Now that the sub-questions have been answered, here is the answer to one of the main questions asked at the beginning of the website: What are the arguments for and against human cloning?
The debate as to whether are
not human cloning should be legalized is extensive. There are many that argue
in favor of human cloning. For example, scientists argue that reproductive
cloning is a good way to prevent a bad/harmful gene from being passed on to a child ("Cloning"). This is because there will be choice as to who the child is being cloned from and it could be made sure that that person has no mutated genes ("Cloning"). Genes are a series of nucleotides in a DNA strand. The sequence that the nucleotides are arranged in may code for a specific protein, which in turn determine the traits of an individual (for example, hair colour) (Giuseppe 234). The presence of a mutated protein or lack of a certain protein could cause various diseases and disorders (Giuseppe 234). The reason why there may be a mutated protein to begin with is because sometimes during DNA replication, errors may occur in the DNA sequence (Giuseppe 234). Three types of mutations are silent, missense, and nonsense. In silent mutations, the amino acid coded for is not changed, and therefore has no impact on the cell (Giuseppe 259). In missence mutations, one amino acid is replaces by another, this alters the amino acid created (Giuseppe 259). On the other hand, silent mutations occur when a codon that is for a specific amino acid is replaced by a stop codon; this mutation can be deadly (Giuseppe 259).
Another argument is that reproductive cloning will provide an alternative way for someone who is infertile to pass on their gene ("Human Cloning"). In addition, parents who have lost their only child could have a way of creating an identical clone of that child (Smith). Scientists also argue that not everyone believes in religion and god. Therefore, scientists who are not religious should not be forced to stop their studies just because other people believe in different things (Smith).
However, there are also many arguments against human cloning. Some people are only against reproductive cloning, whereas others argue against both therapeutic and reproductive. Arguments against reproductive cloning include its low success rate, and that it is very likely that the cloned child would be born with poor health and unknown side effects ("Human Cloning"). Some oppose therapeutic cloning because they think that by allowing therapeutic to be legal, it will eventually cause reproductive to also become more accepted ("Human Cloning and Genetic Modification"). Moreover, individuality and identity would be lost ("Cloning"). The cloned child may feel the need to act similar or completely different to the person that they are a clone of and may feel as though they have to accomplish a certain task that they were cloned for ("Cloning to Produce Children"). Many believe that it is unethical to put the cloned child through this ("Cloning to Produce Children").
Some scientists are also worried about how similar stem cells and cancer cells are. Continually dividing/multiplying for long periods of time is an ability present in both types of cells ("Cloning"). It has been shown that stem cells can acquire a build up of mutations after around sixty cell division cycles; these mutations could lead to cancer ("Cloning"). As a result many believe that before stem cells can be used as a treatment, the connection between the two types of cell should be studied and understood further ("Cloning").
Another argument is that reproductive cloning will provide an alternative way for someone who is infertile to pass on their gene ("Human Cloning"). In addition, parents who have lost their only child could have a way of creating an identical clone of that child (Smith). Scientists also argue that not everyone believes in religion and god. Therefore, scientists who are not religious should not be forced to stop their studies just because other people believe in different things (Smith).
However, there are also many arguments against human cloning. Some people are only against reproductive cloning, whereas others argue against both therapeutic and reproductive. Arguments against reproductive cloning include its low success rate, and that it is very likely that the cloned child would be born with poor health and unknown side effects ("Human Cloning"). Some oppose therapeutic cloning because they think that by allowing therapeutic to be legal, it will eventually cause reproductive to also become more accepted ("Human Cloning and Genetic Modification"). Moreover, individuality and identity would be lost ("Cloning"). The cloned child may feel the need to act similar or completely different to the person that they are a clone of and may feel as though they have to accomplish a certain task that they were cloned for ("Cloning to Produce Children"). Many believe that it is unethical to put the cloned child through this ("Cloning to Produce Children").
Some scientists are also worried about how similar stem cells and cancer cells are. Continually dividing/multiplying for long periods of time is an ability present in both types of cells ("Cloning"). It has been shown that stem cells can acquire a build up of mutations after around sixty cell division cycles; these mutations could lead to cancer ("Cloning"). As a result many believe that before stem cells can be used as a treatment, the connection between the two types of cell should be studied and understood further ("Cloning").
In this video, the pros and cons of human cloning and stem cell research are discussed. ("Stem Cells and Cloning")
|