cloning

CLONING












Richard Pech
6-5-96
per. 7


Richard Pech


Cloning, is it the thing of the future? Or is it a start of a new generation? To
some, cloning could give back a life. A life of fun, happiness, and freedom. For others it
could mean destruction, evil, or power. Throughout this paper, you the reader, should get
a better concept of cloning, it's ethics, the pro's and con's, and the concerns it has brought
up. You will hear the good of what cloning can do and the bad that comes with the good.
Most of the information you will read about in this paper is what might become of the
future. Even though the cloning of humans can not be accomplished. When it is the
possibilities are endless.

What is cloning? How did it get started? Well, it is like this. A clone is a genetic
copy or a replica of an living organism. But, when you gear cloning doesn't a Si-Fi movie
come to mind. Like when they take a nucleus, place it in a egg, put the egg in a incubator,
and when it hatches it's an exact replica of the original being (Lawren). Though this has
been done with frogs it has not yet been accomplished with mammals (Lawren). Another
way to make a clone, as they do in the cattle buisness, is to split the cells of a early multi-
celled embryo which will form two new embryos (Lawren).

For it to get started into practice it took more than fifty years of questioning and
testing. The first successful cloning experiment involved a leopard frog. It took place in,
1952 with group of scientist from the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia
(Lawren). To clone the frog they used an embryonic frog cell nucleus(Margery). 1962,
John Gurdon of Cambridge University cloned a toad that survive threw adulthood and was
able to reproduce. He was also the first to take a nucleus from a fully contrast tadpole
intestinal cell and cloned toads(Robertson). As you can see we are getting close to the
cloning of humans. 1981, Steen Willadsen was the first to clone a artificial chimera. He
did this by mixing a sheep and a goat getting the result of a "geep" (Lawren). It had the
body shape and the head of a goat, and a dappled coat which had large patches of


Richard Pech


sheep's wool. 1984, Willadsen cloned the first verifiable mammal, using embryonic nuclei
transplant into an unfertilized sheep egg. Also in, 1986, when he worked for Texas
bioengineering company (Lawren). By using the embryonic nuclei, he produces the first
cloned calves from cattle. The cloned cattle that were produced were super-elite, high
production dairy cows and bulls who had a high breeding rate (Robertson). 1987, James
Robl of the University of Massachusetts was the first to clone rabbits also using embryonic
nuclei. But who can say when we will be able to clone human organs or complete
"biocopies" of human beings by using just the nuclei taken from a skin sample (Lawren).

What's so good about cloning? Lets look at this at a different scenario. Ned and
Stacey are in a hospital. The both of them have a kidney that is failing them. For Ned this
is no big deal, since he has a clone. All the doctor has to do is remove the cloned kidney
and switch it with the bad one. With this cloned kidney you don't need to worry about the
body rejecting it because it is made from the same DNA and the cells will react to it as if it
was the original one. On the other hand for Stacey she doesn't have a clone. So, all she
can do is pray for a donor's kidney to arrive before she dies. Another good thing is we
could create farm or "pharm" animals genetically engineered to produce valuable drugs
(Resenberger). Like scientist are creating an animal that will manufacture anti-clotting
drugs for humans in their milk by gene-spliced sheep and mice (Resenberger). With this
breeders could make formerly expensive drugs in large quanities at a low cost. Doesn't all
of this sound good to have? Or are we just overlooking the bad possibilities. Lets just say
some freak wants to make an army of one hundreds Adolf Hitlers. Or try to clone
Einstein. Also people could go out and buy a son that will grow up to be Micheal Jordan
or Mike Tyson. But in a way this is good for people who are unable to have children.
Some thought of the future is immortality. When you make a clone it is like being born
again. You have a whole other body waiting for you. You could be 80yrs old and switch
into a 21yrs olds body (Lawren). You lose a limb just get another one sewn back on
(Lawren). These possibilities can go on and on.

