Category Archives: Cloning

For immediate release

Commending Michael Jacksons pioneer vision of cloning, Clonaid reaffirms its privacy policy

LAS VEGAS, July 8 After fielding numerous inquiries about the possible cloning of Michael Jackson, Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, head of Clonaid, today reaffirmed the companys policy of strictly respecting the privacy of each of its patients.

Clonaid prides itself on never releasing the identity of the numerous individuals who have been cloned in the past six years, Boisselier said. Even if that policy has been at the cost of my reputation, its important for us that the celebrities and other interested parties contacting us know they wont be betrayed.

Boisselier expressed admiration for Michael Jackson as an artist and also commended his courage in expressing support for human cloning at a time when it was getting much negative publicity in the press.

Michael was a visionary who wasnt afraid to embrace new technologies, she said. Im glad his interest in cloning is being revealed now, since he was a pioneer in his views about it back in 2002 and his fans ought to know about it.

Human cloning is still making headlines six years after the birth of the first clone child, Boisselier added. But even if the media still present it as being too controversial, the public is much less afraid of it than it was initially. People have gotten used to the idea to the point where many see it as highly desirable.

She said that although the Clonaid team has received cloning requests from around the world, a surprisingly large number come from the Los Angeles/Hollywood area.

Artists welcome our technology and have given us tremendous encouragement, Boisselier noted. Thanks to them, the public is getting more accustomed to the idea and hopefully the bans will soon be removed.

She said Clonaids sister company, Stemaid, has launched an anti-aging program using stem cells derived from clone embryos.

This development is also getting a good reception in the artists community, she said.

Read the original:

News - Clonaid.com

We live in a brave new world in which reproductive technologies are ravaging as well as replenishing families. Increasingly common are variations of the situation in which "baby's mother is also grandma-and sister."1 Sometimes extreme measures are necessary in order to have the kind of child we want.

This new eugenics is simply the latest version of the age-old quest to make human beings--in fact, humanity as a whole--the way we want them to be: perfect. It includes our efforts to be rid of unwanted human beings through abortion and euthanasia. It more recently is focusing on our growing ability to understand and manipulate our genetic code, which directs the formation of many aspects of who we are, for better and for worse.

We aspire to complete control over the code, though at this point relatively little is possible. This backdrop can help us understand the great fascination with human cloning today. It promises to give us a substantial measure of power over the genetic makeup of our offspring. We cannot control their code exactly, but the first major step in that direction is hugely appealing: You can have a child whose genetic code is exactly like your own. And you didn't turn out so badly, did you?

Admittedly, in our most honest moments we would improve a few things about ourselves. So the larger agenda here remains complete genetic control. But human cloning represents one concrete step in that direction, and the forces pushing us from behind to take that step are tremendous. These forces are energized, as we will see, by the very ways we look at life and justify our actions. But before examining such forces, we need a clearer view of human cloning itself.

It was no longer ago than 1997 when the president of the United States first challenged the nation and charged his National Bioethics Advisory Commission2 to give careful thought to how the United States should proceed regarding human cloning. Attention to this issue was spurred by the reported cloning of a large mammal--a sheep--in a new way. The method involved not merely splitting an early-stage embryo to produce identical twins. Rather, it entailed producing a nearly exact genetic replica of an already existing adult.

The technique is called nuclear transfer or nuclear transplantation because it involves transferring the nucleus (and thus most of the genetic material) from a cell of an existing being to an egg cell in order to replace the egg cell's nucleus. Stimulated to divide by the application of electrical energy, this egg--now embryo--is guided by its new genetic material to develop as a being who is genetically almost identical to the being from which the nucleus was taken. This process was reportedly carried out in a sheep to produce the sheep clone named Dolly3 but attention quickly shifted to the prospects for cloning human beings (by which I will mean here and throughout, cloning by nuclear transfer).

Quickly people began to see opportunities for profit and notoriety. By 1998, for example, scientist Richard Seed had announced intentions to set up a Human Clone Clinic--first in Chicago, then in ten to twenty locations nationally, then in five to six locations internationally.4 While the U.S. federal government was pondering how to respond to such initiatives, some of the states began passing legislation to outlaw human cloning research, and nineteen European nations acted quickly to sign a ban on human cloning itself.5 However, the European ban only blocks the actual implantation, nurture, and birth of human clones, and not also cloning research on human embryos that are never implanted. Such research has been slowed in the United States since the president and then Congress withheld federal government funds from research that subjects embryos to risk for non-therapeutic purposes.6 Moreover, a United Nations declaration co-sponsored by eighty-six countries in late 1998 signaled a broad worldwide opposition to research that would lead to human cloning.7

Yet there are signs of this protection for embryos weakening in the face of the huge benefits promised by stem cell research. Stem cells can treat many illnesses and can have the capacity to develop into badly needed body parts such as tissues and organs. One way to obtain stem cells is to divide an early stage embryo into its component cells--thereby destroying the embryonic human being. Under President Clinton, the National Institutes of Health decided that as long as private sources destroyed the embryos and produced the stem cells, the federal government would fund research on those cells.8 During 2001, President Bush prohibited federally-funded research on embryonic stem cells produced after the date his prohibition was announced. In 2002, his newly-formed Council on Bioethics raised serious questions about even this form of embryonic stem cell research, through the Council was divided on this matter.9 These developments underscore that there are a number of technological developments that are closely interrelated and yet have somewhat different ethical considerations involved. While embryo and stem cell research are very important issues, they are distinct ethically from the question of reproducing human beings through cloning. Reproduction by cloning is the specific focus of this essay.

While no scientifically verifiable birth of a human clone has yet been reported, the technology and scientific understanding are already in place to make such an event plausible at any time now. There is an urgent need to think through the relevant ethical issues. To begin with, is it acceptable to refer to human beings produced by cloning technology as "clones"? It would seem so, as long as there does not become a stigma attached to that term that is not attached to more cumbersome expressions like "a person who is the result of cloning" or "someone created through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer." We call someone from Italy an Italian, no disrespect intended. So it can be that a person "from cloning" is a clone. We must be ready to abandon this term, however, if it becomes a label that no longer meets certain ethical criteria.10

In order to address the ethics of human cloning itself, we need to understand why people would want to do it in the first place. People often respond to the prospect of human cloning in two ways. They are squeamish about the idea--a squeamishness Leon Kass has argued we should take very seriously.11 They also find something alluring about the idea. Such fascination is captured in a variety of films, including "The Boys from Brazil" (portraying the attempt to clone Adolf Hitler), "Bladerunner" (questioning whether a clone would be more like a person or a machine), and "Multiplicity" (presenting a man's attempt to have enough time for his family, job, and other pursuits by producing several live adult replicas of himself). Popular discussions center on the wonderful prospects of creating multiple Mother Teresas, Michael Jordans, or other notable figures.

The greatest problem with creative media-driven discussions like this is that they often reflect a misunderstanding of the science and people involved. The film "Multiplicity" presents human replicas, not clones in the form that we are discussing them here. When an adult is cloned (e.g., the adult sheep from which Dolly was cloned), an embryo is created, not another adult. Although the embryo's cells contain the same genetic code as the cells of the adult being cloned, the embryo must go through many years of development in an environment that is significantly different from that in which the adult developed. Because both our environment and our genetics substantially influence who we are, the embryo will not become the same person as the adult. In fact, because we also have a spiritual capacity to evaluate and alter either or both our environment and our genetics, human clones are bound to be quite different from the adults who provide their genetic code.

If this popular fascination with hero-duplication is not well founded, are there any more thoughtful ethical justifications for human cloning? Many have been put forward, and they cluster into three types: utility justifications, autonomy justifications, and destiny justifications. The first two types reflect ways of looking at the world that are highly influential in the United States and elsewhere today, so we must examine them carefully. They can readily be critiqued on their own terms. The third, while also influential, helpfully opens the door to theological reflection as well. I will begin by explaining the first two justifications. In the following sections I will then assess the first two justifications and carefully examine the third.

Utility justifications defend a practice based on its usefulness, or benefit. As long as it will produce a net increase in human well-being, it is warranted. People are well acquainted with the notion of assessing costs and benefits, and it is common to hear the argument that something will produce so much benefit that efforts to block it must surely be misguided.

Utility justifications are common in discussions of human cloning. Typical examples include:

The second type of justification appeals to the idea of autonomy, an increasingly popular appeal in this postmodern age, in which people's personal experiences and values play a most important role in determining what is right and true for them. According to this justification, we ought to respect people's autonomy as a matter of principle. People's beliefs and values are too diverse to adopt any particular set of them as normative for everyone. Society should do everything possible to enhance the ability of individuals and groups to pursue what they deem most important.

Again, there are many forms that autonomy justifications can take. However, three stand out as particularly influential in discussions of human cloning:

Utility and autonomy are important ethical justifications. However, they do not provide a sufficient ethical basis for human cloning. We will examine them here carefully in turn.

While the concern for utility is admirable, there are many serious problems with this type of justification. Most significantly, it is "unworkable" and it is "dangerous." It is unworkable because knowing how much utility cloning or any other practice has, with a reasonable level of precision, is simply impossible. We cannot know all of the ways that a practice will affect all people in the world infinitely into the future. For example, it is impossible to quantify accurately the satisfaction of every parent in future centuries who will choose cloning rather than traditional sexual reproduction in order to spare their children from newly discovered genetic problems that are now unknown. In fact, as sheep cloner Ian Wilmut was widely quoted as observing, shortly after announcing his cloning of Dolly, "Most of the things cloning will be used for have yet to be imagined." The difficulty of comparing the significance of every foreseeable consequence on the same scale of value--including comparing each person's subjective experiences with everyone else's--only adds to the unworkability.

