Reyes Alvarado 1

Is it moral to clone an organism?

Nicholas Reyes

Period 3

May 2, 2017
 Reyes Alvarado 2

Abstract

Cloning is a process in which a near-copy of an organism is created with a somatic cell

(or a body cell). The nucleus of the donors cell replaces the nucleus of an egg cell, which is then

put into a female organism, which then gives birth to an offspring with the same genes as the

donor. As of today, it is possible to clone an animal successfully, but is impossible to clone a

human being with any rate of success. Researchers of cloning are studying this process so that

they can help to one day successfully clone a human. This process is usually done to either create

an offspring of an infertile organism or to treat diseases. The concept of creating a copy of a

human or animal has garnered much negative attention over the years due to its inorganic

process, and possibility of exploitation in the black market.

Cloning is a surprisingly complex topic to debate about due to many arguments for and

against this process. The moral issues on hand include the exploitation of humans as well as the

unnatural processes on hand. However, some benefits to this process include being an aid to cure

diseases as well as the ability to have children if infertile. Essentially, there are many things that

encompass the topic at hand. The research for this paper was done entirely over a few months

with much work done towards the research of many differing opinions of scientists and

professors intelligently made all over the nation.

This research paper will focus informatively on almost every single issue and semi topics

that relate to the process of cloning, including stem cell research. It will also go greatly into

detail about the history of cloning as well as the early issues that occurred during the

development of the technology for said process. Arguments will be made for and against cloning,

and all of these sources are legitimate and informational. By the end of this paper you will be

deeply exposed to information about this topic, enough so that you can make an opinion on this

situation.
 Reyes Alvarado 3

Historical Context

To understand the concept of cloning, you will need to look first into genetics. Gregor

Johann Mendel was a friar from the Czech Republic (which was then part of Austria) who

established the laws of inheritance through multiple experiments on pea plants between 1856 and

1865. His experiments focused on the inheritance of traits between the plants and was published

in the report entitled Experiments on Plant Hybridization; the rediscovery of this report in the

early-1900s revolutionized biology and marked an urgent need to find out more about the

inheritance of genes in organisms. Other important discoveries in early genetics include Johannes

Friedrich Mieschers extraction of DNA and isolation of nucleic acids from white blood cells in

1869, August Weismann's discoveries of genetic information during cell division in 1880, and

Walter Suttons discovery that chromosomes hold genetic information in 1903. These discoveries

in genetics would eventually lead to the beginnings of cloning.

The start of cloning initiated with the experiment of Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch, a

German scientist. He decided to split the embryos of sea urchins by splitting them. He found out

that each of the split cells grew into an individual organism, showing that each cell in the early

embryo has its own complete set of genetic instructions and can grow into a full organism

(Genetic Science Learning Center). In 1902, Hans Spemann, a German embryologist, decided to

split up the cells of a more advanced organism. Choosing salamanders, Spemann fashioned a

tiny noose from a strand of baby hair and tightened it between two cells of a salamander embryo

until they separated (Genetic Science Learning Center). Again, they grew into individual

organisms; however, more advanced embryos had less success in growing. This experiment

resulted in the first artificial inducement of natural cloning. Later on, in 1928, Spemann

temporarily squeezed a fertilized salamander egg to push the nucleus to one side of the

cytoplasm (Genetic Science Learning Center), having the egg divide four times, and then

introducing a nucleus to the non-divided side. This became the first instance of nuclear transfer.
 Reyes Alvarado 4

Ten years later, he would propose a fantastical experiment which involved transferring the

nucleus of a cell to an egg cell and growing an embryo from that egg. This became the basis for

the process an organism.

Cloning would be set forward in 1952 when Robert Briggs and Thomas King took the

nucleus away from a frog egg and replaced it with the nucleus of an early tadpole embryo. These

were more advanced embryos, and only a few of them survived, but even then they grew

abnormally. However, it did bring to light a few important things: nuclear transfer was a viable

technique to clone organisms, the nucleus directed the growth of an organism via the growth of

cells, and early embryonic cells were better in the use of cloning. In 1958, John Gurdon took an

intestinal cell from a tadpole and successfully cloned some tadpoles, showing that not only are

somatic cells useful in the process of cloning, but all cells retain all genetic material even when

they are divided.

