 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
March 29, 2008
High-quality-essays.com is your one-stop source for free, high-quality term papers, essays, and reports on all subjects. Please use either the available paper categories or our database search to find the paper you need quickly and easily. High-quality-essays.com is a completely free service that relies on students to submit their own papers in order to keep this site expanding; so please consider submitting your good papers to us as you enjoy this site.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
Free Essay, Research Papers, Term Papers |
 | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Home > Free Essays Database |
|
The news of the successful cloning of an adult sheep-in
which the sheep's DNA was inserted into an unfertilized sheep
egg to produce a lamb with identical DNA-has generated an
outpouring of ethical concerns. These concerns are not about
Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about the considerable
impact cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but
rather about the possibility of cloning humans. For the most
part, however, the ethical concerns being raised are exaggerated
and misplaced, because they are based on inaccurate views about
what genes are and what they can do. The danger, therefore, lies
not in the power of the technology, but in the
misunderstanding of its significance.
Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to
creating a carbon copy-an automaton of the sort familiar from
science fiction. It would be more like producing a delayed
identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separate
people-biologically, psychologically, morally and legally,
though not genetically so a clone is a separate person from his
or her non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise is to
embrace a belief in genetic determinism-the view that genes
determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or
the random events in human development are utterly
insignificant. The overwhelming consensus among geneticists is
that genetic determinism is false.
As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which
genes operate, they have also become aware of the myriad ways in
which the environment affects their expression. The genetic
contribution to the simplest physical traits, such as height and
hair color, is significantly mediated by environmental factors.
And the genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply,
from intelligence to compassion, is conceded by even the most
enthusiastic genetic researchers to be limited and indirect.
Indeed, we need only appeal to our ordinary experience with
identical twins-that they are different people despite their
similarities-to appreciate that genetic determinism is false.
Furthermore, because of the extra steps involved, cloning
will probably always be riskier that is less likely to result in
a live birth-than in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo
transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts before the researchers
were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloning
methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF
techniques typically have a success rate of less than 20
percent.) So why would anyone go to the trouble of cloning?
There are, of course, a few reasons people might go to
the trouble, and so it's worth pondering what they think they
might accomplish, and what sort of ethical quandaries they might
engender. Consider the hypothetical example of the couple who
wants to replace a child who has died. The couple doesn't seek
to have another child the ordinary way because they feel that
cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost
child. But the unavoidable truth is that they would be producing
an entirely different person, a delayed identical twin of that
child. Once they understood that, it is unlikely they would
persist.
But suppose they were to persist? Of course we can't
deny that possibility. But a couple so persistent in refusing to
acknowledge the genetic facts is not likely to be daunted by
ethical considerations or legal restrictions either. If our fear
is that there could be many couples with that sort of
psychology, then we have a great deal more than cloning to worry
about.
Another disturbing possibility is the person who wants a
clone in order to have acceptable spare parts in case he or
she needs an organ transplant later in life. But regardless of
the reason that someone has a clone produced, the result would
nevertheless be a human being with all the rights and
protections that accompany that status. It truly would be a
disaster if the results of human cloning were seen
as less than fully human. But there is certainly no moral
justification for and little social danger of that happening;
after all, we do not accord lesser status to children who have
been created through IVF or embryo transfer.
There are other possibilities we could spin out. Suppose
a couple wants a designer child-a clone of Cindy Crawford or
Elizabeth Taylor-because they want a daughter who will grow up
to be as attractive as those women. Indeed, suppose someone
wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to enjoy the notoriety
of having one. We cannot rule out such cases as impossible. Some
people produce children for all sorts of frivolous or
contemptible reasons. But we must remember that cloning is not
as easy as going to a video store or as engaging as the
traditional way of making babies. Given the physical and
emotional burdens that cloning would involve, it is likely that
such cases would be exceedingly rare.
But if that is so, why object to a ban on human cloning?
What is wrong with placing a legal barrier in the path of those
with desires perverse enough or delusions recalcitrant enough to
seek cloning despite its limited potential and formidable costs?
For one thing, these are just the people that a legal ban would
be least likely to deter. But more important, a legal barrier
might well make cloning appear more promising than it is to a
much larger group of people.
If there were significant interest in applying this
technology to human beings, it would indicate a failure to
educate people that genetic determinism is profoundly mistaken.
Under those circumstances as well, however, a ban on human
cloning would not only be ineffective but also most likely
counterproductive. Ineffective because, as others have pointed
out, the technology does not seem to require sophisticated and
highly visible laboratory facilities; cloning could easily go
underground. Counterproductive because a ban might encourage
people to believe that there is a scientific basis for some of
the popular fears associated with human cloning-that there is
something to genetic determinism after all.
There is a consensus among both geneticists and those
writing on ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic
research, that genetic determinism is not only false, but
deadly; it invokes memories of pseudo-scientific racist and
eugenic programs premised on the belief that what we value in
people is entirely dependent on their genetic endowment or the
color of their skin. Though most members of our society now
avoid racial determinism, our culture still assumes that
genes contain a person's destiny. It would be unfortunate if, by
treating cloning as a terribly dangerous technology, we
encouraged this cultural myth, even as we intrude on the broad
freedom our society grants people regarding reproduction.
We should remember that most of us believe people should
be allowed to decide with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce
and how many children they should have. We do not criticize a
woman who takes a fertility drug so that she can influence when
she has children-or even how many. Why, then, would we object if
a woman decides to give birth to a child who is, in effect, a
non-contemporary identical twin of someone else?
By arguing against a ban, I am not claiming that there
are no serious ethical concerns to the manipulation of human
genes. Indeed there are. For example, if it turned out that
certain desirable traits regarding intellectual abilities or
character could be realized through the manipulation of human
genes, which of these enhancements, if any, should be available?
But such questions are about genetic engineering, which is a
different issue than cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait
selection: It simply takes a pre-existing, unengineered genetic
combination of traits and replicates it.
At present, there is no law in the United States and
Canada directly addressing attempts to create a child through
somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloning, although a variety of
state and federal laws and policies do have some application.
In America, federal law already requires that clinics
using assisted reproduction techniques, such as in vitro
fertillization, be monitored. The requirement would apply, as
well, to efforts to use somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning to
create a child.
State laws governing family relationships would also be
stressed from dealing with paternity acts, surrogacy statutes,
and egg donation statutes are not necessarily broad enough to
address the kinship relationships involved in cloning human
beings. The use of this technique would result in a child
having as many as four individuals with claims to parental
status based on some aspect of genetic connection: the person
from whom the cell nucleus was derived, that individual’s
genetic parents, and the woman contributing the enucleated egg
cell which contains a small fraction of DNA in the cytoplasmic
mitochondria. In addition, if the egg with the transferred
nucleic material is implanted in a gestational mother, the child
will have two other potential parents: the gestational mother,
and if she is married, her husband. Finally, the intended
rearing parents could be unrelated to the individuals whose egg
or nucleus was used, or to the gestational mother. The
contributors to such cloning arrangements will have various, as
yet ill defined, legal rights and responsibilities with respect
to the resulting child.
Overall, existing law would severely restrict public
funding for efforts to clone human beings; would monitor most
efforts to clone human beings for safety and effectiveness; and
would discourage premature experimentation. It would not,
however, prohibit all such efforts. Further, characterize the
family relationships that will spring up.
I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have
raised regarding the broad range of assisted reproductive
technologies. But we should acknowledge that those concerns will
not be resolved by any determination we make regarding the
specific acceptability of cloning.
Word Count: 1618
|
| |
|
|
2008 © High-quality-essays.com. All rights reserved.
|
|
 |