lead the baby’s death. Miller mentioned that clones often have built-in genetic defects and are unhealthy which could lead to death. Creating human organs that are 100% compatible is not assured because the human body is unpredictable and although the organ is compatible the receiving person’s body might still reject the organ. Whitlock explains that the greatest challenge post organ transplantation is to keep the new organ healthy in order to prevent rejection. This is done with medication, that helps to trick the body into recognizing the new organ as its own. Therefore, the body can identify the transplanted organ as foreign even with it being 100% well-suited. We can paradoxically conclude that the beneficial motives as to why scientists ought to be allowed to clone human beings initiates an immense amount of concern among society.

To conclude, Doctor West and his colleagues, the first to have clone human embryos in 2001, have no interest in creating cloned humans, because as qualified scientists they know the risks involved. Having distinguished between the positive and harmful aspects regarding the cloning of individuals we can conclude that human cloning causes more trepidation, and this exceeds the advantageous characteristics. Human cloning won’t be acknowledged as ethical behaviour by society.