Cloning as a whole was not paid attention to until a man named David Rorvik claimed

that he had cloned a man named Max, and published it in a book entitled In His Image: The

Cloning of a Man. This book caused many to question whether or not cloning is ethical, and

many scientists believed that the book was false. A court case led to the book being declared a

hoax despite Rorviks claims that it was not. Despite this, there was no proof whatsoever that

indicated that it was true or false. Despite the controversial situation, cloning was not challenged

at all. In 1984, a Danish scientist named Steen Willadsen separated a cell from an 8-cell embryo

and fused it with an egg that had its nucleus removed with an electroshock. The cell was

successfully dividing, and using in vitro fertilization, put it into a surrogate mother. She

successfully had babies that were able to fully develop, and the experiment was a success. Three

years later, Neal First, Randall Prather, and Willard Eyestone used the same process to

successfully clone two calves. These experiments were done with embryos, and it was not

thought possible to clone with adult cells. This would be shown to be possible with a successful

cloning of a sheep in the mid-1990s.

 Reyes Alvarado 5

In 1995, two British scientists named Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell replicated Firsts

experiments, but with differentiated cells that were cultured in a laboratory in the Roslin

Institute. This led to Megan and Morag, who were two cloned sheep. A year later, they would

launch into worldwide attention with another experiment. Using an udder cell from a sheep, it

was transferred onto an egg, which then produced Dolly, a cloned sheep and was the only

survivor of 277 attempts. This brought worldwide attention to the scientists, but also controversy.

Many were quick to call it immoral, and the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

had denounced it. Funding towards cloning was later pulled, as well as it becoming illegal in

many countries. However, the process still pushed on, as many other animals started to be

cloned, such as monkeys, mice, cows, goats, etc. which proved to be successful. Even

endangered species started to be cloned, which led to new possibilities for extinct animals to

make a comeback.

Stem cell research is a relatively new process resulting from cloning that appeared in the

21st century. These cells are developed and cultured in dishes, and then put into either an egg or

used to make cell lines that treat diseases. In 2007, this process was used to clone a monkey, but

in 2013 was it brought to attention. That year it was discovered that these cells can treat diseases

thought to be impossible. This brought new debates, especially from anti-abortion groups that

claim that scientists kill babies and immorally clone humans for a selfish cause; others, however,

claim that it is not immoral and that this process helps out humans as a whole.

Despite much controversy that resulted from these two processes, they are still

developing and new discoveries are being found. What the future will bring to cloning will be

quite interesting, and will no doubt bring new debates.

 Reyes Alvarado 6

Findings

Cloning is a

polarized topic,

much like

something such as

abortion or stem cell

research. Not many

people who care

about this topic are

neutral towards the

process of cloning. Everyone is either highly supporting it, or highly against it. This topic is full

of controversy, and with each opinion shared, many more will come to try to refute that opinion.

As such, many of these sources researched have a lot of aggressive tone to it as well as a

persuasive element to it. This is something that isnt civil in nature either. As stated earlier, many

are aggressive about their opinion, and will either shame you or try to convince you to share their

opinion.

My research first led me to a report by American journalist Paul Stark, The reality of

human cloning. The author of this article claims that human cloning is wrong for multiple

reasons, and along with that he states that Almost everyone opposes it (Stark). The author

states three main points throughout the article: its unnecessary, its wrong, and its dangerous.

His main arguments to back up his three points are as follows respectively: there are methods

that do not require cloning for stem cells along with no demand for cloning, apparently all

embryos are living beings and the process exploits women, and it could lead to genetic

engineering of children. He provides a pro-life perspective of the controversial topic of human

cloning, which may also tie in with the topic of abortion in order to persuade the reader that
 Reyes Alvarado 7

cloning is almost as bad as abortion. The audience the article is pulling in are those who are on

the fence about it, which may imply that this is, in fact, persuasive.

On the contrary, a scholarly journal article entitled The United States Should Not Ban

Human Cloning written by Elizabeth Price Foley argues that banning human cloning is a

violation of the First Amendment, thus being unconstitutional. The evidence that she provides to

support this claim is two main facts: that the work that scientists do express ideas, which the First

Amendment protects, and that things like embryos are not classified as human beings by the

government. The author ties in the practice of cloning with the legality of scientific actions in the

law in order to explain that the cloning process does not, in fact, violate any laws that would

render the practice illegal. She ends it with a claim that If citizens and lawmakers can just

remember that clones are people, too, we can face this brave new world (Foley). The journal

seems to target scholars and intellectuals, looking at its length and structure.

