Analyzing and Synthesizing Opposing Arguments

Does Cloning Bring More Harm Than Good ?😯

     For most people, cloning is an idea of science fiction films and novels. However it is no longer an idea far beyond human capabilities, in fact, its practice is used more often than some might think. Despite this, there is enormous contention on the topic of cloning. There are three primary types of cloning that are heavily controversial among the public, religion, and even nations. These three types are recombinant DNA, therapeutic, and reproductive cloning (Driscoll 1). Therapeutic cloning is among the most controversial among the three. Therapeutic cloning is a process in which a human embryo is made from combining the DNA of whomever is being cloned with an unfertilized egg. Scientists then extract stem cells from the blastocyst-stage embryo to use for whatever purpose they may need (Ballaro 1). 

     The main problem that causes an enormous divide between all parties is the use of the embryo in the therapeutic cloning process. One side argues that the use of an embryo, which is in the early stages of life, is unethical and/or unnatural. The other side argues that ignoring the benefits of therapeutic cloning is potentially doing more harm to human life than good. This topic has had a lasting conflicting history dating back to 1996 to when a sheep named Dolly was the first successfully cloned animal ("The Life"). Both sides of the argument bring forth compelling evidence as to why therapeutic cloning is a controversial topic to approach, and also shine light on important questions for the future of this technology. 

 

"Dolly the Sheep (1996 - 2003)" by dun_deagh is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

     When measuring the ethical validity of therapeutic cloning, it is important to mention the history behind it. When political or religious leaders speak on the subject of therapeutic cloning, the public can be easily persuaded, which can have a huge impact on the overall feeling on therapeutic cloning. For example in 1995, "Pope John Paul II argued that blastocysts, which, if fertilized, could potentially lead to the existence of a new human being, should not be used as research material"(Ballaro 3). In 2001, President Bush limited funding for stem cell research by only allowing usage on already existing stem cells, therefore banning any creation of new ones. Fast forward to 2005, the United Nations requested a ban on reproductive cloning, which is different from therapeutic cloning but the concept is still similar, and 46 countries instituted the ban. And then two years later, President Obama lifted the restriction on stem cell research placed by former president Bush which allowed the creation and research of stem cells (Driscoll 2). 

     What makes up most of the argument against therapeutic cloning is the inclusion of embryonic stem cells, which can only be obtained from early stage embryos. Such arguments base off the fact that embryos are sacred and that life begins at conception. Another argument against therapeutic cloning is that it places human kind one step closer to human cloning, which has already placed the public in a divide. According to Driscoll's article, less than 10% of Americans support human cloning, that leaves about 90% of Americans against human cloning. It is clear that the idea of cloning humans is out of the question for the majority of the public. In 2006, the FDA approved the use of cloned livestock but it is has been reported that the process is quite expensive. On top of that, cloned animals are significantly more prone to deformations, tumors, premature deaths, and miscarriages (Driscoll 3). The instability of cloning animals has no doubt led the public to questioning whether cloning should be allowed for human testing. 

     In march 2009, when president Obama lifted the ban on funding for stem cell research, this field has continued to grow and some deemed considerable advancements have occurred. This progress has led scientists to conclude that therapeutic cloning has potential to better human suffering. The only method available to scientist right now are to destroy or reuse embryonic cells through IVF (vitro fertilization) treatment. IVF treatment is when embryonic stem cell lines are derived from frozen embryos (Ballaro 3) . For therapeutic cloning, the cells are identical to the donor which means that "Stem cells have the promise of providing scientists with a renewable source of replacement cells that could potentially treat or even cure a host of neurological, cardiovascular, and hematological (blood) diseases"(Ballaro 2). Ballaro believes that "The moral good of potentially alleviating the suffering of human beings through stem cell therapy outweighs the ideal of preserving human life in its earliest phase of development." In other words, she believes there is an imbalance between saving and harming lives.

     In Driscoll's article, she brings up a monumental question that has been lingering over the entirety of the topic. In her article she states that "... this practice belongs to the multi-billion dollar biotech industry that stands to profit enormously from reproductive cloning." If the research for stem cells progresses overtime, this technology will eventually be refined and perfected. Due to this technology being in its early stages of life, the United States government has no protective regulations on reproductive cloning (Driscoll 3). Now, the critical question that Driscoll mentions in her article is "What are the potential consequences of big businesses owning such information?" This question will no doubt have to be answered in the future but shifts the view on the topic significantly.

     Another considerable argument made in Ballaro's article is the potential of saving human lives with the use of therapeutic cloning. She states that "Although scientists have been carrying out therapeutic cloning for less than a decade, stem cell-based therapies, delivered in the form of bone marrow and cord blood transplants, have already saved many lives." Ballaro points out that  stem cells have already began saving lives. Another argument supporting therapeutic cloning is that there is significant lack of research in this field. Ballaro suggests that more research is required before the topic is completely dismissed or deemed as inefficient. There is also recent advancements that suggest this whole topic won't even have to be discussed to begin with. In 2007, a group of scientists successfully generated new stem cells by using three embryos, and managed to place the embryos safely back into frozen storage. In that same year, scientists succeeded in reverting adult mouse cells back to stem cells (Ballaro 3). 

     It is clear that both arguments call for different needs but ultimately land on the same side of a belief. Driscoll advocates against cloning while Ballaro advocates for cloning, however these are both anchored in the belief that human life should be saved. The process of cloning may harm potential human life but save another life in the process. On the other hand, the process of cloning harms potential life and the process should be outlawed. In retrospect, both arguments call for the prevention of harm on human lives. This ultimately comes down to the overall question throughout the whole topic: Do the ends justify the means ?

WORKS CITED--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ballaro, Beverly, and Nancy Sprague. “Point: The Medical and Moral Advantages of Cloning.” Points of View: Cloning, Nov. 2022, pp. 2–6. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=pwh&AN=26611687&site=pov-live.

Driscoll, Sally, and Ann Griswold. “Counterpoint: Human Cloning Treats Human Life as a Commodity.” Points of View: Cloning, Nov. 2022, pp. 3–7. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=pwh&AN=26611685&site=pov-live.

“The Life of Dolly.” Dolly the Sheep, https://dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/index.html.