What happens in real life is that decision makers intuitively compare only those consequences they are most aware of and concerned about. Such an approach is an open invitation to bias and discrimination, intended and unintended. Even more dangerous is the absence of limits to what can be justified. There are no built-in protections for weak individuals or minority groups, including clones. People can be subjected to anything, the worst possible oppression or even death, if it is beneficial to the majority. Situations such as Nazi Germany and American slavery can be justified using this way of thinking.

When utility is our basis for justifying what is allowed in society, people are used, fundamentally, as mere means to achieve the ends of society or of particular people. It may be appropriate to use plants and animals in this way, within limits. Accordingly, most people do not find it objectionable to clone animals and plants to achieve products that will fulfill a purpose--better milk, better grain, and so forth. However, it is demeaning to "use" people in this way.

This demeaning is what bothers us about the prospect of producing a large group of human clones with low intelligence so that society can have a source of cheap menial labor. It is also what is problematic about producing clones to provide spare parts, such as vital transplantable organs for other people. Both actions fail to respect the equal and great dignity of all people by making some, in effect, the slaves of others. Even cloning a child who dies to remove the parents grief forces the clone to have a certain genetic makeup in order to be the parents' child, thereby permanently subjecting the clone to the parents' will. The irony of this last situation, though, is that the clone will not become the same child as was lost--both the child and the clone being the product of far more than their genetics. The clone will be demeaned by not being fully respected and accepted as a unique person, and the parents will fail to regain their lost child in the process.

To summarize: The utility justification is a substantially inadequate basis for defending a practice like cloning. In other words, showing that a good benefit, even a great benefit, will result is not a sufficient argument to justify an action. Although it is easy to forget this basic point when enticed by the promise of a wonderful benefit, we intuitively know it is true. We recognize that we could, for example, cut up one person, take her or his various organs for transplant, and save many lives as a result. But we do not go around doing that. We realize that if the action we take to achieve the benefit is itself horrendous, beneficial results are not enough to justify it.

As significant a critique as this is of a utility justification for human cloning, there is more to say. For even if it were an adequate type of justification, which it is not, it is far from clear that it would justify human cloning. To justify human cloning on the basis of utility, all the consequences of allowing this practice have to be considered, not only the benefits generated by the exceptional situations commonly cited in its defense. What are some of the consequences we need to be concerned about? There is only space here to note two of the many that weigh heavily against human cloning.

First, as suggested earlier, to allow cloning is to open the door to a much more frightening enterprise: genetically engineering people without their consent, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of particular people or society at large. Cloning entails producing a person with a certain genetic code because of the attractiveness or usefulness of a person with that code. In this sense, cloning is just the tip of a much larger genetic iceberg. We are developing the genetic understanding and capability to shape the human genetic code in many ways. If we allow cloning, we legitimize in principle the entire enterprise of designing children to suit parental or social purposes. As one researcher at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations has commented, Dolly is best understood as a drop in a towering wave (of genetic research) that is about to crash over us. The personal and social destructiveness of large-scale eugenic efforts (including but by no means limited to Nazi Germany's) has been substantial, but at least it has been restricted to date by our limited genetic understanding and technology.12 Today the stakes are much higher.

The second of the many additional considerations that must be included in any honest utilitarian calculus involves the allocation of limited resources. To spend resources on the development and practice of human cloning is to not spend them on other endeavors that would be more beneficial to society. For many years now there have been extensive discussions about the expense of health care and the large number of people (tens of millions), even in the United States, that do not have health insurance.13 It has also long been established that such lack of insurance means that a significant number of people are going without necessary health care and are suffering or dying as a result.14 Another way of observing similar pressing needs in health care is to survey the specific areas that could most benefit from additional funds.15 In most of these areas, inadequate funding yields serious health consequences because there is no alternative way to produce the basic health result at issue.

Not only are the benefits of human cloning less significant than those that could be achieved by expending the same funds on other health care initiatives, but there are alternative ways of bringing children into the world that can yield at least one major benefit of cloning children themselves. If there were enough resources available to fund every technology needed or wanted by anyone, the situation would be different. But researching and practicing human cloning will result in serious suffering and even loss of life because other pressing health care needs cannot be met.

An open door to unethical genetic engineering technologies and a misallocation of limited resources, then, are among the numerous consequences of human cloning that would likely more than outweigh the benefits the practice would achieve. As previously argued, we would do better to avoid attempting to justify human cloning simply based on its consequences. But if we are tempted to do so, we must be honest and include all the consequences and not be swayed by exceptional cases that seem so appealing because of the special benefits they would achieve.

Many people today are less persuaded by utility justifications than they are by appeals to autonomy. While the concern for freedom and responsibility for one's own life in this way of thinking is admirable, autonomy justifications are as deeply flawed as utility justifications. More specifically, they are selfish and they are dangerous.

The very term by which this type of justification is named underscores its selfishness. The word autonomy comes from two Greek words, auto (meaning "self") and nomos (meaning "law"). In the context of ethics, appeals to autonomy literally signify that the self is its own ethical law that it generates its own standards of right and wrong. There is no encouragement in this way of looking at the world to consider the well-being of others, for that is irrelevant as long as it does not matter to me. Although in theory I should respect the autonomy of others as I live out my own autonomy, in practice an autonomous mindset predisposes me to be unconcerned about how my actions will affect others.

As long as the people making autonomous choices happen to have good moral character that predisposes them to be concerned about the well-being of everyone else, there will not be serious problems. In the United States to date, the substantial influence of Christianity--with its mandate to love others sacrificially--has prompted people to use their autonomous choices to further the interests of others alongside of their own. As Christian influences in public life, from public policy to public education, continue to be eradicated in the name of separation of church and state, the self-centeredness of an autonomy outlook will become increasingly evident. Consciously or unconsciously, selfish and other base motives arise within us continually, and without countervailing influences, there is nothing in an autonomy outlook to ensure that the well-being of others will be protected.

When autonomy rules, then, scientists, family members, and others are predisposed to act on the basis of their own autonomous perspectives, and the risk to others is real. Herein lies the danger of autonomy-based thinking, a danger that is similar to that attending a utility-oriented outlook. Protecting people's choices is fine as long as all people are in a comparable position to make those choices. But if some people are in a very weak position economically or socially or physically, they may not be able to avail themselves of the same opportunities, even if under more equitable circumstances they would surely want to do so. In an autonomy-based approach, there is no commitment to justice, caring, or any other ethical standards that would safeguard those least able to stand up for themselves.

An autonomy justification is simply an insufficient basis for justifying a practice like human cloning. In other words, showing that a freedom would otherwise be curtailed is not a sufficient argument to justify an action. We have learned this lesson the hard way, by allowing scientific inquiry to proceed unfettered. The Nuremberg Code resulted from research atrocities that were allowed to occur because it was not recognized that there are other ethical considerations that can be more important than scientific and personal freedom (autonomy).16

While the autonomy justification itself is flawed, there is more to say about it as a basis for defending human cloning. For even if it were an adequate type of ethical justification--which it is not--it is far from clear that it would actually justify the practice. An honest, complete autonomy-based evaluation of human cloning would have to consider the autonomy of all persons involved, including the people produced through cloning, and not just the autonomy of researchers and people desiring to have clones. Of the many considerations that would need to be taken into account if the autonomy of the clones were taken seriously, space will only permit the examination of two here.

First, human cloning involves a grave risk to the clone's life. There is no plausible way to undertake human cloning at this point without a major loss of human life. In the process of cloning the sheep Dolly, 276 failed attempts occurred, including the death of several so-called "defective" clones. An alternative process used to clone monkeys added the necessary destruction of embryonic life to these other risks. It involved transferring the genetic material from each of the cells in an eight-celled embryo to other egg cells in order to attempt to produce eight so-called clones (or, more properly, identical siblings). Subsequent mammal cloning has continued the large-scale fatalities and deformities that unavoidably accompany cloning research. Were these experimental technologies to be applied to human beings, the evidence and procedures themselves show that many human embryos, fetuses, and infants would be lost--and many others deformed--whatever the process. This tragedy would be compounded by the fact that it is unlikely human cloning research would be limited to a single location. Rather, similar mistakes and loss of human life would be occurring almost simultaneously at various private and public research sites.

Normally, experimentation on human beings is allowed only with their explicit consent. (Needless to say, it is impossible to obtain a clone's consent to be brought into existence through cloning.) An exception is sometimes granted in the case of a child, including one still in the womb, who has a verifiable medical problem which experimental treatment may be able to cure or help. However, human cloning is not covered by this exception for two reasons. First, there is no existing human being with a medical problem in the situation in which a human cloning experiment would be attempted. Second, even if that were not an obstacle, there is typically no significant therapeutic benefit to the clone in the many scenarios for which cloning has been proposed. For the experiment to be ethical, there would need to be therapeutic benefit to the clone so huge as to outweigh the substantial likelihood of the death or deformity that occurred in the Dolly experiment. To proceed with human cloning at this time, then, would involve a massive assault on the autonomy of all clones produced, whether they lived or died.