Contrasting this is the news article "We Must Stop Trying to Engineer Nature" by Mark

Lynas, in which the author claims that there are good but also bad applications of cloning

humans. He supports this by claiming two sides: cloning embryos can lead to treatment of

diseases that have been so far incurable, however cloning humans to be as perfect as possible

may lead to the Nazi eugenics path. The author uses comparisons to Nazis and comparisons to

mass produced products in order to address the point that cloning may cause a need of

technology over human life, saying that Suffering may be bad, but the alternative may prove to

be far, far worse (Lynas). His audience seems to be clearly ones who are cloning humans for

research who may believe that it is fine to do so.

Disagreeing with the last article, Camilla Swifts article "Send in the clones" in the news

site The Spectator, she believes that cloning will lead to greater things due to the advancement of

technology which has led to cloning being cheaper and more effective. She shows examples of

the increasing popularity of cloning in the equestrian sport of polo, as well as a story of a girl

named Rebecca Smith receiving a clone of her dog. Swift uses these recent success stories, as
 Reyes Alvarado 8

well as sprinkles a bit of skepticism in order to show hope of the process of cloning in the future,

proclaiming that a significant market is bound to emerge here (Swift). She seems to be trying

to attract regular people who may still be skeptical of cloning by showing that it might not even

be bad.

Further down my research had led me to an interesting read. Explaining why people are

skeptical about cloning, the article entitled "Making Human Hamburgers: Bioethics and the Yuck

Factor", written by John Loike, a

PhD in Bioethics, claims that a

yuck factor is the reason why

cloning is not accepted despite it

not being a valid argument, and

that cloning is actually beneficial.

He backs this claim up by

explaining what the yuck factor is and an example of it is, as well as showing that some things

would benefit from the process. He provides examples and puts his pinion as well in order to

provide a perspective from a qualified man. THis scholarly article seems to pull in those who are

interested in science and want to know more about the ethical characteristics of the process.
 Reyes Alvarado 9

In a drift from blanket support/opposition, USA Today writer Christiane Nsslein-Volhard

doesnt oppose all cloning, but opposes Reproductive cloning; in the article titled "Research

Cloning Should Be Allowed but Not Reproductive Cloning, Nsslein-Volhard states that

research cloning is reasonable, but not reproductive cloning. She backs up her argument by

stating that there is too low of a success rate to clone humans, but using in research can benefit

living human beings. She provides a reasonable argument in order to justify her position that is

not entirely opposing; in fact, it is both supporting and opposing. Her article is made to pull in

average people who are

interested in the news,

considering that it is in a

popular news site.

Going back into

opposition of cloning is

an article entitled "Kasss

Argument Against

Cloning, in which author

Mckenzie Clark summarizes the argument made by Leon Kass, an opponent of cloning who

claims that we need to enact a universal ban on cloning (Clark). She shows his arguments that

cloning is unnatural and immoral, coming to a conclusion that Leon Kass was effective in

convincing me that cloning humans is something that needs to be banned worldwide (Clark).

She uses his arguments in order to provide a perspective to those who are against the idea of

cloning. This seems to be targeted at those who want to see the other side of the story.

Going against that mentality, the article "Cloning Can't Be Stopped" on the MIT

Technology Review goes against the ideas of Leon Kass. Author Daniel J. Kevles claims that

despite much criticism by people, cloning is still good for research and will never be stopped,

concluding that human cloning will almost surely happen (Kevles). He shows examples of the
 Reyes Alvarado 10

demand of cloning humans, as well as making a prediction that it would probably be done first in

China. He shows that

those who are moral

are just scared of the

process in order to prove

critics of cloning wrong.

He targets those who are

scholars, as this is in an

MIT website.

Supporting this position, the book "Goodbye Dolly?" The ethics of human cloning. by

John Harris states that there are no reasons why cloning should be banned, stating that the

ethical implications of human clones have been much alluded to, but have seldom been

examined with any rigour (Harris 353). What he does to support this is that he goes into detail

of the processes and the arguments being made that are either for or against cloning. Harris views

all the arguments being made for cloning in order to give a better description of the whole

situation of the controversial process of cloning that has recently gained momentum. The article

targets scholars due to the educational content of the report.

Agreeing with the last two articles, Scientific progress has risks, but also immense

potential by Sydney Morning Herald summarizes that even though cloning has risks attached to

it, the potential for many benefits make it worth it. The author backs it up by showing how the

process of cloning works and the risks they have, while showing how it helped celebrity

Angelina Jolie reduce her risks of breast cancer. The author shows this example of a medical

success due to cloning in order to show the potential of the process. The news article targets

those who are still skeptical about cloning.

