Should the cloning of humans be allowed?

 However if human cloning were to become possible, it would introduce many benefits to the human population.

Infertility and Premature Death

One of these benefits would be to infertile couples currently using in vitro fertilisation. At the moment, these couples have to retrieve donor sperms as well as donor eggs. Human cloning would allow these infertile couples to have children who were biologically related to one parent. As well as this, human cloning would also allow homosexual couples to be able to have children who were biologically related to them and they would not have to adopt children. And human cloning would even make it possible for sole parents to have children who had the same DNA as them.

Another argument for cloning would be the fact that parents who had lost a child to a premature death would be able to have another child who would have the same genetic make up as the deceased child.

No Risk of Genetic Disease

 Yet another benefit the cloning of humans would be for couples who had one person being a carrier of a genetic disease. Human cloning would allow these couples to be able to have children without the risk of their offspring developing the disorder. And also, parents with a child who was suffering from a critical illness would be able to using human cloning technology to have another child who would be a compatible transplant donor for the sick child.

Those who oppose human cloning claim that it would raise social and ethical issues like the psychological distress caused to the clone by finding that they are a copy of someone else and not a unique individual. However this fear may be unfounded because in 2003, Thomas Zwaka and James Thomson who are from the University of Wisconsin reported that they found a way to replace faulty genes in embryonic stem cells (ES cells) with healthy copies, using a precise method which could prevent the likelihood of a gene ending up in the wrong place and potentially causing problems. Human cloning could possibly allow this therapeutic gene to be sent to every cell in the body. It would work by firstly creating an ordinary embryo using IVF. ES cells would then be taken from the embryo and the faulty gene would be corrected with genetic engineering. The nucleus would be taken out from one of the corrected ES cells and transferred to an empty egg cell. The egg cell would then develop into an embryo and would finally be implanted in the womb of its mother. The resulting child would not have the faulty gene and though it would be a clone, it would be the clone of a new individual, not just a clone of its parents. The advantage of this is that a person who is a carrier of a faulty gene would have a way of having children that would guarantee the child not being a carrier of the faulty gene and this would dispel the ethical arguments of having a clone of the carrier.

Cloning to Cure Disease?

Human cloning doesn't just include cloning a whole human being. Cells could be taken from a person suffering from a disease and used to help cure the disease. For example a person could be suffering from macular degeneration, which is a disease which destroys vision. To help improve the person's eyesight, cells would be taken from the person and cloned to create healthy retinal tissue and finally, the person would be given a transplant of this tissue. In fact, a similar transplant was carried out successfully on Russell Turnbull who became partially blind after ammonia was squirted into his eye during an attack. The ammonia damaged the cornea (the clear membrane which covers the front of the eye) with severe scarring which resulted in stem cells which kept the cornea healthy being destroyed.  Doctors from the North East England Stem Cell Institute in Newcastle took stem cells from Turnbull's healthy eye and grew it on a layer of amniotic tissue taken from amniotic sacs, which were donated by woman who had a Caesarean section. When the cells had covered the tissue, the tissue was then transplanted on Turnbull's damaged eye and two months later the membrane had broken down, allowing the healthy stem cells to repair the cornea. Six months later, eye tests showed that his vision had become nearly as good as it was before the attack.

More research on this type of cloning could allow breakthroughs in cures for several diseases.

Counter Arguments

People against human cloning may claim that clones are born with shorter telomeres than normally conceived animals. And because telomeres shorten as an animal ages, they think that this is the reason why some clones age prematurely and die earlier.  However, there is evidence to disprove this theory because; in 2000 a Hawaiian team of scientists found that six generations of mice cloned in sequence, in fact aged like normal mice.6 Similarly, other scientists found that found that cloned cattle and mice had longer telomere lengths than normal, causing their cells to show other signs of youth and allowing them to have a longer lifespan compared with cells taken from naturally conceived cattle and mice. Both these sources show that cloning does not cause animals to age prematurely and the deaths of cloned animals may have been caused by other natural factors.

Another argument that those against cloning make is about the reduction of genetic diversity due to the production of genetically similar organisms. There are two arguments that counter this. Firstly, there is the likelihood of genetic diversity reduction because for this even to happen on the large scale those against cloning say, a very large amount of people would have to be cloned and this is unlikely because of the general distrust of cloning in the first place. 6

The second argument is that human clones wouldn’t be the exact copy of their donor anyway. This is because genes are affected by the environment in different ways to form the physical qualities of a person. An example of this is in nature with identical twins, though they may share the same genes, there are some differences in looks and personality between them. They develop at different rates, have different likes and dislikes and they die at different times, meaning that they aren’t truly a hundred percent identical. If identical twins were each brought up in different places, their interaction with their environment would affect them in different ways. Even from inside the womb, exposure from pregnancy hormones can have strong effects on developing babies. All this shows that having human clones would not reduce genetic diversity because clone’s genes aren’t just affected by their parent’s genes but also by the environment. So it would be very unlikely that genetic diversity would be reduced.