There is also a second way that human cloning would conflict with the autonomy of the people most intimately involved in the practice, that is, the clones themselves. Human cloning would radically weaken the family structure and relationships of the clone and therefore be fundamentally at odds with their most basic interests. Consider the confusion that arises over even the most basic relationships involved. Are the children who result from cloning really the siblings or the children of their "parents"--really the children or the grandchildren of their "grandparents"? Genetics suggests one answer and age the other. Regardless of any future legal resolutions of such matters, child clones (not to mention others inside and outside the family) will almost certainly experience confusion. Such confusion will impair their psychological and social well being--in fact, their very sense of identity. A host of legal entanglements, including inheritance issues, will also result.

This situation is problematic enough where a clearly identified family is involved. But during the experimental phase in particular, identifying the parents of clones produced in a laboratory may be even more troublesome. Is the donor of the genetic material automatically the parent? What about the donor of the egg into which the genetic material is inserted? If the genetic material and egg are simply donated anonymously for experimental purposes, does the scientist who manipulates them and produces a child from them become the parent? Who will provide the necessary love and care for the damaged embryo, fetus, or child that results when mistakes are made and it is so much easier just to discard them?

As the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report has observed (echoed more recently by the report of the President's Council on Bioethics), human cloning "invokes images of manufacturing children according to specification. The lack of acceptance this implies for children who fail to develop according to expectations, and the dominance it introduces into the parent-child relationship, is viewed by many as fundamentally at odds with the acceptance, unconditional love, and openness characteristic of good parenting."17 "It just doesn't make sense," to quote Ian Wilmut, who objected strenuously to the notion of cloning humans after he succeeded in producing the sheep clone Dolly.18 He was joined by U.S. President Clinton, who quickly banned the use of federal funds for human cloning research, and by the World Health Organization, who summarily labeled human cloning ethically unacceptable.19 Their reaction resonates with many, who typically might want to "have" a clone, but would not want to "be" one. What is the difference? It is the intuitive recognition that while the option of cloning may expand the autonomy of the person producing the clone, it undermines the autonomy of the clone.

So the autonomy justification, like the utility justification, is much more problematic than it might at first appear to be. We would do better not even to attempt to justify human cloning by appealing to this type of justification because of its inherent shortcomings. But if we are to invoke it, we must be honest and pay special attention to the autonomy of the person most intimately involved in the cloning, the clone. Particular appeals to "freedom" or "choice" may seem persuasive. But if only the autonomy of people other than clones is in view, or only one limited aspect of a clone's autonomy, then such appeals must be rejected.

As noted near the outset of the chapter, there is a third type of proposed justification for human cloning which moves us more explicitly into the realm of theological reflection: the destiny justification. While other theological arguments against cloning have been advanced in the literature to date,20 many of them are somehow related to the matter of destiny. According to this justification, it is part of our God-given destiny to exercise complete control over our reproductive process. In fact, Richard Seed, in one of his first in-depth interviews after announcing his intentions to clone human beings commercially, made this very argument.21 No less a theologian, President Clinton offered the opposite view when he issued the ban on human cloning. Rather than seeing cloning as human destiny, he rejected it as "playing God."22 Whether or not we think it wise to take our theological cues from either of these individuals, what are we to make of the proposed destiny justification itself? Is human cloning in line with God's purposes for us?

To begin with, there are indeed problems with playing God the way that proponents of human cloning would have us do. For example, God can take utility and autonomy considerations into account in ways that people cannot. God knows the future, including every consequence of every consequence of all our actions, people do not. God loves all persons equally, without bias, and is committed and able to understand and protect the freedom of everyone, people are not. Moreover, there are other ways that the pursuit of utility and autonomy are troubling from a theological perspective.

The utility of human cloning, first of all, is that we can gain some benefit by producing clones. But using other people without their consent for our ends is a violation of their status as beings created in the image of God. People have a God-given dignity that prevents us from using them as mere means to achieve our purposes. Knowing that people are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), biblical writers in both the Old and New Testaments periodically invoke this truth to argue that human beings should not be demeaned in various ways (e.g., Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). Since plants and animals are never said to be created in God's image, it is not surprising that they can be treated in ways (including killing) that would never be acceptable if people were in view (cf. Gen. 9:3 with 9:6).

An autonomy-based justification of human cloning is no more acceptable than a utility-based justification from a theological perspective. Some Christian writers, such as Allen Verhey, have helpfully observed that autonomy, understood in a particular way, is a legitimate biblical notion. As he explains, under the sovereignty of God, acknowledging the autonomy of the person can help ensure respect for and proper treatment of people made in God's image.23 There is a risk here, however, because the popular ethics of autonomy has no place for God in it. It is autonomy "over" God, not autonomy "under" God. The challenge is to affirm the critical importance of respect for human beings, and for their freedom and responsibility to make decisions that profoundly affect their lives, but to recognize that such freedom requires God. More specifically, such freedom requires the framework in which autonomy is under God, not over God, a framework in which respecting freedom is not just wishful or convenient thinking that gives way as soon as individuals or society as a whole have more to gain by disregarding it. It must be rooted in something that unavoidably and unchangeably 'is." In other words, it must be rooted in God, in the creation of human beings in the image of God.

God is the creator, and we worship God as such. Of course, people are creative as well, being the images of God that they are. So what is the difference between God's creation of human beings, as portrayed in the book of Genesis, and human procreation as happens daily all over the world (also mandated by God in Genesis)? Creation is "ex nihilo," out of nothing. That means, in the first sense, that God did not just rearrange already existing materials. God actually brought into being a material universe where nothing even existed before. However, God's creation "ex nihilo" suggests something more. It suggests that there was no agenda outside of God that God was following--nothing outside of God that directed what were acceptable options. When it came to the human portion of creation, God created us to be the way God deemed best.

It is no accident that we call what we do when we have babies "procreation." "Pro" means "for" or "forth." To be sure, we do bring babies "forth." But the deeper meaning here is "for." We bring new human beings into the world "for" someone or something. To be specific, we continue the line of human beings for God, in accordance with God's mandate to humanity at the beginning to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). We also create for the people whom we help bring into being. We help give them life, and they are the ones most affected by our actions. What is particularly significant about this "procreation," this "creation for," is that by its very nature it is subject to an outside agenda, to God's agenda primarily, and secondarily to the needs of the child being created.

In this light, the human cloning mindset is hugely problematic. With unmitigated pride it claims the right to create rather than procreate. It looks neither to God for the way that he has intended human beings to be procreated and raised by fathers and mothers who are the secondary, that is, genetic source of their life; nor does it look primarily to the needs of the one being procreated. As we have seen, it looks primarily to the cloner's own preferences or to whatever value system one chooses to prioritize (perhaps the "good of society," etc.). In other words, those operating out of the human cloning mindset see themselves as Creator rather than procreator. This is the kind of aspiring to be God for which God has consistently chastised people, and for which God has ultimately wreaked havoc on many a society and civilization.

Leon Kass has observed that we have traditionally used the word "procreation" for having children because we have viewed the world, and human life in particular, as created by God. We have understood our creative involvement in terms of and in relation to God's creation.24 Today we increasingly orient more to the material world than to God. We are more impressed with the gross national product than with the original creation. So we more commonly talk in terms of re"production" rather than pro"creation." In the process, we associate people more closely with things, with products, than with the God of creation. No wonder our respect for human life is deteriorating. We become more like that with which we associate. If we continue on this path, if our destiny is to clone ourselves, then our destiny is also, ultimately, to lose all respect for ourselves, to our peril.

Claims about utility, autonomy, or destiny, then, are woefully inadequate to justify human cloning. In fact, a careful look at any of these types of justification shows that they provide compelling reasons instead to reject human cloning. To stand up and say so may become more and more difficult in our "brave new world." As the culture increasingly promotes production and self-assertion, it will take courage to insist in the new context of cloning that there is something more important. But such a brave new word, echoing the Word of old, is one that we must be bold to speak.

Read more:

Human Cloning | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity

: Non-static method JModuleHelper::getModules() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in

Strict Standards: Non-static method JModuleHelper::_load() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/module/helper.php on line 88

Strict Standards: Non-static method JApplication::getMenu() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/includes/application.php on line 345

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JMenu::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 720

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 721

Strict Standards: Non-static method modPollHelper::getPoll() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_poll/mod_poll.php on line 26

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDBO() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_poll/helper.php on line 21

Strict Standards: Non-static method JModuleHelper::getLayoutPath() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_poll/mod_poll.php on line 29

Strict Standards: Non-static method modPollHelper::getPollOptions() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_poll/mod_poll.php on line 31

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDBO() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_poll/helper.php on line 42

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDBO() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 25

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getUser() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 26

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getSession() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/factory.php on line 163

Strict Standards: Non-static method JComponentHelper::getParams() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 35

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDate() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 40

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getLanguage() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/factory.php on line 427

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::load() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 161

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::register() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 138

Strict Standards: Non-static method JArrayHelper::toInteger() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 80

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRoute::_() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Strict Standards: Non-static method ContentHelperRoute::getArticleRoute() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Strict Standards: Non-static method ContentHelperRoute::_findItem() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 49

Strict Standards: Non-static method JComponentHelper::getComponent() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 97

Strict Standards: Non-static method JComponentHelper::_load() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/component/helper.php on line 39

Strict Standards: Non-static method JApplication::getMenu() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 99

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JMenu::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 720

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 721

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getApplication() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/methods.php on line 41

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getConfig() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/includes/application.php on line 372