Richard Pech


Cloning can also produce doubles, triples, even quadruplets. In a way this is good
for some families. Are you wondering how this could be good? Well, just think about
this. This couple had a cloned son implanted in the wife. When the son is born he is just
fine and normal like every other baby. After a few years the kid is able to walk and
wonders off some where. the next thing you now it the kid is hit by a car and is killed on
the scene. Even though this is a tragic event. The mother and father can go back to the
lab to get the exact cloned baby. The new cloned baby has the same physical features, but
mentally he will be different (Robertson). So, the personalities of the two will be different.
One or the other will learn different stuff and at a different rate. And the lab will always
have a copy or clone for another child. In a bad sense, the company that is making the
cloned embryo could also sell the same copy to another couple. In time you had one
cloned son and then a couple years later you have the exact clone son again. Which might
make the first son feel like he is in a awkward position . Having a brother that is exactly
like him physically. So, as you can see cloning has its good and its bad (Robertson).

Though this seems too good to be true or the worst nightmare you have ever had.
This stuff still can not be accomplished yet. All though a lot of attempts have been tried.
The human embryo still does not want to develops into a clone. And so far it has been
taking years of painstaking research. Some peoples opinion about are good or bad. Like
Marie Diberardino, Ph.D. who researches animal cloning at the Medical College of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia says, "The cloning of animals is certainly useful, but I'm
morally against manipulation genetic material that would develop into a whole human
being. We just don't have the right to manipulate the gene pool of human
individuals."(Lawren).

As you can see, Marie is against the cloning of human beings, but John C.
Fletcher, Ph.D., of the University of Virginia's Center for Biomedical Ethics believes in
cloning for human parts, but not for human manipulation. He says, "I don't think any

Richard Pech


[ethics] committee would approve research that would mutilate an embryo by destroying
the brain. I know if I were looking at such a proposal, I'd say no. But If you could grow
me a liver from one of my cells, I wouldn't opposed-- ass long as you weren't growing me.
It's certainly better than taking a liver from a kid." (Lawren).

A biologist at Bio Time Inc. in Berkeley, California is Paul Segall. He is the
coauthor of Living Longer, Growing Younger. He says this " The aging surgeon's
dexterity, the athlete's wind, the construction worker's muscles, the fashion model's face --
all restored. Complexions smooth as a baby's joints and tendons as spry as a teenager's,
hearts and lungs of an adult in his or her prime... Cloning will provide the raw materials to
put us pack together." Segall is definitely pro with cloning. One thing that Segall
enthuses is , "The Seventy-year-old transformed into a nineteen-year-olds body."
(Robertson).

To research in the United States is like selling drugs on the street. So, to see any
progress in cloning seems remote. The main ethical problem is the fact that cloning deals
with human embryos (Robertson). Kind of like abortion, since so far no cloning embryo
has lived. Back in 1975, The federal government declared that there could be no funding
on the experiments on human embryos until the government's Ethics Advisory Board gave
its approval (Resenberger). And since this is so close to abortion all politicians may stay
clear of cloning research for the foreseeable future (Resenberger). But right now the
immediate concern is whether if there should be any restriction on research with embryos
designed to improve or perfect techniques of embryo splitting (Margery). if they are able
to establish the efficacy and safety of embryo splitting then it
will have to be a concern. The two biggest ethical issues are whether they should be able
to research on normal human embryos. The second is if the embryo create can be placed
into a uterus and be born. Some of the families concerns are the fear if cloning violates
one's uniqueness and dignity. It will also give the child a unrealistic parental figures.


Richard Pech


Some feel discomfort with the manipulation and destruction of human emboss in research.
They even fear the fact that clones could be created to provide a sick or dying child will
the organ or tissue transplant. Still the worst fear is the case of the production of the
cloned embryo will be produced and sold to certain parents looking for the desirable child
of their dreams (Resenberger)
.
In conclusion, cloning could possibly bring us immortality, it could be the fountain
of youth, its the ultimate life insurance, it could bring back loved ones, give some couples
their first child, and provide us with our own transplants. On the bad side one could
possibly conquer the world, bring back evil souls, create mind zombies and sell you body
without you even knowing it. So does all the good even up with the bad or is it not worth
the trouble? I personally do not know, because to me it is strange to think that they could
make me again. It seems like it is impossible to be born a second time in life. One thing
for sure, cloning is bring around a whole new idea to peoples heads.




R. Pech 10

Works Cited
Facklam and Margery. From Cell to Clone. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979
Lawren, Bill. Bionic Body Building. --: Longevity Publications Internation, Ltd., 1991.
Rensberger, Boyce. The Frightful Invasion of the Body Doubles will have to Wait.
Washington,
D.C.:Washington Post, 1993
Robertson, John A. The Question of Human Cloning. New York: Hastings Center
Report, 1994.