CLONING
Scientists spend their whole lives attempting to make the world a
better place. Nevertheless, the evolution of science is not always
appreciated due to misconceptions or simply a lack of accurate
information. Human cloning is a prime example of this! “It’s probably
a bad idea,” says Kevin Eggan, one of the team members that made
the discovery at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. However, in an effort to fairly establish a stance for
human cloning, one must define and characterize cloning before
considering cons and pros of this new technology.
Defining cloning is quintessential in determining how detrimental
human cloning is to society. The general assumption inculcated by
the media perpetrates cloning as a new technology which recreates a
perfect Xerox copy of a person. The Association of Reproductive
Health Professionals (ARHP) defines cloning as an asexual form of
reproduction in which all the child’s genes would come from a body
cell of a single individual. Other organizations have characterized the
simple production of tissues and organs from growing cells as well as
the embryo itself as a clone. A
Although human cloning seems to be automated like the way cars are
made, clones would not necessarily be treated like machines. Henry
David Thoreau suggests that “men have become the tools of their
tools”.
Despite the fact that cloning reproduces the genes of the person
being cloned, the clone will not be an exact copy of the ancestor on
account of the difference in the environment they grow up in. After
suffering so much, infertile couples are finally given the chance to
form the family they need with a biologically related child.
The fear that cloning would decrease biological diversity is unjust
because limitations and regulations would be created so a parent
would not be cloned unlimitedly or in excess. In fact, the clones would
have free will and no one should have any power over them other
than the powers already existing over normal human being. The
patient’s immune system would not reject the stem cells as foreign
materials and they could then be used to treat the patient’s illness. s
difficult and subtle as it seems to define a clone, there are however
many examples of clones in our daily lives. If human cloning is
statistically comparable to Dolly’s cloning success then human
cloning may be a failure. Since most attempts to clone mammals
failed it would be almost condemnable to clone human beings. ” It is
the same way, a normal fetus, when it is outside the womb and alive,
has the right not to be discriminated against. The majority of
scientists vouch for cloning, whereas the rest of the world is still
skeptical about its use. Why should couples who express a desire for
clones being enquired about their motives?
The media has given cloning very bad and undeserved connotations
and ignore to mention the positive aspects of cloning. Even in, in vitro
fertilization, a woman who can only supply one egg, and whose
chances to be pregnant are therefore minim, could drastically
increase her chances with a plethora of spare cloned eggs and ova.
Another potential medical benefit of developing cloning would be to
study cell differentiation at the same time.
-DR. NAVRAJ SINGH SANDHU