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRouter::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 674

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 675

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1271

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1275

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shPageInfo() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1276

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::getInt() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1278

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::getVar() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 179

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::_cleanVar() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 134

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFilterInput::getInstance() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 577

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getApplication() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1233

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JMenu::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 720

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 721

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRegistryFormat::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/registry/registry.php on line 373

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFilterInput::clean() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/registry/format.php on line 45

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDBO() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1285

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1308

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::ltrim() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1342

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1347

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1392

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1403

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::rtrim() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 2096

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 853

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getDBO() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 839

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::ltrim() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1732

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 336

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRoute::_() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Strict Standards: Non-static method ContentHelperRoute::getArticleRoute() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 109

Strict Standards: Non-static method ContentHelperRoute::_findItem() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 49

Strict Standards: Non-static method JComponentHelper::getComponent() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 97

Strict Standards: Non-static method JComponentHelper::_load() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/component/helper.php on line 39

Strict Standards: Non-static method JApplication::getMenu() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/components/com_content/helpers/route.php on line 99

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JMenu::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 720

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 721

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getApplication() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/methods.php on line 41

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getConfig() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/includes/application.php on line 372

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRouter::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 674

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 675

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1191

Strict Standards: Non-static method JString::substr() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1271

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shGetConfig() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1275

Strict Standards: Non-static method shRouter::shPageInfo() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1276

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::getInt() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1278

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::getVar() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 179

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRequest::_cleanVar() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 134

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFilterInput::getInstance() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/environment/request.php on line 577

Strict Standards: Non-static method JFactory::getApplication() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/administrator/components/com_sh404sef/sh404sef.class.php on line 1233

Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader::import() should not be called statically in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/loader.php on line 186

Strict Standards: Non-static method JMenu::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 720

Strict Standards: Non-static method JError::isError() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php on line 721

Strict Standards: Non-static method JRegistryFormat::getInstance() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/wwwglob/public_html/libraries/joomla/registry/registry.php on line 373

Read more here:

Human Cloning: What is cloning? How to clone. Is cloning ...

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue. It does not refer to the natural conception and delivery of identical twins. The possibility of human cloning has raised controversies. These ethical concerns have prompted several nations to pass laws regarding human cloning and its legality.

Two commonly discussed types of theoretical human cloning are: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning would involve cloning cells from a human for use in medicine and transplants, and is an active area of research, but is not in medical practice anywhere in the world, as of July 2016[update]. Two common methods of therapeutic cloning that are being researched are somatic-cell nuclear transfer and, more recently, pluripotent stem cell induction. Reproductive cloning would involve making an entire cloned human, instead of just specific cells or tissues.

Although the possibility of cloning humans had been the subject of speculation for much of the 20th century, scientists and policy makers began to take the prospect seriously in the mid-1960s.

Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Joshua Lederberg advocated cloning and genetic engineering in an article in The American Naturalist in 1966 and again, the following year, in The Washington Post.[1] He sparked a debate with conservative bioethicist Leon Kass, who wrote at the time that "the programmed reproduction of man will, in fact, dehumanize him." Another Nobel Laureate, James D. Watson, publicized the potential and the perils of cloning in his Atlantic Monthly essay, "Moving Toward the Clonal Man", in 1971.[2]

With the cloning of a sheep known as Dolly in 1996 by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the idea of human cloning became a hot debate topic.[3] Many nations outlawed it, while a few scientists promised to make a clone within the next few years. The first hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by Advanced Cell Technology. It was created using SCNT - a nucleus was taken from a man's leg cell and inserted into a cow's egg from which the nucleus had been removed, and the hybrid cell was cultured, and developed into an embryo. The embryo was destroyed after 12 days.[4]

In 2004 and 2005, Hwang Woo-suk, a professor at Seoul National University, published two separate articles in the journal Science claiming to have successfully harvested pluripotent, embryonic stem cells from a cloned human blastocyst using somatic-cell nuclear transfer techniques. Hwang claimed to have created eleven different patent-specific stem cell lines. This would have been the first major breakthrough in human cloning.[5] However, in 2006 Science retracted both of his articles on clear evidence that much of his data from the experiments was fabricated.[6]

In January 2008, Dr. Andrew French and Samuel Wood of the biotechnology company Stemagen announced that they successfully created the first five mature human embryos using SCNT. In this case, each embryo was created by taking a nucleus from a skin cell (donated by Wood and a colleague) and inserting it into a human egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The embryos were developed only to the blastocyst stage, at which point they were studied in processes that destroyed them. Members of the lab said that their next set of experiments would aim to generate embryonic stem cell lines; these are the "holy grail" that would be useful for therapeutic or reproductive cloning.[7][8]

In 2011, scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation announced that they had succeeded in generating embyronic stem cell lines, but their process involved leaving the oocyte's nucleus in place, resulting in triploid cells, which would not be useful for cloning.[10][11]

In 2013, a group of scientists led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov published the first report of embryonic stem cells created using SCNT. In this experiment, the researchers developed a protocol for using SCNT in human cells, which differs slightly from the one used in other organisms. Four embryonic stem cell lines from human fetal somatic cells were derived from those blastocysts. All four lines were derived using oocytes from the same donor, ensuring that all mitochondrial DNA inherited was identical. A year later, a team led by Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology reported that they had replicated Mitalipov's results and further demonstrated the effectiveness by cloning adult cells using SCNT.[3][12]

In somatic cell nuclear transfer ("SCNT"), the nucleus of a somatic cell is taken from a donor and transplanted into a host egg cell, which had its own genetic material removed previously, making it an enucleated egg. After the donor somatic cell genetic material is transferred into the host oocyte with a micropipette, the somatic cell genetic material is fused with the egg using an electric current. Once the two cells have fused, the new cell can be permitted to grow in a surrogate or artificially.[13] This is the process that was used to successfully clone Dolly the sheep (see section on History in this article).[3]

Creating induced pluripotent stem cells ("iPSCs") is a long and inefficient process. Pluripotency refers to a stem cell that has the potential to differentiate into any of the three germ layers: endoderm (interior stomach lining, gastrointestinal tract, the lungs), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood, urogenital), or ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system).[14] A specific set of genes, often called "reprogramming factors", are introduced into a specific adult cell type. These factors send signals in the mature cell that cause the cell to become a pluripotent stem cell. This process is highly studied and new techniques are being discovered frequently on how to better this induction process.

Depending on the method used, reprogramming of adult cells into iPSCs for implantation could have severe limitations in humans. If a virus is used as a reprogramming factor for the cell, cancer-causing genes called oncogenes may be activated. These cells would appear as rapidly dividing cancer cells that do not respond to the body's natural cell signaling process. However, in 2008 scientists discovered a technique that could remove the presence of these oncogenes after pluripotency induction, thereby increasing the potential use of iPSC in humans.[15]

Both the processes of SCNT and iPSCs have benefits and deficiencies. Historically, reprogramming methods were better studied than SCNT derived embryonic stem cells (ESCs). However, more recent studies have put more emphasis on developing new procedures for SCNT-ESCs. The major advantage of SCNT over iPSCs at this time is the speed with which cells can be produced. iPSCs derivation takes several months while SCNT would take a much shorter time, which could be important for medical applications. New studies are working to improve the process of iPSC in terms of both speed and efficiency with the discovery of new reprogramming factors in oocytes.[citation needed] Another advantage SCNT could have over iPSCs is its potential to treat mitochondrial disease, as it utilizes a donor oocyte. No other advantages are known at this time in using stem cells derived from one method over stem cells derived from the other.[16]

Work on cloning techniques has advanced our basic understanding of developmental biology in humans. Observing human pluripotent stem cells grown in culture provides great insight into human embryo development, which otherwise cannot be seen. Scientists are now able to better define steps of early human development. Studying signal transduction along with genetic manipulation within the early human embryo has the potential to provide answers to many developmental diseases and defects. Many human-specific signaling pathways have been discovered by studying human embryonic stem cells. Studying developmental pathways in humans has given developmental biologists more evidence toward the hypothesis that developmental pathways are conserved throughout species.[17]

iPSCs and cells created by SCNT are useful for research into the causes of disease, and as model systems used in drug discovery.[18][19]

Cells produced with SCNT, or iPSCs could eventually be used in stem cell therapy,[20] or to create organs to be used in transplantation, known as regenerative medicine. Stem cell therapy is the use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition. Bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy.[21] No other forms of stem cell therapy are in clinical use at this time. Research is underway to potentially use stem cell therapy to treat heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.[22][23] Regenerative medicine is not in clinical practice, but is heavily researched for its potential uses. This type of medicine would allow for autologous transplantation, thus removing the risk of organ transplant rejection by the recipient.[24] For instance, a person with liver disease could potentially have a new liver grown using their same genetic material and transplanted to remove the damaged liver.[25] In current research, human pluripotent stem cells have been promised as a reliable source for generating human neurons, showing the potential for regenerative medicine in brain and neural injuries.[26]

In bioethics, the ethics of cloning refers to a variety of ethical positions regarding the practice and possibilities of cloning, especially human cloning. While many of these views are religious in origin, the questions raised by cloning are faced by secular perspectives as well. Human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not commercially used; animals are currently cloned in laboratories and in livestock production.

