FREE ESSAY ON CLONING

CLONING

Cloning, is it the thing of the future? Or is it a start of a new generation? To some,
cloning could give back a life. A life of fun, happiness, and freedom. For others it
could mean destruction, evil, or power. Throughout this paper, you the reader, should get
a better concept of cloning, it's ethics, the pro's and con's, and the concerns it has
brought up. You will hear the good of what cloning can do and the bad that comes with the
good. Most of the information you will read about in this paper is what might become of
the future. Even though the cloning of humans can not be accomplished. When it is the
possibilities are endless. What is cloning? How did it get started? Well, it is like
this. A clone is a genetic copy or a replica of an living organism. But, when you gear
cloning doesn't a Si-Fi movie come to mind. Like when they take a nucleus, place it in a
egg, put the egg in a incubator, and when it hatches it's an exact replica of the
original being (Lawren). Though this has been done with frogs it has not yet been
accomplished with mammals (Lawren). Another way to make a clone, as they do in the cattle
buisness, is to split the cells of a early multi- celled embryo which will form two new
embryos (Lawren). For it to get started into practice it took more than fifty years of
questioning and testing. The first successful cloning experiment involved a leopard frog.
It took place in, 1952 with group of scientist from the Institute for Cancer Research in
Philadelphia (Lawren). To clone the frog they used an embryonic frog cell
nucleus(Margery). 1962, John Gurdon of Cambridge University cloned a toad that survive
threw adulthood and was able to reproduce. He was also the first to take a nucleus from a
fully contrast tadpole intestinal cell and cloned toads(Robertson). As you can see we are
getting close to the cloning of humans. 1981, Steen Willadsen was the first to clone a
artificial chimera. He did this by mixing a sheep and a goat getting the result of a geep
(Lawren). It had the body shape and the head of a goat, and a dappled coat which had
large patches of Richard Pech sheep's wool. 1984, Willadsen cloned the first verifiable
mammal, using embryonic nuclei transplant into an unfertilized sheep egg. Also in, 1986,
when he worked for Texas bioengineering company (Lawren). By using the embryonic nuclei,
he produces the first cloned calves from cattle. The cloned cattle that were produced
were super-elite, high production dairy cows and bulls who had a high breeding rate
(Robertson). 1987, James Robl of the University of Massachusetts was the first to clone
rabbits also using embryonic nuclei. But who can say when we will be able to clone human
organs or complete biocopies of human beings by using just the nuclei taken from a skin
sample (Lawren). What's so good about cloning? Lets look at this at a different scenario.
Ned and Stacey are in a hospital. The both of them have a kidney that is failing them.
For Ned this is no big deal, since he has a clone. All the doctor has to do is remove the
cloned kidney and switch it with the bad one. With this cloned kidney you don't need to
worry about the body rejecting it because it is made from the same DNA and the cells will
react to it as if it was the original one. On the other hand for Stacey she doesn't have
a clone. So, all she can do is pray for a donor's kidney to arrive before she dies.
Another good thing is we could create farm or pharm animals genetically engineered to
produce valuable drugs (Resenberger). Like scientist are creating an animal that will
manufacture anti-clotting drugs for humans in their milk by gene-spliced sheep and mice
(Resenberger). With this breeders could make formerly expensive drugs in large quanities
at a low cost. Doesn't all of this sound good to have? Or are we just overlooking the bad
possibilities. Lets just say some freak wants to make an army of one hundreds Adolf
Hitlers. Or try to clone Einstein. Also people could go out and buy a son that will grow
up to be Micheal Jordan or Mike Tyson. But in a way this is good for people who are
unable to have children. Some thought of the future is immortality. When you make a clone
it is like being born again. You have a whole other body waiting for you. You could be
80yrs old and switch into a 21yrs olds body (Lawren). You lose a limb just get another
one sewn back on (Lawren). These possibilities can go on and on. Richard Pech Cloning can
also produce doubles, triples, even quadruplets. In a way this is good for some families.