Arguments against Human Cloning

Existing cloning of animals is fraught with many developmental problems and the cloning itself isn't very exact, with it taking many tries before a clone is created. If human cloning became feasible, these very problems could arise.

Large Offspring Syndrome

One argument against cloning is the prevalence of "Large offspring syndrome" (LOS) in many clones, which several of my sources, for examples ‘Genetics for Dummies’, ‘Rough Guide to Cloning’ and ‘What are the Risks of Cloning’ from the University of Utah website; have referred to meaning that it is a phenomenon agreed on by most in the field of genetics . The clones tend to physically larger and at birth they have higher than average weights and body sizes which are larger than normal. Lots of the clones created from mammals like cows and sheep had to be delivered by caesarean because they were too large to be born naturally. This largeness of size is probably caused by the offspring staying in the womb longer than usual. Clones with LOS also tend to have abnormally large organs, which can lead to breathing and blood flow problems as well as other problems as well. Clones also tend to have very large placentas which may also have an impact on the offspring's large size. Even babies created using IVF can suffer from LOS, though this shows LOS probably results because of embryo manipulation. And because LOS doesn't always occur, it has hard for scientists to predict whether it will happen in any given clone. As well as this, even clones without LOS have developed kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems, which can go on to cause problems later on in their lives.1

Reliability of Cloning

Another argument against human cloning is the problem linked with the successfulness of current cloning. The amount of cloning attempts that eventually result in live births are very low. Most of the clone embryos expire almost at once because they never implant into the uterus of the gestation mother. Out of the embryos that do manage to implant and begin development, more than half of them die before birth; the deaths caused in many cases by a malformed placenta. This prevents the growing foetus from collecting enough oxygen and nutrition. 1

Other Problems with Cloning

And even if the clones do manage to be born alive, some of them die soon of organ failure. In fact, 95 to 97% of cloning efforts actually end in disaster. That data may be from 2001, but cloning more recently hasn't become much more successful than before, with data showing cloning success rates as low as 10%.  These figures show that despite extensive research into cloning methods, its success haven’t improved by a lot and they also show that cloning isn’t very sustainable and its process seems very much hit and miss.

Then there are other clones that appear to be healthy for weeks or even months, then suddenly die from strange illnesses not known to occur in natural organisms. Research into this matter has revealed some clues into what could be causing these problems. Scientists have discovered that the process of cloning itself could cause subtle errors in the way the genes function. These errors may lead to the strange problems appearing in the clones. If humans were cloned, these problems could occur and even the great advances we are making in medicine would not be able to treat catastrophic illnesses which had never appeared before. According to embryologist Dr Susan Avery, human clones would suffer less pain if they were not alive.

All these problems may be down to errors that occur during the somatic cell nuclear transfer process, especially problems with the process in which particular mammalian genes are switched off, depending on whether the genes were inherited from the mother or father (Imprinting). In some genes, the one inherited from the mother is switched, whiles the one inherited from the father is switched off. In other genes, this occurs vice versa. The process in which the genes are ‘tagged’ to show whether they are inherited from the mother or the father, occur during maturation of the egg and sperm cells.  This process may be damaged however in SCNT, because SCNT doesn’t go through the process of egg and sperm production.6

Yet another problem cloning causes is faster aging in the clone. As a cell divides, chromosomes in the cell are copied, but the ends of the chromosomes which are called telomeres aren't fully copied and end up getting shorter because of this. This shortening of telomeres is linked with aging because the older the animal, the shorter its telomeres are because the animal's cells have been dividing longer. Telomere shortening may cause problems for clones because they are created through somatic nuclear transfer which starts out with "aged" DNA. Dolly the sheep had shorter telomeres than normal, which meant her cells were aging faster than that of a normal sheep.1 If humans were cloned, this problem of the shortening telomere may occur and human clones may end living a shorter life span than that of an average human.

Genetic Diversity

One finally argument against human cloning is the problems it causes with genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is very important to establishing and maintaining the health and wellbeing of populations of organisms. Research has shown that populations of organisms that are genetically diverse are more resilient to problems like environmental stress and at resisting disease. Cloning would create a population of genetically similar organisms and therefore exposing all organisms to greater threats of disease. An example of this in plants would be genetically identical crops that end up catching the same disease and this could then endanger food supplies. While sceptics may think this doesn't likely, efforts are already underway to archive genetically diverse strains of plants, so that unique genetic characteristics, like disease resistance aren't lost.