Advocates support development of therapeutic cloning in order to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants,[27] to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs,[28] and to stave off the effects of aging.[29] Advocates for reproductive cloning believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to the technology.[30]

Opposition to therapeutic cloning mainly centers around the status of embyronic stem cells, which has connections with the abortion debate.[31]

Some opponents of reproductive cloning have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe - for example, the position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science as of 2014[update],[32] while others emphasize that reproductive cloning could be prone to abuse (leading to the generation of humans whose organs and tissues would be harvested),[33][34] and have concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.[35][36]

Religious groups are divided, with some[which?] opposing the technology as usurping God's (in monotheistic traditions) place and, to the extent embryos are used, destroying a human life; others support therapeutic cloning's potential life-saving benefits.[37][38]

In 2015 it was reported that about 70 countries had banned human cloning.[39]

Australia has prohibited human cloning,[40] though as of December 2006[update], a bill legalizing therapeutic cloning and the creation of human embryos for stem cell research passed the House of Representatives. Within certain regulatory limits, and subject to the effect of state legislation, therapeutic cloning is now legal in some parts of Australia.[41]

Canadian law prohibits the following: cloning humans, cloning stem cells, growing human embryos for research purposes, and buying or selling of embryos, sperm, eggs or other human reproductive material.[42] It also bans making changes to human DNA that would pass from one generation to the next, including use of animal DNA in humans. Surrogate mothers are legally allowed, as is donation of sperm or eggs for reproductive purposes. Human embryos and stem cells are also permitted to be donated for research.[citation needed]

There have been consistent calls in Canada to ban human reproductive cloning since the 1993 Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Polls have indicated that an overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose human reproductive cloning, though the regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity.[43][44][45][46]

Human cloning is prohibited in Article 133 of the Colombian Penal Code.[47]

The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine prohibits human cloning in one of its additional protocols, but this protocol has been ratified only by Greece, Spain and Portugal. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union explicitly prohibits reproductive human cloning. The charter is legally binding for the institutions of the European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon and for member states of the Union implementing EU law.[48][49]

India does not have specific law regarding cloning but has guidelines prohibiting whole human cloning or reproductive cloning. India allows therapeutic cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells for research proposes.[50][51]

Human cloning is explicitly prohibited in Article 24, "Right to Life" of the 2006 Constitution of Serbia.[52]

In terms of section 39A of the Human Tissue Act 65 of 1983, genetic manipulation of gametes or zygotes outside the human body is absolutely prohibited. A zygote is the cell resulting from the fusion of two gametes; thus the fertilised ovum. Section 39A thus prohibits human cloning.

On January 14, 2001 the British government passed The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001[53] to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 by extending allowable reasons for embryo research to permit research around stem cells and cell nuclear replacement, thus allowing therapeutic cloning. However, on November 15, 2001, a pro-life group won a High Court legal challenge, which struck down the regulation and effectively left all forms of cloning unregulated in the UK. Their hope was that Parliament would fill this gap by passing prohibitive legislation.[54][55] Parliament was quick to pass the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 which explicitly prohibited reproductive cloning. The remaining gap with regard to therapeutic cloning was closed when the appeals courts reversed the previous decision of the High Court.[56]

The first license was granted on August 11, 2004 to researchers at the University of Newcastle to allow them to investigate treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.[57] The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, a major review of fertility legislation, repealed the 2001 Cloning Act by making amendments of similar effect to the 1990 Act. The 2008 Act also allows experiments on hybrid human-animal embryos.[58]

On December 13, 2001, the United Nations General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the United States, Costa Rica and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of human cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, calling for the ban of all forms of human cloning contrary to human dignity, was adopted.[59][60]

In 1998, 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2007, the United States House of Representatives voted whether 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 reproductive cloning only) from passing. On March 10, 2010 a bill (HR 4808) was introduced with a section banning federal funding for human cloning.[61] Such a law, if passed, would not prevent research from occurring in private institutions (such as universities) that have both private and federal funding. There are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion.[citation needed] Fifteen American states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia) ban reproductive cloning and three states (Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for such activities.[62]

Science fiction has used cloning, most commonly and specifically human cloning, due to the fact that it brings up controversial questions of identity.[63][64] In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World (1932), human cloning is a major plot device that not only drives the story but also makes the reader think critically about what identity means; this concept was re-examined fifty years later in C. J. Cherryhs novels Forty Thousand in Gehenna (1983) and Cyteen (1988). Kazuo Ishiguro's 2005 novel Never Let Me Go centers on human clones and considers the ethics of the practice.

The reduction in the value of the individual human life in a resource-optimized clone-based society is examined in the 1967 novel Logan's Run, and the later movie.

A recurring sub-theme of cloning fiction is the use of clones as a supply of organs for transplantation. The 2005 Kazuo Ishiguro novel Never Let Me Go and the 2010 film adaption[65] are set in an alternate history in which cloned humans are created for the sole purpose of providing organ donations to naturally born humans, despite the fact that they are fully sentient and self-aware. The 2005 film The Island[66] revolves around a similar plot, with the exception that the clones are unaware of the reason for their existence. In the futuristic novel The House of the Scorpion, clones are used to grow organs for their wealthy "owners", and the main character was a complete clone.

The use of human cloning for military purposes has also been explored in several works. Star Wars portrays human cloning in Clone Wars,[67]Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones and Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, in the form of the Grand Army of the Republic, an army of cloned soldiers.

Orphan Black, a sci-fi/drama television series explores the ethical issues, and biological advantages/disadvantages of human cloning through a fictional scientific study on the behavioral adaptation of clones in society.[68]

See the original post:

Human cloning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a consequence of scientific and biotechnological progress during the past decades, new biological therapies involving somatic cells and genetic material are being investigated. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) described existing legal authorities governing a new class of human somatic cell therapy products and gene therapy products in an October 14, 1993 Federal Register Notice.

On February 23, 1997, the public learned that Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute successfully used a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to create a clone of a sheep; the cloned sheep was named Dolly. SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of an adult sheep somatic cell, into a sheep egg from which the nucleus had been removed. After nearly 300 attempts, the cloned sheep known as Dolly was born to a surrogate sheep mother.

SCNT is not reproduction since a sperm cannot be used with the technique, but rather it is an extension of technology used not only in research but also used to produce medically relevant cellular products such as cartilage cells for knees, as well as gene therapy products. On February 28, 1997, FDA announced a comprehensive plan for the regulation of cell and tissue based therapies that incorporated the legal authorities described in FDA's 1993 guidance "Proposed Approach to Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products

On March 7, 1997 then President Clinton issued a memorandum that stated: "Recent accounts of advances in cloning technology, including the first successful cloning of an adult sheep, raise important questions. They potentially represent enormous scientific breakthroughs that could offer benefits in such areas as medicine and agriculture. But the new technology also raises profound ethical issues, particularly with respect to its possible use to clone humans." (Prohibitions on Federal Funding for Cloning of Human Beings)

The memorandum explicitly prohibited Federal Funding for cloning of a human being, and also directed the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to thoroughly review the legal and ethical issues associated with the use of cloning technology to create a human being.

"NBAC found that concerns relating to the potential psychological harms to children and effects on the moral, religious, and cultural values of society merited further reflection and deliberation." The report, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, September 1999, describes 5 recommendations.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer holds great potential to someday create medically useful therapeutic products. FDA believes, however, that there are major unresolved questions pertaining to the use of cloning technology to clone a human being which must be seriously considered and resolved before the Agency would permit such investigation to proceed. The Agency sent a "Dear Colleague" letter which stated that creating a human being using cloning technology is subject to FDA regulation under the Public Health Service Act and the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. This letter notified researchers that clinical research using SCNT to create a human being could precede only when an investigational new drug application (IND) is in effect. Sponsors are required to submit to FDA

Recently, FDA sent letters to remind the research community that FDA jurisdiction over clinical research using cloning technology to create a human being, and to advise that FDA regulatory process is required in order to initial these investigations. (March 2001 letter)

On March 28, 2001, Dr. Kathryn C. Zoon, Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives. Her statement described FDA's role in regulating the use of cloning technology to clone a human being and further described current significant scientific concerns in this area.

See the original post:

Cloning - Food and Drug Administration

Strictly speaking, cloning is the creation of a genetic copy of a sequence of DNA or of the entire genome of an organism. In the latter sense, cloning occurs naturally in the birth of identical twins and other multiples. But cloning can also be done artificially in the laboratory via embryo twinning or splitting: an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when transferred to a uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. In the cloning debate, however, the term cloning typically refers to a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus and thus most of the DNA has been removed. (The mitochondrial DNA in the cytoplasm is still present). The manipulated oocyte is then treated with an electric current in order to stimulate cell division, resulting in the formation of an embryo. The embryo is (virtually) genetically identical to, and thus a clone of the somatic cell donor.

Dolly was the first mammal to be brought into the world using SCNT. Wilmut and his team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland replaced the nucleus from an oocyte taken from a Blackface ewe with the nucleus of a cell from the mammary gland of a six-year old Finn Dorset sheep (these sheep have a white face). They transferred the resulting embryo into the uterus of a surrogate ewe and approximately five months later Dolly was born. Dolly had a white face: she was genetically identical to the Finn Dorset ewe from which the somatic cell had been obtained.

Dolly, however, was not 100% genetically identical to the donor animal. Genetic material comes from two sources: the nucleus and the mitochondria of a cell. Mitochondria are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell. They contain short segments of DNA. In Dolly's case, her nuclear DNA was the same as the donor animal; other of her genetic materials came from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated oocyte. For the clone and the donor animal to be exact genetic copies, the oocyte too would have to come from the donor animal (or from the same maternal line mitochondria are passed on by oocytes).

