Human Cloning Debate and Life Issues:
Length: 847 words (3.1 pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Human Cloning Debate and Life Issues
The use of cloning to produce "Dolly" the sheep has prompted a public debate about cloning humans. This issue has quickly become linked with the issues of abortion and embryo research.
What is cloning?
Cloning is a way of producing a genetic twin of an organism, without sexual reproduction. The method used to produce Dolly the sheep is called "somatic cell nuclear transfer": the nucleus of a body cell ("somatic cell") is transferred into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus has been removed or rendered inactive. A tiny electric pulse may then stimulate development of the resulting embryo, which is an almost exact genetic twin of the creature that supplied the nucleus. It may be technically possible to use this procedure to reproduce human beings.
What does cloning have to do with embryo research?
A great deal. Cloning a human being or other large organism begins by artificially producing an embryo of that species. To produce one live sheep, "Dolly," scientists created 277 sheep embryos; 276 died or were discarded. Experiments in human cloning would involve the creation and destruction of human embryos on a massive scale.
Didn't the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) propose a ban on cloning?
Not really. It proposed a five-year moratorium on use of cloning to produce a "child," meaning a live-born child. This would allow unlimited cloning to produce human embryos, so long as the embryos were then destroyed. Such experiments could be used to refine the procedure and test its likelihood of causing birth defects. After years of destructive experiments, the ban on allowing live birth could be reconsidered. So NBAC's proposal is not a ban on cloning but a permission slip for experimenting on embryos and a mandate for destroying them. This approach is reflected in S. 1602, a bill introduced by Senators Kennedy and Feinstein to prohibit transferring a cloned human embryo to "a woman's uterus." Under S. 1602, researchers could clone embryos and experiment on them without limit; they would violate the law only if they failed to throw away the embryos afterwards.
What does human cloning have to do with abortion?
Quite a bit, because bills like S. 1602 would enforce a ban on "cloning a human being" by mandating the destruction of all cloned human embryos. This would mark the first time Congress has ever declared that human embryos are not humans and are worthy only of destruction.
How have pro-life legislators reacted to the Commission's proposal?
They have introduced well-crafted bills that actually ban the use of cloning to produce human embryos, instead of banning live birth for embryos already produced by cloning. For example, Senators Bond, Frist, Lott and others have introduced S. 1601, which bans the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce an embryo (including a preimplantation embryo). This bill bans the use of cloning technology on humans, instead of banning pregnancy or live birth.
What is the current stance of the biotechnology industry?
A number of biotechnology companies, which have a commercial interest in the possibilities of cloning, oppose the Bond/Frist/Lott bill as an infringement on their freedom to explore new avenues of research. They support the Kennedy/Feinstein approach: Allow unlimited cloning and experiments on cloned embryos, so long as the embryos are later discarded.
Why do these companies want to produce human embryos by cloning?
Some companies want to clone embryos so they can refine the procedure and ultimately produce live-born children by cloning. The procedure could then be offered to infertile couples, people who want to copy themselves, etc. Other researchers are more interested in the cloned embryos themselves. The ability to produce large numbers of identical embryos by cloning may make it easier, for example, to test the effect of different stimuli or toxic drugs on human development -- differences in outcome could readily be attributed to differences in the stimuli, since the embryos themselves would be identical. Cloning could produce an unlimited supply of human "guinea pigs" for controlled experiments, dissection to produce cell lines, etc.
How do these commercial interests argue against a real ban on human cloning?
They do not say they favor human cloning or destructive embryo experiments, because they know public opinion would be against them on those grounds. Instead they argue, for example, that the Bond/Frist/Lott bill and similar proposals are vaguely worded and will end up banning all kinds of procedures to which people have no ethical objection -- e.g., cloning cells, tissues, and animals.
What is the truth about these claims?
They are false. The Bond/Frist/Lott bill bans cloning only when it produces a human embryo. A similar House bill by Rep. Ehlers specifically exempts use of cloning to produce "animals other than humans" or to produce "molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryo cells, or tissues."
What can we expect from this debate in the near future?
Cloning advocates and pro-abortion groups will complain that "abortion politics" is interfering with scientific research. Pro-life groups will point out that legislation is necessary to prevent an abortion mentality from driving the future of scientific research.
Search for: [work well] [help solve] [college career] [plant species]
|
Important Note: If you'd like to save a copy of the
paper on your computer, you can COPY and PASTE it into your word
processor. Please, follow these steps to do that in Windows:
1. Select the text of the paper with the mouse and press Ctrl+C. Azete.com (the "Web Site") is produced by the "Company". The contents of this Web Site, such as text, graphics, images, audio, video and all other material ("Material"), are protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. The Company makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the Material or about the results to be obtained from using the Material. You expressly agree that any use of the Material is entirely at your own risk. Most of the Material on the Web Site is provided and maintained by third parties. This third party Material may not be screened by the Company prior to its inclusion on the Web Site. You expressly agree that the Company is not liable or responsible for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other subscribers or third parties. The Materials are provided on an as-is basis without warranty express or implied. The Company and its suppliers and affiliates disclaim all warranties, including the warranty of non-infringement of proprietary or third party rights, and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Company and its suppliers make no warranties as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the material, services, text, graphics and links. For a complete statement of the Terms of Service, please see our website. By obtaining these materials you agree to abide by the terms herein, by our Terms of Service as posted on the website and any and all alterations, revisions and amendments thereto. |
t people in the US would call themselves religious and virtually all of the far eastern countries are religious. In fact, most people on the planet are religious so there is nothing any of us atheists can do about it. But why would we want to do anything about it? It's true that religion keep the s...ation of a car horn that seems designed to grab hold of the listener. If I were inattentive before this piece, I certainly was wide awake when it was over. Ligeti seems to have sculpted a piece together from bits and pieces of other musical styles: a sort of modern-art approach to music. The vio...dentical. It says below their picture ?Two women apply for jobs. They look exactly alike. On their applications they list the same last name, address and phone number. They were born to the same parents, on the same day, same month, same year. Everything is identical. The receptionist says, ?You mus...s, and her family?s life too. Her dad, who she calls Tata, is so depressed with the loss that he becomes a recluse, blocking out his children and spending the whole day fishing. Her kid sister, Olivia, is repeatedly waking up from nightmares, having Isabel comfort her and get her back to sleep. Befo...