Are you wondering how this could be good? Well, just think about this. This couple had a
cloned son implanted in the wife. When the son is born he is just fine and normal like
every other baby. After a few years the kid is able to walk and wonders off some where.
the next thing you now it the kid is hit by a car and is killed on the scene. Even though
this is a tragic event. The mother and father can go back to the lab to get the exact
cloned baby. The new cloned baby has the same physical features, but mentally he will be
different (Robertson). So, the personalities of the two will be different. One or the
other will learn different stuff and at a different rate. And the lab will always have a
copy or clone for another child. In a bad sense, the company that is making the cloned
embryo could also sell the same copy to another couple. In time you had one cloned son
and then a couple years later you have the exact clone son again. Which might make the
first son feel like he is in a awkward position . Having a brother that is exactly like
him physically. So, as you can see cloning has its good and its bad (Robertson). Though
this seems too good to be true or the worst nightmare you have ever had. This stuff still
can not be accomplished yet. All though a lot of attempts have been tried. The human
embryo still does not want to develops into a clone. And so far it has been taking years
of painstaking research. Some peoples opinion about are good or bad. Like Marie
Diberardino, Ph.D. who researches animal cloning at the Medical College of Pennsylvania
in Philadelphia says, The cloning of animals is certainly useful, but I'm morally against
manipulation genetic material that would develop into a whole human being. We just don't
have the right to manipulate the gene pool of human individuals.(Lawren). As you can see,
Marie is against the cloning of human beings, but John C. Fletcher, Ph.D., of the
University of Virginia's Center for Biomedical Ethics believes in cloning for human
parts, but not for human manipulation. He says, I don't think any Richard Pech [ethics]
committee would approve research that would mutilate an embryo by destroying the brain. I
know if I were looking at such a proposal, I'd say no. But If you could grow me a liver
from one of my cells, I wouldn't opposed-- ass long as you weren't growing me. It's
certainly better than taking a liver from a kid. (Lawren). A biologist at Bio Time Inc.
in Berkeley, California is Paul Segall. He is the coauthor of Living Longer, Growing
Younger. He says this  The aging surgeon's dexterity, the athlete's wind, the
construction worker's muscles, the fashion model's face -- all restored. Complexions
smooth as a baby's joints and tendons as spry as a teenager's, hearts and lungs of an
adult in his or her prime... Cloning will provide the raw materials to put us pack
together. Segall is definitely pro with cloning. One thing that Segall enthuses is , The
Seventy-year-old transformed into a nineteen-year-olds body. (Robertson). To research in
the United States is like selling drugs on the street. So, to see any progress in cloning
seems remote. The main ethical problem is the fact that cloning deals with human embryos
(Robertson). Kind of like abortion, since so far no cloning embryo has lived. Back in
1975, The federal government declared that there could be no funding on the experiments
on human embryos until the government's Ethics Advisory Board gave its approval
(Resenberger). And since this is so close to abortion all politicians may stay clear of
cloning research for the foreseeable future (Resenberger). But right now the immediate
concern is whether if there should be any restriction on research with embryos designed
to improve or perfect techniques of embryo splitting (Margery). if they are able to
establish the efficacy and safety of embryo splitting then it will have to be a concern.
The two biggest ethical issues are whether they should be able to research on normal
human embryos. The second is if the embryo create can be placed into a uterus and be
born. Some of the families concerns are the fear if cloning violates one's uniqueness and
dignity. It will also give the child a unrealistic parental figures. Richard Pech Some
feel discomfort with the manipulation and destruction of human emboss in research. They
even fear the fact that clones could be created to provide a sick or dying child will the
organ or tissue transplant. Still the worst fear is the case of the production of the
cloned embryo will be produced and sold to certain parents looking for the desirable
child of their dreams (Resenberger) . In conclusion, cloning could possibly bring us
immortality, it could be the fountain of youth, its the ultimate life insurance, it could
bring back loved ones, give some couples their first child, and provide us with our own
transplants. On the bad side one could possibly conquer the world, bring back evil souls,
create mind zombies and sell you body without you even knowing it. So does all the good
even up with the bad or is it not worth the trouble? I personally do not know, because to
me it is strange to think that they could make me again. It seems like it is impossible
to be born a second time in life. One thing for sure, cloning is bring around a whole new
idea to peoples heads. _