Dolly's birth was a real breakthrough, for it proved that something that had been considered biologically impossible could indeed be done. Before Dolly, scientists thought that cell differentiation was irreversible: they believed that, once a cell has differentiated into a specialized body cell, such as a skin or liver cell, the process cannot be reversed. What Dolly demonstrated was that it is possible to take a differentiated cell, turn back its biological clock, and make the cell behave as though it was a recently fertilized egg.

Nuclear transfer can also be done using a donor cell from an embryo instead of from an organism after birth. Cloning mammals using embryonic cells has been successful since the mid-1980s (for a history of cloning, see Wilmut et al., 2001). Another technique to produce genetically identical offspring or clones is embryo twinning or embryo splitting, in which an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when implanted in the uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. This process occurs naturally with identical twins.

However, what many people find disturbing is the idea of creating a genetic duplicate of an existing person, or a person who has existed. That is why the potential application of SCNT in humans set off a storm of controversy. Another way to produce a genetic duplicate from an existing person is by cryopreserving one of two genetically identical embryos created in vitro for several years or decades before using it to generate a pregnancy. Lastly, reproductive cloning of humans could, in theory, also be achieved by combining the induced pluripotent stem cell technique with tetraploid complementation. Several research teams have succeeded in cloning mice this way (see, for example, Boland et al., 2009).

Dolly is a case of reproductive cloning, the aim of which is to create offspring. Reproductive cloning is to be distinguished from cloning for therapy and research, sometimes also referred to as therapeutic cloning. Both reproductive cloning and cloning for research and therapy involve SCNT, but their aims, as well as most of the ethical concerns they raise, differ. I will first discuss cloning for research and therapy and will then proceed to outline the ethical debate surrounding reproductive cloning.

Cloning for research and therapy involves the creation of an embryo via SCNT, but instead of transferring the cloned embryo to the uterus in order to generate a pregnancy, it is used to obtain pluripotent stem cells. It is thus not the intention to use the embryo for reproductive purposes. Embryonic stem cells offer powerful tools for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, for important biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing (Cervera & Stojkovic, 2007). For example, one therapeutic approach is to induce embryonic stem cells to differentiate into cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) to repair or replace damaged heart tissue, into insulin-producing cells to treat diabetes, or into neurons and their supporting tissues to repair spinal cord injuries.

A potential problem with embryonic stem cells is that they will normally not be genetically identical to the patient. Embryonic stem cells are typically derived from embryos donated for research after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Because these stem cells would have a genetic identity different from that of the recipient the patient they may, when used in therapy, be rejected by her immune system. Immunorejection can occur when the recipient's body does not recognize the transplanted cells, tissues or organs as its own and as a defense mechanism attempts to destroy the graft. Another type of immunorejection involves a condition called graft-versus-host disease, in which immune cells contaminating the graft recognize the new host the patient as foreign and attack the host's tissues and organs. Both types of immunorejection can result in loss of the graft or death of the patient. It is one of the most serious problems faced in transplant surgery.

Cloning for research and therapy could offer a solution to this problem. An embryo produced via SNCT using the patient's somatic cell as a donor cell would be virtually genetically identical to the patient. Stem cells obtained from that embryo would thus also be genetically identical to the patient, as would be their derivatives, and would be less likely to be rejected after transplantation. Though therapies using embryonic stem cells from SCNT embryos are not yet on the horizon for humans, scientists have provided proof of concept for these therapies in the mouse.

Embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos would also have significant advantages for biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing. Embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient could provide valuable in vitro models to study disease, especially where animal models are not available, where the research cannot be done in patients themselves because it would be too invasive, or where there are too few patients to work with (as in the case of rare genetic diseases). Researchers could, for example, create large numbers of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient and then experiment on these in order to understand the particular features of the disease in that person. The embryonic stem cells and their derivatives could
also be used to test potential treatments. They could, for example, be used to test candidate drug therapies to predict their likely toxicity. This would avoid dangerous exposure of patients to sometimes highly experimental drugs.

Cloning for research and therapy is, however, still in its infancy stages. In 2011, a team of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory was the first to have succeeded in creating two embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos produced through SCNT (Noggle et al., 2011). Three years earlier, a small San Diego biotechnological company created human embryos (at the blastocyst stage) via SCNT but did not succeed in deriving embryonic stem cells from these cells (French et al., 2008). Cloning for research and therapy is thus not likely to bear fruition in the short term. Apart from unsolved technical difficulties, much more basic research in embryonic stem cell research is needed. The term therapeutic cloning has been criticized precisely for this reason. It suggests that therapy using embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos is already reality. In the phase before clinical trials, critics say, it is only reasonable to refer to research on nuclear transfer as research cloning or cloning for biomedical research (PCBE, 2002).

Cloning for research and therapy holds great potential for future research and therapeutic applications, but it also raises various concerns.

Much of the debate about the ethics of cloning for research and therapy turns on a basic disagreement about how we should treat early human embryos. As it is currently done, the isolation of embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of embryos at the blastocyst stage (day five after fertilization, when the embryo consists of 125225 cells). But cloning for research and therapy not only involves the destruction of embryos, it also involves the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell derivation. Views on whether and when it is permissible to create embryos solely to obtain stem cells differ profoundly.

Some believe that an embryo, from the moment of conception, has the same moral status, that is, the same set of basic moral rights, claims or interests as an ordinary adult human being. This view is sometimes expressed by saying that the early embryo is a person. On this view, creating and killing embryos for stem cells is a serious moral wrong. It is impermissible, even if it could save many lives (Deckers, 2007). Others believe that the early embryo is merely a cluster of cells or human tissue lacking any moral status. A common view among those who hold this view is that, given its promising potential, embryonic stem cell and cloning research is a moral imperative (Devolder & Savulescu, 2006). Many defend a view somewhere in between these opposing positions. They believe, for example, that the early embryo should be treated with respect because it has an intermediate moral status: a moral status lower than that of a person but higher than that of an ordinary body cell. A popular view amongst those who hold this position is that using embryos for research might sometimes be justified. Respect can be demonstrated, it is typically argued, by using embryos only for very important research that cannot be done using less controversial means, and by acknowledging the use of embryos for research with a sense of regret or loss (Robertson, 1995; Steinbock, 2001). One common view among those who hold the intermediate moral status view is that the use of discarded IVF embryos to obtain stem cells is compatible with the respect we owe to the embryo, whereas the creation and use of cloned embryos is not. An argument underlying this view is that, unlike IVF embryos, cloned embryos are created for instrumental use only; they are created and treated as a mere means, which some regard as incompatible with respectful treatment of the embryo (NBAC, 1999). Others (both proponents and opponents of embryo research) have denied that there is a significant moral difference between using discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos as a source of stem cells. They have argued that if killing embryos for research is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the embryo's origin (Doerflinger, 1999; Fitzpatrick, 2003; Devolder, 2005). Douglas and Savulescu (2009) have argued that it is permissible to destroy unwanted embryos in research, that is, embryos that no one wishes to use for reproductive purposes. Since both discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos created for the purpose of stem cell derivation are unwanted embryos in that sense, it is, on their view, permissible to use both types of embryos for research.

A less common view holds that obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos poses fewer ethical problems than obtaining stem cells from discarded IVF embryos. Hansen (2002) has advanced this view, arguing that embryos resulting from SCNT do not have the same moral status we normally accord to other embryos: he calls the combination of a somatic nucleus and an enucleated egg a transnuclear egg, which, he says, is a mere artifact with no natural purpose or potential to evolve into an embryo and eventually a human being, and therefore falls outside the category of human beings. McHugh (2004) and Kiessling (2001) advance a similar argument. On their view, obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos is less morally problematic because embryos resulting from SCNT are better thought of as tissue culture, whereas IVF represents instrumental support for human reproduction. Since creating offspring is not the goal, they argue, it is misleading to use the term embryo or zygote to refer to the product of SCNT. They suggest to instead use the terms clonote (Mc Hugh) and ovasome (Kiessling).

Cloning for research and therapy requires a large number of donor oocytes. Ethical issues arise regarding how these oocytes could be obtained. Oocyte donation involves various risks and discomforts (for a review of the risks, see Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research, 2007). Among the most pressing ethical issues raised by participating in such donation is what model of informed consent should be applied. Unlike women who are considering IVF, non-medical oocyte donors are not clinical patients. They do not stand to derive any reproductive or medical benefit themselves from the donation (though Kalfoglou & Gittelsohn, 2000, argue that they may derive a psychological benefit). Magnus and Cho (2005) have argued that donating women should not be classified as research subjects since, unlike in other research, the risks to the donor do not lie in the research itself but in the procurement of the materials required for the research. They suggest that a new category named research donors be created for those who expose themselves to substantial risk only for the benefit of others (in this case unidentifiable people in the future) and where the risk is incurred not in the actual research but in the procurement of the materials for the research. Informed consent for altruistic organ donation by living donors to strangers has also been suggested as a model, since, in both cases, the benefits will be for strangers and not for the donor. Critics of this latter suggestion have pointed out, however, that there is a disanalogy between these two types of donation. The general ethical rule reflected in regulations concerning altruistic donation, namely that there must be a high chance of a good outcome for the patient, is violated in the case of oocyte donation for cloning research (George, 2007).