Counter Arguments

People who support human cloning, may say that it would provide those for example, who are infertile which the chance to have children who have their genetic information. However, not only does reproductive cloning as of now, create danger for the clone, it also creates danger for the mother who will be carrying the clone. Firstly, reproductive cloning needs egg cells from female animals and these animals have to be treated with large doses of fertility drugs so that ovulation can be stimulated. These drugs place enormous stress on the female’s system and some scientific studies seem to imply that these drugs expose female animals to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Likewise, female animals are put in more danger as their eggs are surgically removed from them. Though they are put under anaesthesia, they still experience some pain.1

   In relation to human cloning, if it ever became possible, something similar to this may occur because lots of eggs would need to be taken since the outcome of one being successfully cloned and born is very low. Women donors being given fertility drugs to produce eggs would be putting themselves in a painful procedure which would also be likely to have danger in the long term.

Conclusion

Looking at the arguments and evidence provided by both sides of the cloning debate, I believe that human cloning if it were possible, should not be allowed to happen. Firstly, as animal cloning has shown, there are many problems with cloning that scientists have as of yet not been able to eradicate. Animal clones end up suffering from a large variety of problems, some of them being heart malformations, high blood pressure, kidney defects, impaired immunities, liver disorders and deformed body parts. They could even have diabetes and may suffer from obesity.1 If these problems are plaguing animal clones, then it could be likely that human clones may end up suffering from these health problems. As well as this, human clones could end up having a shorter life span than average due to shortened telomeres.  Do those supporting human cloning think it would be fair to subject human clones to such abnormalities, especially since there was no way they would be able to have a say in their conception?

Other people might think that the benefits of cloning outweigh the risks and they suggest that human clones would not have a shorter life span because some cloned mice and cattle were found with longer telomere lengths than in naturally conceived ones. This data shows that if humans were cloned, they could in fact have a longer lifespan than average humans.

However, Dolly the sheep was another cloned animal, but she turned out to have shorter telomeres than average. Even scientist up to now, have still not figured out why cloned animals show differences in telomere length.2

Then there are the issues of ethics that arise whenever the topic of human cloning is brought up. For example, from the very beginning of the cloning process, where it is very likely that most of the cloning attempts will kill the embryo, is it right to be condemning potentially human beings to death for the sake of one clone?1 The problem with this issue is how far you put the line for what constitutes as a living thing. Some people may feel that the second an egg gets fertilised and begins to grow, it is a living thing and would find it wrong that these embryos are produced with the knowledge that many of them will die. Others may feel that the embryo doesn’t have nerve cells and a consciousness in the way that babies have, so embryos dying isn’t much of a cause for alarm.

However, there is a much harder dilemma about the clones as soon as they are born. From most of the sources I have used in this case study; I have seen the discussion of the many health problems that occur to clones. If human clones were created, many would most likely end up suffering from these ailments. Would we be denying the clones of a right that no human should have taken from by scientists, the right to live a healthy life? Wouldn’t it be better, to paraphrase from the quote made in the BBC article in source 13, for the clones if they weren’t born in the first place?

So it would be dangerous, unethical and not to mention unprofessional, for scientists to attempt to create human clones just because they might turn out to have longer telomeres than natural humans. Furthermore, claims by fertility expert Panayiotis Zavos that he made 14 cloned human embryos, have caused most mainstream fertility and cloning experts to dismiss the idea of human cloning through outrage about the blatant lack of ethics Zavos shows. Universally they agree that human cloning would be too dangerous to attempt and may cause harm to both the babies created and the mother involved. Cloning in animals has repeatedly shown that many of the embryos end up malformed or are abnormally oversized which poses risks.

If those experienced in the field are almost unanimous in deciding that human cloning is dangerous, and then I feel it would be better not to unleash these dangers by cloning humans.

However, if the benefits of human cloning did eventually outweigh the downsides, then I think that there should be some guidelines laid down so its system does not get abused. I feel that firstly, only couples who cannot have tried other avenues of having children, for example In vitro fertilisation, and have had these methods fail, could be allowed to have their children cloned from one of the parents.  As well as this, if parents decide to create a clone for the so that they can have a suitable transplant donor for their sick child, this raises some ethical issues like the right to freedom of choice which has been shown is media and books, most memorably in the book ‘My Sister’s Keeper’ by Jodi Piccoult. As a way to tackle this, the children born as donors should be told of their purpose when they are old enough, and they, only they, can be given the choice whether they want to be a donor for their older sibling.

Finally, for those who wanted to do something like clone themselves for the sake of having their own copy, I feel this would be very ethically wrong. I think this because the clone would always have to live with the feeling that they aren’t really an individual but just a copy of someone else and the person cloned may end up seeing the clone as a younger version of themselves. To eradicate this, human cloning would have to be very fine tuned so that slight changes could be made to the clone’s genes, to make the clone another individual who could exist on their own and not just be a carbon copy of somebody else.

Bibliography