Cloning using the cell mass division does not produces copies of the same individual. It only produces two individuals with the same genotype. Each individual will have his or her own life with completely independent characters from the other twin. To clone somebody is not create mutable copies of the same person. Why do we feel apprehensive towards cloning and feel happy when natural twins are born?
If the argument was that cloning produces identical individuals separated in time, may be years apart. We should never forget that cloning will only produce twins with the same genotype which means that each individual will be a distinct person. Being separated in time will make it less likely that the twins will have any similarities of character. Another ethical issue is whether the mass cell division will allow parents to produce a number of copies of embryos to give them a better chance and higher probability to successfully create the child they are looking for. We should ask what is the ethical difference between taking a cell to cell biopsy, and taking a cell to create a clone? The cell taken from the cell biopsy will be destroyed afterwards, while the cell taken to create a clone may have the chance to develop and create a human being.
Somatic cell transferring (Nuclear substitution)
This technique is an extension of a research that is over 40 years old. This technique is based on the idea that nuclei from cells derived from and adult could be reprogrammed, or that the full genetic complement of such a cell could be reactivated well into the chronological life of the cell. This can be done by removing the nucleus of an egg cell and substituting a nucleus taken from the cell of another individual usually a cell from an adult.
To date, there has been only a single reported case of cloning using this technique on a higher animal. That of course, was the reported “Dolly”. The technique had been successful in only one of 277 attempts. The result has not been successfully reproduced anywhere in the world. So far the ability to use adult cells as donors in somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce a live-born cloned animal has not been proved.
It is also important to recognize that this procedure has an innumerous number of important applications in research. One of these applications is to clone genetically engineered animals to produce large quantities of powerful pharmacological agents or to produce genetically engineered human cells that would serve as therapeutic tissues in the treatment of human diseases. The use of this technique to attempt to clone humans is nearly scientifically impossible, as well as being morally unacceptable.
“…somatic cell nuclear transfer technology could provide an invaluable approach by which to study how cells become specialized, which in turn could provide new understanding of the mechanisms the lead to the development of abnormal cells responsible cancers and certain birth defects. Improved understanding of cell specialization may also provide answers to how cell age or are regulated-leading to new insights into the treatment or cure of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases or other incapacitating degenerative diseases of brain and spinal cord.” (National Institute of Health. 1998).
Imagine if you have the ability to clone cells from diabetic patients and manipulate them genetically to turn their genes that direct the synthesis of insulin, and then be able to generate large amounts of insulin producing cells, that are genetically identical to one another and to the patient. The patient could be treated back with these cells without any risk of rejection. Another application could use patient’s cells to create tissue to enable skin grafts for burn victims or using stem cells to treat Leukemia and other blood diseases; using nerve stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Somatic cell nuclear transfer technology could clearly increase the efficiency of gene therapy treatment by allowing the creation of genetically engineered cells that could be delivered back to the patient without any rejection. ( 1997).
Conclusion
In the early 70’s, the world faced the same situation when a new technology was discovered, the recombinant DNA technology. As any new discovery, it generated a widespread wave of fear at public level. The new technology brought a lot of promises but uncertainties. Mass meetings were held everywhere, the technique was applied quickly. How poor would the world be, if the rush of the lawmakers banned the recombinant DNA technology. Although cloning technology might seem controversial at present, in time it will be widely accepted by the public, once they see that the potential benefits of such a technology.
The medical and research communities are not interested in cloning people, but are interested in producing cures for diseases and disabilities that affect our society, resulting in harmful emotional, and economic costs every year. Today, the cloning techniques on human cells, genes and tissue is critical to identifying cures, preventions and treatment for many diseases such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s and cardiovascular diseases. The potential for pharmaceutical production and the prospect for the regeneration and repair of human tissues is too great, it could mean saving the lives of countless people. The cloning of human embryos for the sake of producing cures and treatments should go forward, and so should the research that involves the cloning of animals and plants, for the sake of finding cures that could save human lives. Over all, human life, in any form, is the most important and valuable thing.
References
- Gina Kolata (1998). Clone: The road to Dolly, and the path ahead. New York: W. Morrow & Co.
-
(1997). Biotechnology and the ethics of cloning: how far should we go? : hearing before the Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, March 5, 1997. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
-
(1995). Cloning of frogs, mice, and other animals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
-
(2001). The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 and the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 : hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172,, June 20, 2001. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
-
(1985). making babies: the new science and ethics of conception / Peter Singer and Deane Wells. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1985.
-
(2000). engineering the human germline: an exploration of the science and ethics of altering the genes we pass to our children / edited by Gregory Stock and John Campbell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
-
(2001). Genetic engineering: science and ethics on the new frontier / Michael Boylan, Kevin E. Brown. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall, c2001.
-
. National Institute of Health, 1997 Year in Review Research Report, July 1998. S.l.: s.n., 1998.
-
(1997). Cloning human beings. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, [1997].