Given the risks to the donor, the absence of direct medical benefit for the donor, and the uncertain po
tential of cloning research, it is not surprising that the number of altruistic oocyte donations for such research is very low. Financial incentives might be needed to increase the supply of oocytes for cloning research. In some countries, including the US, selling and buying oocytes is legal. Some object to these practices because they consider oocytes as integral to the body and think they should be kept out of the market: on their view, the value of the human body and its parts should not be expressed in terms of money or other fungible goods. Some also worry that, through commercialization of oocytes, women themselves may become objects of instrumental use (Alpers &Lo, 1995). Many agree, however, that a concern for commodification does not justify a complete ban on payment of oocyte donors and that justice requires that they be financially compensated for the inconvenience, burden, and medical risk they endure, as is standard for other research subjects (Steinbock, 2004; Mertes &Pennings, 2007). A related concern is the effect of financial or other offers of compensation on the voluntariness of oocyte donation. Women, especially economically disadvantaged women from developing countries, might be unduly induced or even coerced into selling their oocytes (Dickinson, 2002). Baylis and McLeod (2007) have highlighted how difficult it is concomitantly to avoid both undue inducement and exploitation: a price that is too low risks exploitation; a price that avoids exploitation risks undue inducement.

Concerns about exploitation are not limited to concerns about payment, as became clear in the Hwang scandal (for a review, see Saunders & Savulescu, 2008). In 2004, Woo-Suk-Hwang, a leading Korean stem cell scientist, claimed to be the first to clone human embryos using SCNT and to extract stem cells from these embryos. In addition to finding that Hwang had fabricated many of his research results, Korea's National Bioethics Committee also found that Hwang had pressured junior members of his lab to donate oocytes for his cloning experiments.

Some authors have argued that a regulated market in oocytes could minimize ethical concerns raised by the commercialization of oocytes and could be consistent with respect for women (Resnik 2001; Gruen, 2007). Researchers are also investigating the use of alternative sources of oocytes, including animal oocytes, fetal oocytes, oocytes from adult ovaries obtained post mortem or during operation, and stem cell-derived oocytes. Finally, another option is egg-sharing where couples who are undergoing IVF for reproductive purposes have the option to donate one or two of their oocytes in return for a reduced fee for their fertility treatment. The advantage of this system is that it avoids exposing women to extra risks these women were undergoing IVF in any case (Roberts & Throsby, 2008).

Personalized cloning therapies are likely to be labor intensive and expensive. This has raised social justice concerns. Perhaps cloning therapies will only be a realistic option for the very rich? Cloning therapies may, however, become cheaper, less labor intensive and more widely accessible after time. Moreover, cloning may cure diseases and not only treat symptoms. Regardless of the economic cost, it remains true of course that the cloning procedure is time consuming, rendering it inappropriate for certain clinical applications where urgent intervention is required (e.g., myocardial infarction, acute liver failure or traumatic or infectious spinal cord damage). If cloning for therapy became available, its application would thus likely be restricted to chronic conditions. Wilmut (1997), who cloned Dolly, has suggested that cloning treatments could be targeted to maximize benefit: an older person with heart disease could be treated with stem cells that are not a genetic match, take drugs to suppress her immune system for the rest of her life, and live with the side-effects; a younger person might benefit from stem cells from cloned embryos that match exactly. Devolder and Savulescu (2006) have argued that objections about economic cost are most forceful against cloning for self-transplantation than, for example, against cloning for developing cellular models of human disease. The latter will enable research into human diseases and may result in affordable therapies and cures for a variety of common diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, which afflict people all over the world. Finally, some have pointed out that it is not clear whether cloning research is necessarily more labor intensive than experiments on cells and tissues now done in animals.

Some are skeptical about the claimed benefits of cloning for research and therapy. They stress that for many diseases in which cloned embryonic stem cells might offer a therapy, there are alternative treatments and/or preventive measures in development, including gene therapy, pharmacogenomical solutions and treatments based on nanotechnology. It is often claimed that other types of stem cells such as adult stem cells and stem cells from the umbilical cord blood might enable us to achieve the same aims as cloning. Especially induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have raised the hope that cloning research is superfluous (Rao & Condic 2008). iPSCs are created through genetic manipulation of a body cell. iPSCs are similar to embryonic stem cells, and in particular to embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos. However,iPSC research could provide tissue- and patient-specific cells without relying on the need for human oocytes or the creation and destruction of embryos. iPSC research could thus avoid the ethical issues raised by cloning. This promise notwithstanding, scientists have warned that it would be premature to stop cloning research as iPSCs are not identical to embryonic stem cells. Cloning research may teach us things that iPSC research cannot teach us. Moreover, iPSC research has been said to fail to completely avoid the issue of embryo destruction (Brown, 2009).

Slippery slope arguments express the worry that permitting a certain practice may place us on a slippery slope to a dangerous or otherwise unacceptable outcome. Several commentators have argued that accepting or allowing cloning research is the first step that would place us on a slippery slope to reproductive cloning. As Leon Kass (1998, 702) has put it: once the genies put the cloned embryos into the bottles, who can strictly control where they go?

Others are more skeptical about slippery slope arguments against cloning and think that effective legislation can prevent us from sliding down the slope (Savulescu, 1999; Devolder & Savulescu 2006). If reproductive cloning is unacceptable, these critics say, it is reasonable to prohibit this specific technology rather than to ban non-reproductive applications of cloning. The UK and Belgium, for example, allow cloning research but prohibit the transfer of cloned embryos to the uterus.

Apart from the question of how slippery the slope might be, another question raised by such arguments concerns the feared development reproductive cloning and whether it is really ethically objectionable. Profound disagreement exists about the answer to this question.

The central argument in favor of reproductive cloning is expansion of opportunities for reproduction. Reproductive cloning could offer a new means for prospective parents to satisfy their reproductive goals or desires. Infertile individuals or couples could have a child that is genetically related to them. In addition, individuals, same sex couples, or couples who cannot together produce an embryo would no longer need donor gametes to reproduce if cloning were availab
le (some might still need donor eggs for the cloning procedure, but these would be enucleated so that only the mitochondrial DNA remains). It would be possible then to avoid that one's child shares half of her nuclear DNA with a gamete donor.

Using cloning to help infertile people to have a genetically related child, or a child that is only genetically related to them, has been defended on the grounds of human wellbeing, personal autonomy, and the satisfaction of the natural inclination to produce offspring (Hyry, 2003; Strong, 2008). Offering individuals or couples the possibility to reproduce using cloning technology has been said to be consistent with the right to reproductive freedom, which, according to some, implies the right to choose what kind of children we will have (Brock, 1998, 145).

According to some, the main benefit of reproductive cloning is that it would enable prospective parents to control what genome their children will be endowed with (Fletcher, 1988, Harris, 1997, 2004; Pence 1998, 1016; Tooley, 1998). Cloning would enable parents to have a child with a genome identical to that of a person with good health and/or other desirable characteristics.

Another possible use of reproductive cloning is to create a child that is a tissue match for a sick sibling. The stem cells from the umbilical cord blood or from the bone marrow of the cloned child could be used to treat the diseased sibling. Such saviour siblings, have already been created through sexual reproduction or, more efficiently, through a combination of IVF, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and HLA testing.

Many people, however, have expressed concerns about human reproductive cloning. For some these concerns are sufficient to reject human cloning. For others, these concerns should be weighed against reasons for reproductive cloning.

What follows is an outline of some of the main areas of concern and disagreement about human reproductive cloning.

Despite the successful creation of viable offspring via SCNT in various mammalian species, researchers still have limited understanding of how the technique works on the subcellular and molecular level. Although the overall efficiency and safety of reproductive cloning in mammals has significantly increased over the past fifteen years, it is not yet a safe process (Whitworth & Prather, 2010). For example, the rate of abortions, stillbirths and developmental abnormalities remains high. Another source of concern is the risk of premature ageing because of shortened telomeres. Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences at the tip of chromosomes that get shorter as an animal gets older. When the telomeres of a cell get so short that they disappear, the cell dies. The concern is that cloned animals may inherit the shortened telomeres from their older progenitor, with possibly premature aging and a shortened lifespan as a result.

For many, the fact that reproductive cloning is unsafe provides a sufficient reason not to pursue it. It has been argued that it would simply be wrong to impose such significant health risks on humans. The strongest version of this argument states that it would be wrong now to produce a child using SCNT because it would constitute a case of wrongful procreation. Some adopt a consent-based objection and condemn cloning because the person conceived cannot consent to being exposed to significant risks involved in the procedure (Kass, 1998; PCBE, 2002). Against this, it has been argued that even if reproductive cloning is unsafe, it may still be permissible if there are no safer means to bring that very same child into existence so long as the child is expected to have a life worth living (Strong, 2005).

With the actual rate of advancement in cloning, one cannot exclude a future in which the safety and efficiency of SCNT will be comparable or superior to that of IVF or even sexual reproduction. A remaining question is, then, whether those who condemn cloning because of its experimental nature should continue to condemn it morally and legally. Some authors have reasoned that if, in the future, cloning becomes safer than sexual reproduction, we should even make it our reproductive method of choice (Fletcher, 1988; Harris 2004, Ch. 4).

