THE VALUE OF REPRODUCTIVE CLONING

There is global positive and negative public reaction to reproductive cloning. I am pretty sure most of the general public is ignorant of the relevant scientific facts of cloning, but the word “cloning” itself brings forth a powerful response. Most is negative because of the moral and ethical dilemmas it raises. The correct medical terminology is lost to most that are not in the medical field. There are actually two kinds of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive, but they are lumped together in the public’s minds. Scientist’s of course, are all for reproductive cloning because of the infinite possibilities that are still out of reach. Successful reproductive cloning done on animals has its downside; the carbon copies of cloned animals have been found to have high percentages of short life spans and ill-health due to some undetected glitches in the process itself.

            Jean Chambers takes a close look at Carson Strong’s take on reproductive cloning.  Strong makes the following statements which she quotes in her journal. Arguing that reproductive cloning should be restricted only to   “infertile opposite sex couples for whom cloning is the last resort for having a genetically related child…would give such couples respectable reasons for cloning themselves” (Chambers). Strong also states that cloned children have a humane right to a “decent minimum opportunity for development” (Chambers). This refers to selective cloning where genetic imperfections of disease are prohibited.  Strong worries that this could lead to society producing designer babies, which again is morally corrupt.

            In a scholarly Journal written by Bertrand Pulman, issues involving cloning from sociological and bioethical viewpoints were addressed. Pulman brings up the important “law… passed by the French parliament in 2004 (that) qualifies reproductive cloning as a “crime against the human species”, a clear indication of how threatened the social world feels about certain aspects of genetic engineering” (Pulman).  He also mentions an important fact about “the difficulties encountered when attempts are made to formulate a prohibition at the national and international levels” (Pulman). He goes on to say how hard it is to get international agreement of exactly what and how prohibition on reproductive cloning should be formulated to make it standard worldwide. Currently different countries worldwide do not agree on how far to take, or prohibit reproductive cloning.

            Lee Turnpenny, a senior researcher at the University of Southampton in the UK, voices his concern that “clinical trials do not guarantee safety…we cannot guarantee a risk-free process in humans, until a sufficient number of…clones…have lived demonstrably healthy lives” (Turnpenny). He adds “(n)obody asks to be born, but we…opt for health…To pre-designate future human(s)…of an unproven technology would be a totalitarian act” (Turnpenny).  He declares this as “the real ethical reason why human reproductive cloning should remain prohibited” (Turnpenny).

            I feel there should be international standards set and maintained to ensure one country doesn’t overstep the boundaries to gain fame as becoming the “leader” of the field. There are moral and ethical sides to cloning that need to be addressed, as well as further long-term testing to ensure no poor quality humans are cloned. In deciding just who should be viable candidates for reproductive cloning. Carson Strong seems to forget that there are more than just same-sex married couples who deserve to be considered for cloning. Gay couples of the same sex and single parents of either sex should fall into his accepted category. Equal opportunity and equal rights are part of our culture today. Lee Turnpenny too brings up extremely valid concerns that current technology is not complete when it comes to reproductive cloning. To rush ahead because the information is out there does not mean it is the right time to proceed with reproductive cloning.

Carson Strong is too narrow minded in his viewpoints. His limited selection of who are viable candidates for reproductive cloning, are extremely discriminating. He is correct, however in his fear of the dangers of society becoming a part of producing designer babies. The ethics involved in this path are too horrific to think about. Bertrand Pulman too, brings up the importance of having internationally set standards for the laws and rules on reproductive cloning. Lee Turnpenny also brings up vitally important moral and ethical reasons not to clone human beings. It would be a totalitarian act to go ahead and clone humans. Those clones would have had no say in the outcome, and they would utlimately  be viewed differently by society.

All of my research targets have valid arguments either for or against human reproductive cloning. The underlying facts are that all of them point in the same direction. This is for society to slow down and think about reproductive cloning, in social, moral and ethical terms before more harm than good is done. As in all science, time and success in their initial experimental work produce better results. Because research on reproductive cloning is being done by countries all round the world, they should adhere to standards set and not race towards the finish line when the finish line is not one hundred percent clear.

Work cited

Chambers, Jean E. “Response to “Clone Alone” by Carson Strong”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2002:11, 169-179. Proquest. 27 February 2013. Yavapai College online Library resources.

Pulman, Bertrand. “The issues Involved in Cloning: Sociology and Bioethics”. Revue Francaise de Sociologie. 2007: 129-156. Proquest, 27 February 2013. Yavapai College online Library resources.

Turnpenny, Lee. “Is ‘cloning’ mad, bad and dangerous?”. The European Molecular Biology Organization”. Rep. 2007 January: 8 (1):2. Web. 27 February 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796746/