Should We Encourage Research and Practice on Human Cloning? By Mark Anthony C.

Dela Cruz

In the film The 6th Day, Arnold Scwarzenneger was stunned to find a man exactly like himself a clone. Today, we dont have to be shocked to learn that after Dolly the cloned sheep was born in 1997, researchers in South Korea have successfully cloned a human embryo in 2005. Cloning is the creation of another organism by replacing the nucleus of an egg cell (referred here as the egg) with a nucleus of another cell that is to be cloned. There are two type of cloning, namely: reproductive and therapeutic. Cloning paves the way to many possibilities especially in curing diseases. While proponents of human cloning insist that it is favourable to both family and society, I believe that human cloning should not be encouraged because it is nonviable, detrimental, and unethical. Proponents of human cloning have tried to convince the public by introducing its benefits and other arguments, and by dismissing some anti-human cloning arguments as superficial or illusory. Reproductive cloning, they say, might allow infertile couples to have genetically-related children, enable families to avoid hereditary diseases to their cloned children, facilitate replication of specific persons (e.g., for sentimental reasons), and create ideal transplant donors; therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, can be used to treat a number of degenerative diseases, providing relief to millions. Another argument is that the clone at blastocyst stage (earliest stage embryo) is not yet a person, hence harvesting stem cells from it bypasses moral concern. Moreover, every individual has the right to freedom of scientific inquiry, or intellectual freedom. Human reproduction [is] particularly personal and should remain free of constraint They have also dismissed some of the earliest anti-human cloning arguments as superficial to further support human cloning. At certain degree I do agree the the fear of hightened identity crisis is superficial because a clone will still affected by his/her experiences and by the environment making him/her very distinct from the DNA donor, as do natural twins are, hence identity should not rest on genetic determination alone. The notion of commodificationism which is the fear that clone might turn to be amere commodity and treated as subhumans is also superficial because it simple relies on
1

the society and culture when in fact they can adapt in socially redeeming ways could be loved and accepted like any other child. Nonetheless, these arguments do not entail utter favour to human cloning as I contend below some arguments that make it futile. First, cloning, at its infant technology, seems impractical and nonviable because the procedure is extensive and expensive. Experiments with animals show that success rate of animal cloning is relatively low and you could pretty imagine having onle one viable clone out of ten trials. For instance, when the sheep Dolly was created in Edinburgh, Scotland, 277 eggs were used, out of them thirty started to divide, then nine were implantable, and out of these nine only one survived to term. Another problem is the procurement of eggs. We collect hundred of eggs a day from cattle to do our cloning. You could never expect to do that in humans says Steven Stice, PhD at the University of Georgia in Athens. Second, many experts contend that the safety of of the clone and those who may benefit from it is dubious this is which are after as experiments on animals show. Cloned animals tend to have tumours, other disorders and shorter life span. The US Council on Bioethics affirmed that given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-producechildren would be extremely unsafe as well as the National Academies say that only a small percentage of attempts are successful many clones die during gestation new born clone are often abnormal are often abnormal, or die. While for those who want to benefit from therapeutic cloning, it has ben well established that experiments on stem cells taken from embryo have not yet produced a therapeutic success. In animal testing, these stem cells actually have caused tumour, thus when they are administered to human patients, they might cause cancer just worsening the scenario. The Vatican says transfer of such cloned embryonic stem cells into a patient would be therefore extremely hazardous: these cells might provoke genetic disorders, or initiate leukemias, or other cancers. This entail then that the healt benefits mentioned as highly hypothetical. The ultimatum then is that no matter where the edge human cloning may lead us, it will remain unethical and unjustifiable for three reasons. First is the question of familial relationship. It is worth noting that since cloning is a physiogenetic copying of another human means that the cloned individual could not be called the sibling, daughter or son of the donoe but a twin of him/her.
2

Second is that since therapeutic cloning involves stem cells extraction, it entails destruction of the clone. The early stage embryo is already a human being imbued with all human rights, particulary the right to be born and to live, hence, killing that embryo is higly demoralising. Third, it does not mean that just because this embryo will be for the service of life and medicine, human cloning is justifiable. Sacrificing nascent life for a developed life does not equate each other because it is human manipulation of the innocent human whom we could never expect if he/she will pernit the sacrifice of its life. At any angle of morality, respect of human life, dignity and rights are what we are after of. At any aspect then, human cloning is unethical and here we can apply the principle of reciprocality, i.e., try imagining yourself as a clone at blastocyst stage being destroyed to save the life of another, poured on a sink because you are undesirable, or scattered on the floor with the debris of broken test tube because of someones carelessness. In my Christian view, I believe that once life has commenced in whatever way, soul enter into it and becomes a person worthy of dignity and respect. Finally, I contend then that it is a dangerous turn attempting to create a clone that would mean a blasphemous play with God. For as the Give of Life says, Before I formed you in the womb, before you were born I set you apart (Jeremiah 1:5 NIV), and for as human cloning is detrimental in any facets of humanity, no one should be attempting to clone a HUMAN BEING.