SHAHRE KURD UNIVERSITY

An article on:
Cloning and the consequences on
humans and the societies
Saeideh Qaemmaqami
(851530153)

2010
"Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned
from adult DNA, was put down by
lethal injection Feb. 14, 2003. Prior to
her death, Dolly had been suffering
from lung cancer and crippling arthritis.
Although most Finn Dorset sheep live
to be 11 to 12 years of age,
postmortem examination of Dolly
seemed to indicate that, other than her
cancer and arthritis, she appeared to
be quite normal. The unnamed sheep
from which Dolly was cloned had died
several years prior to her creation.
Dolly was a mother to six lambs, bred
the old-fashioned way" (Roslin
Institute Image Library)

[TYPE THE COMPANY ADDRESS]

 Cloning and the consequences on humans and the societies

Introduction

Today’s world is bursting with new ideas and inventions. Scientists research
day after day and discover all aspects of human life. From discovering new
treatments to illness, and from discovering why rabbits have so many babies,
science attempts to answer thousands of life’s questions. But, what would happen
when science takes an unexpected turn? What happens when science through its
studies and research, discovers a way to create life? Cloning is one of the most
controversial issues in bioscience.

First we must understand what cloning is. ‘‘Cloning or asexual reproduction

is the production of individuals who are genetically identical to and already
existing individual”. For example if you took the genes of a blue spotted elephant,
you could clone through those genes another blue spotted elephant. This second
blue spotted elephant is called a clone. Throughout the world we will meet many
diverse opinions concerning some people will praise cloning whereas others
complain about its destruction. There are many who will fight against the issues of
cloning until their death time. To those people cloning is a mistake and would be a
field of science that mankind should never have ever thought about perusing.

The cloning of ‘’Dolly” the sheep in 1997 by Ian Wilmot and his colleagues at
the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh caused a huge worldwide reaction. Dr.Richard
Seed, an American geneticist, claimed he would be able to clone human beings
within a year. A Korean doctor was reported to have created, and killed, the first
human clone. President Clinton ordered research into the ethics of human cloning,
which subsequently became the Shapiro Report. The United State has imposed a
moratorium on human cloning lawful and another demanding its prohibition were
both rejected by congress in 1999.the British government claimed that exciting
legislation regulating embryo research banned human cloning, but strict
interpretation of the statute would suggest that cloning remains lawful in Britain.
Switzerland and several American states have passed laws expressly forbidding
human cloning, whereas the opposition of international organizations towards
human cloning seems clear. The European Parliament, the Council of Europe,
UNESCO and the WHO have all passed resolutions asserting that human cloning
is both morally and legally wrong.
 However, human cloning is a matter for the medical profession’s attention and
since it may result in the creation of new genetic and psychological conditions,
would require professional care. Some look at cloning and claim it is one of the
greatest discoveries in the world of science. Others say it is one of the most
disgusting ideas that man has ever brought upon himself. So we deal with this
issue, is cloning a gift to improve the quality of life, or is it a weapon that we
humans could use for personal and selfish desires?

When discussing cloning, one should distinguish between therapeutic and

reproductive cloning. Method for therapeutic cloning of identical cell lines in
human medicine to treat diseases, like diabetes and Parkinson disease, has been
developed. Cloning of identical human beings (reproductive cloning) has never
been done, and it is an open question when scientists will be able to do it with
success. There is no distinct difference between therapeutic and reproductive
cloning, I think. This is illustrated by state laws in different countries. Some
countries allow both, some allow only therapeutic (but not reproductive cloning)
and some do not allow either. Even within one country, self-contradictory practice
may dominate. For example in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007, the United States
House of representative voted to ban all human cloning, both reproductive and
therapeutic. Each time, divisions in the Senate over therapeutic cloning prevented
either competing proposal (a ban on both forms or a ban on reproductive cloning
only) from passing. Some American states ban on both forms of cloning, while
some others outlaw only reproductive cloning. Also from a biological point of
view, the difference may be tricky. To produce a therapeutic cell line, it may be
necessary to perform reproductive clones.

1. Cloning intervenes with basic biogenetical laws. Nature and the genetic
selection of the fittest have ruled which species that should survive and which were
deemed to die. The same laws have also to some extent decided which babies
should be allowed to live up and pass their genes on to the next generation.
Individuals with major diseases are unlikely to marry and reproduce in most
human societies. However, in botanic and zoology people have long accepted the
idea that we can manipulate with genetics laws by cultivating and selectively breed
those with the best and proper genes. In some ways, cloning may be considered as
the extreme variant of prefect breeding.
 2. People are often scared of the future and whatever that is unknown. People
also may be scared that cloning will make them second class human beings.
Cloning as many other inventions, may have both positive and adverse effects.
They forget that the adverse effects may be controlled by regulations and laws.

3. Human cloning has been discussed by important religious authorities.

Human cloning is forbidden in Islam. The Islamic Figh Academy, in its tenth
conference proceedings, which was convened in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1997,
issued a Fatwa stating that human cloning is haram. The Roman Catholic Church,
under the papacy of Benedict XVI, also has condemned the practice of human
cloning, in the magisterial instruction Dignitas Personae, stating that it represents a
"grave offense to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality
of all people.