Starkly contrasting these viewpoints is the book Human Cloning: Playing God or

Scientific Progress? written by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. and James C. Hefley, Ph.D. The authors
 Reyes Alvarado 11

claim that cloning is not good as it would be equivalent to playing God and destruction of

human beings, whether in embryo or fetus form, must be opposed (Lester & Hefley, 74). They

back these claims up by stating that humans were created in Gods vision and that scientists can

be categorized into three types: mechanists, theists, and agnostics. They use examples from

religious texts and bring up moral issues in order to state that life is sacred and in Gods purpose.

This text seems to pull in people who wonder if cloning is a good thing.

Supporting the ideas of the last duo is the book titled Embryo: A Defense of Human Life

written by another duo named Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen. The two authors state

that cloning and embryonic stem cell research is wrong and should not be funded. They back this

statement up by stating that a fetus and embryo are human beings too, thus killing them for the

benefit of others would be like killing a human. They use supposed philosophical and scientific

reasoning in order to convince many to cut support for the process. This book mainly aims for

those who are more of a conservative type.

In an interesting look of both sides of the argument, the book The Ethics of Human

Cloning explores the arguments of Leon Kass and James Q. Wilson; both authors essentially

debate their positions on the topic of cloning: Kass claims that cloning is essentially

manufacturing babies and degrades humanity and states that cloning personies our desire fully

to control the future, while being subject to no controls ourselves (Kass 10); Wilson claims that

cloned humans can still live normally and with loving parents, and if cloning were to be banned,

the argument will be far from over (Wilson 62). Both professors back up their claims with The

book uses two parts, each with a chapter dedicated to a professor, in order to provide a balanced

argument for the controversial topic of cloning. The book targets those who are looking into the

issue of cloning.

One who would agree Wilson would be Kerry Lynn Macintosh. In the book Illegal

Beings: Human Clones and the Law, the author claims that arguments against cloning are false

and exaggerated and stigmatizes clones as subhuman. Macintosh backs this up by discrediting
 Reyes Alvarado 12

arguments that those against cloning make. She uses science and the law to debunk common

claims against cloning in order to put the truth on the spotlight. The book targets those who are

against cloning as their arguments are being debated.

Going back into the most profound opposers of cloning, Human Cloning and Human

Dignity: The Report of the President's Council on Bioethics by Leon Kass states that cloning

raises issues when it comes to identity and humanity. Much government research under Bush is

used in order to back up the reports statement. The author uses a lot of research in order to

create an argument against cloning. This book targets those curious of the opinion of former

President Bush when it came to cloning.

Predating the arguments of anti-cloning is the book The Human Body Shop: The

Engineering and Marketing of Life. Andrew Kimbrell claims that genetic engineering and

cloning creates an illegal market where body parts are made and sold which will lead into an

Orwellian nightmare. Kimbrell backs this up by giving the history of genetic engineering and

even examples of exploitation within it. He calls researchers corrupt and discredits Descartes

and Hobbes in order to expose the cloning industry as immoral. The book targets those who are

worries about cloning and genetic engineering.

 Reyes Alvarado 13

I also took the time to painstakingly survey 100 students on cloning. It was ultimately a

success, with many

interesting answers

from this diverse

group of people. It

seems that many

students believe that

cloning will work one

day, bringing hope for

a future in which you

could make a copy of yourself when you die. However, many of these students seem to not want

to clone any of their dead family members, bringing forth an interestingly unsound opinion of

this specific example of cloning.

 Reyes Alvarado 14

Epilogue

At first, it seemed that many had supported cloning due to the moving forward

mentality that many people have in todays society, with those against it only due to concerns

regarding identity. Going into this topic had proved that assumption wrong. Researching this

topic had revealed that many people are against it due to worries about the killing of life,

exploitation of women for eggs, and the exploitation of these cloned children for body parts

being of the highest concerns while stuff like identity was of least concern. The main argument

that many that oppose cloning have been that the destruction of human beings, whether in

embryo or fetus form, must be opposed (Lester & Hefley, 74). Interestingly, it had also revealed

that many of those against cloning were usually older individuals and/or leaned towards the

right, and those for it were usually younger people and/or leaning towards the left; this had

