There have been claims by some groups that, despite the fact that human cloning is illegal in many countries, they have created cloned human embryos. The strangest of these claims came from the French-led cult Raelians. In December 2002 (as reported in The Daily Telegraph {3}) French chemist and member of the cult Brigitte Boisselier made the claim that Clonaid, her company, had produced a 7lb baby called Eve and that tests could prove that she is genetically identical to her mother, a 31 year old American who gave birth by caesarean section. DNA from this woman had been fused with a human egg and original genetic material removed (as described above as Reproductive Cloning) This embryo was then implanted back into the “mother” and allowed to gestate as normal.
Boisselier claims that the company had originally impregnated 10 mothers with cloned embryos as part of this study, and although half of these pregnancies were “spontaneously terminated”, another 5 babies were expected. Speaking on 27th December 2002 she said, “The next one (baby) is due in Europe next week…The three others will be born by the end of January” Of the couples used in this study, two had used cells taken from their children who had died, and two were lesbian couples wishing for a biological child. Clonaid was founded in 1997 by Claude Vorlihon, a former motor racing journalist who claims to have once been abducted by aliens and to have had sexual intercourse with robots.
Another claim was made by American biotechnology company, Advanced Cell Technology to have cloned a human embryo. However, the company says that it has no plans to create babies from these embryos. These embryos were only allowed to develop for a short amount of time-between the six cell and 100 cell stages of development, and ACT claim that their findings are important to the advancement of therapeutic cloning. Part of the process is parthenogenesis, where the egg is exposed to chemicals to stimulate development without sperm (5 and 6).
There are many arguments ethical, biblical and political both for and against cloning. People who are for cloning argue that it gives infertile or homosexual couples the chance to have children of their own. They say that it would be cruel to ban something that could make these couples so happy. Another argument would be that couples who have lost a child could have a second chance at happiness (6).
It could also be argued that it would be better for our species if we could guarantee good genes for all as genetic diseases would be wiped out. If some kind of global disaster were to occur then our species would be safe from extinction as any survivors could be cloned to save us. There would be no danger of humans becoming extinct (13). Cloning has come about from years of scientific investigation and it could be argued that it would be wrong to stand in the way of this progression (6)
As Biological Science Review reported in 1999, cloning has several uses, all of which benefit mankind. If cloning is being used for parenthood, there wouldn’t necessarily need to be two fertile parents of opposite sex. If one or both parents are sterile then it is possible for them to have children that are theirs biologically. A single woman could also become a parent, as sperm is not necessary (7).
Cloning would not only avoid genetic disease, but could be used to treat other diseases. Cells could be taken from a cloned embryo and implanted back into a sufferer. This could be a treatment for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson’s (7+8).
Probably the strongest argument for cloning is that as it progresses it may be possible to grow whole organs from embryos, which could be transplanted into the patient. This is preferable as there is no risk of rejection from the body as the DNA is identical (8,9,10).
However, there are many arguments against cloning. Many people, religious people in particular, are of the opinion that cloning is “acting as god”. They believe that life is sacred, right from conception, and that to mess with this is to mess with the gift of life. Therapeutic cloning especially is considered wrong as the aim of this process includes destroying an embryo. Another religious attitude is that control of fertility and design is put into the hands of someone other than God (1+2)
One of the arguments for cloning is that it is good for human rights, however pro-life campaigners (who are apposed to cloning) claim that human dignity is violated as lives are treated as “products” (2).
One main argument for the banning of human cloning is that it’s risky. It has been proven in studies on animals that there is a high rate of abnormalities. For example, Dolly the sheep was found to be aging at a much higher rate than normal sheep. One U.S study of cows showed that 4 of 12 surrogate mothers died as a result of complications in the pregnancy (2+14).
Cloning has also been proved to have a very low success rate. In the case of Dolly, there were 277 failed attempts before she was created (2).
It is agreed by most people throughout the world that cloning is unethical, however these people may differ in opinions too. A religious person may disagree with therapeutic cloning as it involved embryos (and in their eyes) lives being destroyed. However the secular perception would be that therapeutic cloning is more acceptable as this isn’t creating a human, just tissue for transplant with the intent of making quality of life better (2).
The law on cloning can sometimes seem unclear. In the U.K, while it is acceptable to perform any kind of cloning on animals, reproductive cloning (when a baby is born as a result) is illegal. Under strict guidelines therapeutic cloning is legal, however this is regularly under review due to many arguments about the ethics (8). In America it is expressed that federal money cannot fund human cloning research (4).
As shown, there are many opinions of people around the word on what the law should be concerning the cloning of humans. After spending much time considering the information that I have researched, I am of the opinion that reproductive human cloning should be allowed, under very strict guidelines. Humans should only be allowed to create a new human life for set reasons, such as for an infertile couple (an even then I believe that other alternatives such as IVF should be attempted first).
As for therapeutic cloning, I think this should be allowed to continue. If it was allowed to progress, scientists predict that it would put an end to having other peoples organs transplanted, therefore abolishing long waiting lists, making rejection of the new organ impossible, and ultimately saving lives.