4. Dr Wilmut, and his colleagues at Roslin have made it quite clear that they
think that to clone humans is unethical. The Human Fertilization and Embryology
Authroity agree with the general public impression that to clone human beings
would be ethically unacceptable as a matter of principle. Most people in the
Church agree that on principle, to replicate any human technologically is
something which goes against the basic dignity of the uniqueness of each human
being in God's sight. Christians would see this as a violation of the uniqueness of a
human life, which God has given to each of us and to no one else. However, the
clergymen believe that human cloning is against the role of God and that is out of
the God's permission. There is no evidence that proves human have the right to
change God's will.

5. The cloning of human beings is an affront to human dignity. UNESCO

declared human reproductive cloning to be contrary to human dignity. Clones are
treated with less dignity than other humans. Indeed, unconditional respect for
human dignity, regardless of age, size, intellect or physical capacity is the base of
civilized society. Human cloning contravenes this respect and violates the
principles of equality and non-discrimination among human beings.
 6. Human cloning treats children as objects. Children can be mass manufactured
in a technological process. In fact, the idea of human cloning comes from
researchers and the biotechnical industry which may want to make profit out
human cloning research. The cost per object is essential when manufacturing
objects. The industry considers only the production costs, and does not evaluate the
objects as humans. This mentality may rapidly shifts over the humans. Also the
production of human tissue may affect how we consider humans. The human body
may become a production facility of human tissue. This is not something
completely new. People today give blood regularly. However, this has not affected
the way we treat people who give blood.

7. In theory human cloning is potentially dangerous to biological heterogeneity.

If the variation in DNA is restricted, the human species may start dying out.
Mutation is the biological law that helps us to adapt to environmental changes. If
we erase this law by reproductive cloning, the human species may become
biologically frail and slowly die. Reproductive cloning may restrict the variation to
only two types of individuals: the perfect male and the perfect female. However,
their offspring is not perfect. It has no potential for adaption and selection.

8. Reproductive cloning harms the unity of the family. Single people will be
able to produce offspring without the physical presence of a partner. Once born,
the child will be denied the love of one parent, most probably the father. A child is
also symbolic expression of mutual love of its parents and their hope for the future.
This sign of love is lost when a child begins in a laboratory. Children with only one
parent will also have only one role model to learn from. Especially males are said
to be sensitive for developing aggressive and destructive behavior when the father
is absent.

9.The idea of human reproductive cloning is deeply rooted and accepted in

modern science fiction literature and modern movies. This has opened the mind of
many people. People may think this is the future and that all future is unavoidable
facts which we cannot influence on. Science fiction also illustrates that cloning has
both potential benefits as well as the potential harms. But the solution to the harms
is usually destruction and violence, and not regulation by laws. Regulation by laws
is how modern societies deal with these problems. When we got the car, we got
traffic rules.
 10. Cloning may lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of
characteristics of people. When people are able to clone themselves they will be
able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems close to the Nazi
concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhuman, whilst eliminating those
individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy or not wanted. 'The
boys from Brazil' scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of 'brave new world',
or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a
real prospect. People with good intention may breed good people. However, people
with bad intentions may breed bad people. There will also be a possibility of
randomness or uncontrolled breeding. In biology inbreeding usually leads to
degenerative development. This we should have in mind if we allow reproductive
cloning to happen.

11. The cost of human cloning research, both financially and in terms of the
wastage of human resources, can be enormous. The resources which are necessary
to successfully clone and produce healthy babies, or develop useful tissue or
organs for transplant, could be higher than the justification that is given to other
needs of our society and the rest of the world. When using resources that belong to
all humans, one should always discuss if they could have been better used.

12. Some have argued that a commitment to individual liberty, as defended by

J. S. Mill, requires that individuals are left free to use human cloning as long as
they do not cause significant harms to others. However, liberty is too broad in
scope to be an uncontroversial moral right (Mill 1859; Rhodes 1995).

Conclusion

The impact on familial and societal relationship is unpredictable and potentially

dangerous. It raises a variety of concerns. It would be irresponsible to move
forward with this new technology in the absence of serious discussion regarding
the possible harms and benefits of cloning human beings. Human cloning requires
that we move slowly forward and constantly reconsider our previous arguments
and decisions. We must balance harms and benefits. It is necessary that science is
guided by moral, common sense, consensus to avoid the dangerous result as well
as to make sure that potential benefits to treat and cure diseases are preserved.
 Refrensec

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/21582/clone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning

http://www.srtp.org.uk/clonpoll.htm#Technology

Dan W. Brock, Ph.D., Cloning human beings; An Assessment of the Ethical Issues
Pro and Con,Brown University

Wilmut, I., et al., Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature,
380:64-66,1996a.

Wilmut, I., et al., Implications of cloning. Nature, 380:383, 1996b.

Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 Through 1980, Washington, DC: University Press of
America, 1981.
Brock, D.W., The non-identity problem and genetic harm, Bioethics, 9:269-275, 1995.

Callahan, D., Perspective on cloning: A threat to individual uniqueness, Los Angeles

Times, November 12, 1993, B7.

To the professor;
My dear friend, Dr Per.Henric.Zahl , a cancer dondot in
Norway,has helped me in writing this article.