exposed the deeply-hidden truth that not only was cloning a moral issue, but it was a political

issue too. Many of those against cloning were also against abortion and stem cell research, and

from there it exposed that cloning was interconnected with abortion and stem cell research, two

other topics that were related to reproduction and were also marred in controversy. This is

troubling for scientists that to research into this, as well as those who are for the cloning of

humans; in order for cloning to be widely accepted, these other two topics too have to be widely

accepted. With this in mind, it is highly unlikely that the controversy will die down within this

century due to this, and it is unlikely that cloning of any kind will be regarded universally as

moral by the public. On the other hand, advancements in science and technology will entice

younger individuals to support cloning, as times change, science creeps on (Swift). Another

thing to keep in mind is that cloning also has benefits in treating diseases, and in a society where

we wish to defeat diseases that are currently incurable, "any new technology that presents a

defined and necessary medical benefit has a high probability of eventually being ethically

accepted, even if it initially elicits the yuck factor (Loike). If cloning were to be committed
 Reyes Alvarado 15

soon, where would it be done at? As Daniel J. Kelves said earlier, the first human clone will

probably be born outside the United States-perhaps in China (Kevles). And many of those who

support cloning have claimed that cloning does have benefits, but society and politicians choose

to ignore it; these people are against the banning of cloning as Banning human cloning sends

the regrettable message that politics and public pressure triumph over logic and the law (Foley).

In my opinion cloning still has a long way to go. However, as I have witnessed the evolution of

cell phones and computers in a quick amount of time, I believe that with enough support and

research will one day bring us to the success of cloning, and hopefully soon.
 Reyes Alvarado 16

Works Cited

Clark, Mckenzie. "Kasss Argument Against Cloning." Ethical Issues in Health Care.
N.p., 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

Foley, Elizabeth Price. "The United States Should Not Ban Human Cloning." Cloning,
edited by Jacqueline Langwith, Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010383250/OVIC?
u=lausdnet&xid=ddb0c543. Accessed 18 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "The
Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning," Arizona Law Review, vol. 43, no. 2, 11
June 2011, pp. 16-46.

George, Robert P., and Christopher Tollefsen. Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.
Princeton, NJ: Witherspoon Institute, 2011. Print.

Harris J "Goodbye Dolly?" The ethics of human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics
1997;23:353-360.

Kass, Leon R. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: The Report of the President's
Council on Bioethics. Washington, D.C.: President's Council, 2002. Print.

Kass, Leon R., and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. New Delhi: Scientia,
2002. Print.

Kevles, Daniel J. "Cloning Can't Be Stopped." MIT Technology Review. MIT Technology
Review, 30 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

Kimbrell, Andrew. The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of Life. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Print.

Lester, Lane, and James C. Hefley. Human Cloning.: Playing God or Scientific Progress?
Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. Print.

Loike, John. "Making Human Hamburgers: Bioethics and the Yuck Factor." Scientific
American Blog Network. N.p., 21 Sept. 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.

Lynas, Mark. "We Must Stop Trying to Engineer Nature." Genetic Engineering, edited by
Nol Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010138293/OVIC?u=lausdnet&xid=4c33386a.
Accessed 18 Jan. 2017. Originally published in The New Statesman, 26 Feb. 2007.

Macintosh, Kerry Lynn. Illegal Beings: Human Clones and the Law. Cambridge:
Cambridge U, 2005. Print.

Nsslein-Volhard, Christiane. "Research Cloning Should Be Allowed but Not

Reproductive Cloning." Cloning, edited by Jacqueline Langwith, Greenhaven Press, 2012.
Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010383251/OVIC?u=lausdnet&xid=b2030ac7. Accessed
18 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Manipulating the Human Embryo," USA Today,
Jan. 2011, pp. 30-33.
 Reyes Alvarado 17

"Scientific progress has risks, but also immense potential." Sydney Morning Herald
[Sydney, Australia], 17 May 2013, p. 22. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A329949141/OVIC?u=special_ovrc&xid=ee5db62f.
Accessed 1 Mar. 2017.

Stark, Paul. "The reality of human cloning." National Right to Life News, Nov. 2015, p. 7.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A438183611/OVIC?
u=lausdnet&xid=2d0d9409. Accessed 18 Jan. 2017.

Swift, Camilla. "Send in the clones." Spectator, 14 Nov. 2015, p. 26. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A434397206/OVIC?u=lausdnet&xid=55591973.
Accessed 18 Jan. 2017.