(no subject)
1. How do therapeutic and reproductive cloning differ in terms of their usage?
The product of reproductive cloning is an animal with the same nuclear DNA as the animal that came before it. Although the clone is not completely identical to the donor, the goal of reproductive cloning is to produce a living, breathing animal with the same genetic make-up as the original. In contrast, the goal of therapeutic cloning, "is not to create cloned [animals], but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease" (1). Therapeutic cloning is also known as "embryo cloning"(1) because the process specifically deals with extracting the embryos from a developing egg.
2. Explain what is meant by "somatic cell nuclear transfer" and how this differs from vitro fertilization.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT for short, is a process in which the DNA from an organism is transferred to the nucleus of an egg. Before the transfer, all genetic material is removed from the egg’s nucleus in order to make room for the new DNA. Chemicals are then used to stimulate cell division, and after the cells have been dividing for a certain period of time, the egg is transferred into the uterus of a host "mother." The eggs used in SCNT are obtained from donor animals. In vitro fertilization, also known as IVP, the cloning process is completed in a laboratory. Eggs are obtained from the, "ovaries of infertile or aged females, or from regular embryo donors" (2) during IVP. Then they are, "matured, fertilized and cultured" (2) in the laboratory. In SCNT chemicals are used to trigger the beginning phases of reproduction, opposed to IVP in which sperm is used.
3. Investigate some of the benefits of using cloning techniques. Discuss two of the benefits that you find most important. Thoroughly explain why you think each one would support cloning.
On the Human Cloning Foundation website Simon Smith discusses the possible benefits of human cloning. The reproduction of specific cells to replace damaged ones, or stem cell research, seems to be the most beneficial aspect of human cloning. With the development of stem cell research, sick people would no longer have to be placed on a waiting list for organs and scarring would no longer be permanent. "Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys" (3), are some of the examples Smith gives of cells and organs that can be replicated and replaced through cloning. The advantages cloning could have towards the medical field seem to be infinite. Cancer and disease would no longer be able to eat away at the human body because all damaged cells would be replaceable. A great number of people would be given a second chance at life, and that is why stem cell research is the strongest component that supports cloning.
Smith also discusses the advantages human cloning could have towards fighting cancer. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, according to the National Center For Health Statistics (4). Smith believes that cloning, "may be the key to understanding...cancer" (3), because the exact cause is still not fully understood by the medical field. By finding a cure for cancer, doctors could save an uncountable number of lives. If human cloning is used to find a cure for cancer, than the practice would be responsible for saving these lives as well.
Both of Smith’s pro-cloning arguments have two major elements in common- they both are concerned with the improvement of the quality of human life and they are both concerned with the elimination of disease and human suffering. These elements make both arguments convincing and compelling, and encourage one to re-think the ethics of human cloning. It is argued that cloning is unethical, but allowing cancer patients to die when there is a possible cure in sight is unethical as well.
4. Investigate some of the disadvantages of using cloning techniques. Discuss two that you find most important. Thoroughly explain why you think each one would NOT support or would discourage cloning.
The Family Research Council website lists the top ten reasons that they believe cloning to be unethical. The first reason that they have listed seems to be the most convincing. The organization states that, "research cloning deliberately creates and destroys human life" (5). The FRC argues that human life begins as a single cell, and that embryo should posses all of the rights that any other human being has. Therefore, cloning not only ignores human rights, but also, "kills embryonic human beings for the purpose of experimentation" (5). By paralleling the embryos used in cloning with human beings, the FRC suggests that cloning is no better than murder. This makes a very strong anti-cloning argument, and definitely prompts one to consider whether or not a single-cell embryo can truly be considered a human being.
Another argument presented by the FRC states that, "research cloning is unnecessary for medical progress" (5). This argument is very strong because medical advancement is one of the main arguments supporting cloning research. The FRC supports their argument by stating that, "not a single patient is being treated using [cloning] research" (5). One would assume that if cloning was truly a "cure all" for so many medical problems, then it would be applied to terminally ill or special case patients, but that is not the case. The FRC does credit specific stem cell research with producing effective medical treatments, but denies the possibility of cloning accomplishing the same.
Both of these arguments are compelling in different ways. The first argument prompts one to question their own beliefs regarding whether or not an embryo should be considered a full-fledged human being. This issue also ties in with beliefs regarding abortion, and is a sticky subject. Therefore, the first argument is much more objective than the second, and attempts to appeal to the ethos of the audience. The second argument, however, attempts to appeal to the logos of the audience by questioning the logic of cloning research. Both are solid arguments against cloning research because they appeal to different aspects of the issue.
5. List four animals that have been cloned.
Sheep, mice, rabbits, and horses have all been cloned (6).
6. If the couple in the article decided to clone their son would Jason II be "identical" to Jason I? In what aspects might he be similar or different? Thoroughly explain your answer.
Although Jason II would be similar to Jason I, he would not be completely identical to him, either physically or psychologically. Jason II would have the same genetic make-up as Jason I, but this does not guarantee that they would be identical. Variables, such as environment and personal experiences, shape what kind of people we become. It would be impossible to completely mimic every aspect of Jason I’s life while raising Jason II, therefore it would be impossible for the boys to be completely identical. The World Health Organization states that, "the environment would differ from the moment that each [clone] was created" (7). Physically, the boys might have some strong similarities but, again, it depends on the environments in which each of them are raised. Psychologically, they would be very different because each boy would be shaped by individual experience.
7. What are some of the social challenges that a cloned child might face? Include a thorough discussion of some of these challenges.
Growing up as a clone would be difficult because a child may not have a sense of individuality or self. Perhaps a cloned child would feel pressured to live up to expectations that were set by his/her predecessor. A clone may also feel as if they are always second best- a copy of the original, but not quite as good. Other children may be hesitant to play with a clone because the child was produced in a laboratory. A cloned child could face taunts of"Science experiment!" and things along those lines. A cloned child might also have a difficult time feeling close to their parents because they were not conceived the old fashioned way.
Currently, American society has a difficult time accepting the credo that "all people are created equal," and if clones were to be thrown into the mix, a good portion of the country might regard them as less than human. Cloned children might not be allowed to play with conceived children- they might not even be allowed to go to the same schools! America is currently too close-minded to openly welcome clones into society, and cloned children would probably be the target of bigotry, hatred, and discrimination.