The Ethics and Science of Cloning: Where to Draw the Line

In theory, human cloning might seem appealing, but actual reproductive cloning could be disastrous. Compared to reproductive cloning therapeutic cloning seems less controversial. To me, however, I am not clear either is ethical. I do agree with a political cartoon by Kirk Anderson, which depicts the issue at hand as a runaway train. Genetic technology really is like a runaway train going too fast for people to jump on easily.

To understand the ethicality of cloning we must understand the process.

First the nucleus or DNA is removed from a cell. Then it is placed in an egg that has had its nucleus removed. Finally, the egg is incubated for a little while in the test tube and then placed inside of its mother.

In general there are two types of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive. Therapeutic cloning is used to improve or change an already living thing. While, reproductive cloning creates new life. Within these two types there are three levels, plants and food, animals, and finally humans.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Biology

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

All three levels fall under both categories. As far as ethics is concerned they are all controversial although, humans are the most and plants and food the least. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning start the same way but in therapeutic cloning after fourteen days of incubation the stem cells are extracted and pushed to become a piece of tissue or a whole organ for transplant. Thus we could make perfectly matched organs for transplant patients. Also there are different adult stem cells that have been shown to form into other body parts.

Eventually we might be able to grow a new arm or leg in a Petri dish. But that is years away.

Let's start with the easy concepts: plants and food. In this situation science would therapeutically clone the vegetation and then reproductively clone it. In therapeutic cloning one might take a peanut and find what people are allergic to in the peanut. Then, through cloning, scientists could engineer out that chemical. But then again they might choose to take the allergy out of the human; well, that's another issue we'll get to later. However, the example of peanuts could go so far as making multi-colored peanuts to lure little kids into buying them. So we now must ask ourselves where we can draw the line? In general, the cloning of food and plants is widely accepted and deemed ok, so why is cloning humans and animals different?

As you know animals is the next level of cloning. My first example is a cow. Again we would therapeutically clone a cow and then reproductively clone the new, improved cow. In the realm of therapeutically cloning a cow, we might think to create a cow that produces lactose free milk, and, if we can make lactose free milk why not therapeutically clone to force cows to make chocolate milk? So then we again would need to draw the line. Also to prevent cruelty to animals, farmers might therapeutically clone a cow so that it is born unconscious or without a head, so that there would be no need to slaughter. But the animal rights people would go on to say that it is cruel to the mother to have a dead baby. With animals reproductive cloning could be a great thing for a species that is going to be extinct. Although, if you are allowed to clone in this case can we clone to recreate our favorite pet? Certainly if one is deemed unethical and banned by law, so shouldn't the other be banned, too? How would reproductive cloning activists react if only reproductive cloning is deemed unethical and banned? While therapeutic is allowed? For instance could we clone a good eye to save a blind cows vision; but not clone to save the whole cow? The result could be horrible. So can we make an ethical decision about the ethicality of cloning even in cows or peanuts?

This issue works like a snow ball rolling down a hill... it gets bigger and bigger and more and more complex. We finally get to the most complicated level, human cloning. It, too, includes both types of cloning; only reproductive cloning is for more egotistical purposes. Just think; you might wake up every morning and look at yourself without ever having a mirror. While therapeutic cloning is for more healing purposes. The issue, again, is whether or not it is ethical to create new life or limbs designed "by the people for the people". Let's go back to the peanut and cow. Perhaps engineer all people to tolerate lactose and peanuts. If we do that, why not make every one look like me? Well, maybe not me, but we can combine the talents of all the eighth grade boys. So that everyone wrestles like Sean, swims like Ryan, thinks like Benny, and can play piano like Julian... Well, you get my point.

At this early stage in the progress of the technology it is hard to make an ethical decision especially in the field of human cloning which, as opinion writer Oliver Morton says is still working through the "Yuk! Factor.". The "Yuk! Factor" is something that every scientific and specifically medical advance goes through. So, with human cloning we should not jump to conclusions too soon.

To sum up we should not make a decision to clone until the train slows down and we have a chance to be the engineers on a track we want to be on. Until then we just need to wait and see. And scientifically speaking, the cloning technology could be amazing. We would be able clone any living thing from a whole arm to a flower; every thing can be reproduced identically; or altered so slightly so that it is absolutely perfect. But the world is just not quite ready to take on the endeavor of this much scientific advance so fast. Genetic technology is quite like a runaway train going too fast for it to be analyzed and criticized, to be found ethical or not.