Some fear that cloning threatens the identity and individuality of the clone, thus reducing her autonomy (Ramsey, 1966; Kitcher, 1997; Annas, 1998; Kass, 1998). This may be bad in itself, or bad because it might reduce the clone's wellbeing. It may also be bad because it will severely restrict the array of life plans open to the clone, thus violating her right to an open future (a concept developed by Feinberg, 1980). In its report Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, the US President's Council on Bioethics (2002) wrote that being genetically unique is an emblem of independence and individuality and allows us to go forward with a relatively indeterminate future in front of us (Ch.5, Section c). Such concerns have formed the basis of strong opposition to cloning.

The concern that cloning threatens the clone's identity and individuality has been criticized for relying on the mistaken belief that who and what we become is entirely determined by our genes. Such genetic determinism is clearly false. Though genes influence our personal development, so does the complex and irreproducible context in which our lives take place. We know this, among others, from studying monozygotic twins. Notwithstanding the fact that such twins are genetically identical to each other and, therefore, sometimes look very similar and often share many character traits, habits and preferences, they are different individuals, with different identities (Segal, 2000). Thus, it is argued, having a genetic duplicate does not threaten one's individuality, or one's distinct identity.

Brock (2002) has pointed out that one could nevertheless argue that even though individuals created through cloning would be unique individuals with a distinct identity, they might not experience it that way. What is threatened by cloning then is not the individual's identity or individuality, but her sense of identity and individuality, and this may reduce her autonomy. So even if a clone has a unique identity, she may experience more difficulties in establishing her identity than if she had not been a clone.

But here too critics have relied on the comparison with monozygotic twins. Harris (1997, 2004) and Tooley (1998), for example, have pointed out that each twin not only has a distinct identity, but generally also views him or herself as having a distinct identity, as do their relatives and friends. Moreover, so they argue, an individual created through cloning would likely be of a different age than her progenitor. There may even be several generations between them. A clone would thus in essence be a delayed twin. Presumably this would make it even easier for the clone to view herself as distinct from the progenitor than if she had been genetically identical to someone her same age.

However, the reference to twins as a model to think about reproductive cloning has been criticized, for example, because it fails to reflect important aspects of the parent-child relationship that would incur if the child were a clone of one of the rearing parents (Jonas, 1974; Levick, 2004). Because of the dominance of the progenitor, the risk of reduced autonomy and confused identity may be greater in such a situation than in the case of ordinary twins. Moreover, just because the clone would be a delayed twin, she may have the feeling that her life has already been lived or that she is predetermined to do the same things as her proge
nitor (Levy & Lotz 2005). This problem may be exacerbated by others constantly comparing her life with that of the progenitor, and having problematic expectations based on these comparisons. The clone may feel under constant pressure to live up to these expectations (Kass, 1998; Levick, 2004, 101; Sandel, 2007, 5762), or may have the feeling she leads a life in the shadow of the progenitor (Holm, 1998; PCBE, 2002, Ch.5). This may especially be the case if the clone was created as a replacement for a deceased child. (Some private companies already offer to clone dead pets to create replacements pets.) The fear is that the ghost of the dead child will get more attention and devotion than the replacement child. Parents may expect the clone to be like the lost child, or some idealized image of it, which could hamper the development of her identity and adversely affect her self-esteem (Levick, 2004, 111132). Finally, another reason why the clone's autonomy may be reduced is because she would be involuntarily informed about her genetic predispositions. A clone who knows that her genetic parent developed a severe single gene disease at the age of forty will realise it is very likely that she will undergo the same fate. Unlike individuals who choose to have themselves genetically tested, clones who know their genetic parent's medical history will be involuntarily informed.

These concerns have been challenged on several grounds. Some believe that it is plausible that, through adequate information, we could largely correct mistaken beliefs about the link between genetic and personal identity, and thus reduce the risk of problematic expectations toward the clone (Harris, 1997, 2004; Tooley 1998, 845; Brock, 1998, Pence, 1998). Brock (1998) and Buchanan et al. (2000, 198) have argued that even if people persist in these mistaken beliefs and their attitudes or actions lead to cloned individuals believing they do not have an open future, this does not imply that the clone's right to ignorance about one's personal future or to an open future has actually been violated. Pence (1998, 138) has argued that having high expectations, even if based on false beliefs, is not necessarily a bad thing. Parents with high expectations often give their children the best chances to lead a happy and successful life. Brock (2002, 316) has argued that parents now also constantly restrict the array of available life plans open to their children, for example, by selecting their school or by raising them according to certain values. Though this may somewhat restrict the child's autonomy, there will always be enough decisions to take for the child to be autonomous, and to realize this. According to Brock, it is not clear why this should be different in the case of cloning. He also points out that there may be advantages to being a delayed twin (154). For example, one may acquire knowledge about the progenitor's medical history and use this knowledge to live longer, or to increase one's autonomy. One could, for example, use the information to reduce the risk of getting the disease or condition, or to at least postpone its onset, by behavioral changes, an appropriate diet and/or preventive medication. This would not be possible, however, if the disease is untreatable (for example, Huntington's Disease). Harris (2004, Ch.1) has stressed that information about one's genetic predispositions for certain diseases would also allow one to take better informed reproductive decisions. Cloning would allow us to give our child a tried and tested genome, not one created by the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction and the random combination of chromosomes.

Cloning arouses people's imagination about the clone, but also about those who will choose to have a child through cloning. Often dubious motives are ascribed to them: they would want a child that is just like so-and-so causing people to view them as objects or as commodities like a new car or a new house (Putnam, 1997, 78). They would want an attractive child (a clone of Scarlett Johansson) or a child with tennis talent (a clone of Victoria Azarenka) purely to show off. Dictators would want armies of clones to achieve their political goals. People would clone themselves out of vanity. Parents would clone their existing child so that the clone can serve as an organ bank for that child, or would clone their deceased child to have a replacement child. The conclusion is then that cloning is wrong because the clone will be used as a mere means to others' ends. These critiques have also been expressed with regard to other forms of assisted reproduction; but some worry that individuals created through cloning may be more likely to be viewed as commodities because their total genetic blueprint would be chosen they would be fully made and not begotten (Ramsey, 1966; Kass 1998; PCBE 2002, 107).

Strong (2008) has argued that these concerns are based on a fallacious interference. It is one thing to desire genetically related children, and something else to believe that one owns one's children or that one considers one's children as objects, he writes. Other commentators, however, have pointed out that even if parents themselves will not commodify their children, cloning might still have an impact in society as a whole on people's tendencies to do so (Levy & Lotz, 2005; Sandel 2007). A related concern expressed by Levick (2004, 1845) is that allowing cloning might result in a society where production on demand clones are sold for adoption to people who are seeking to have children with special abilities a clearer case of treating children as objects.

But suppose some people create a clone for instrumental reasons, for example, as a stem cell donor for a sick sibling. Does this imply that the clone will be treated merely as a means? Critics of this argument have pointed out that parents have children for all kinds of instrumental reasons, including the benefit for the husband-wife relationship, continuity of the family name, and the economic and psychological benefits children provide when their parents become old (Harris 2004, 412, Pence 1998). This is generally not considered problematic as long as the child is also valued in its own right. What is most important in a parent-child relationship is the love and care inherent in that relationship. They stress the fact that we judge people on their attitudes toward children, rather than on their motives for having them. They also deny that there is a strong link between one's intention or motive to have a child, and the way one will treat the child.

Another concern is that clones may be the victims of unjustified discrimination and will not be respected as persons (Deech, 1999; Levick, 2004, 185187). Savulescu (2005, Other Internet Resources) has referred to such negative attitudes towards clones as clonism: a new form of discrimination against a group of humans who are different in a non-morally significant way. But does a fear for clonism constitute a good reason for rejecting cloning? Savulescu and others have argued that, if it is, then we must conclude that racist attitudes and discriminatory behavior towards people with a certain ethnicity provides a good reason for people with that ethnicity not to procreate. This, according to these critics, is a morally objectionable way to solve the problem of racism. Instead of limiting people's procreative liberty we should combat existing prejudices and discrimination. Likewise, it is argued, instead of prohibiting cloning out of concern for clonism, we should combat possible prejudices and discrimination against clones (see also Pence, 1998, 46; Harris, 2004, 9293). Macintosh (2005, 11921) has warned that by expressing cer
tain concerns about cloning one may actually reinforce certain prejudices and misguided stereotypes about clones. For example, saying that a clone would not have a personal identity prejudges the clone as inferior or fraudulent (the idea that originals are more valuable than their copies) or even less than human (as individuality is seen as an essential characteristic of human nature).

Another concern is that cloning threatens traditional family structures; a fear that has come up in debates about homosexuals adopting children, IVF and other assisted reproduction techniques. But in cloning the situation would be more complex as it may blur generational boundaries (McGee, 2000) and the clone would likely be confused about her kinship ties (Kass, 1998; O'Neil 2002, 6768). For example, a woman who has a child conceived through cloning would actually be the twin of her child and the woman's mother would, genetically, be its mother, not grandmother. Some have argued against these concerns, replying that a cloned child would not necessarily be more confused about her family ties than other children. Many have four nurturing parents because of a divorce, never knew their genetic parents, have nurturing parents that are not their genetic parents, or think that their nurturing father is also their genetic father when in fact he is not. While these complex family relationships can be troubling for some children, they are not insurmountable, critics say. Harris (2004, 7778) argues that there are many aspects about the situation one is born and raised in that may be troublesome. As with all children, the most important thing is the relation with people who nurture and educate them, and children usually know very well who these people are. There is no reason to believe that with cloning, this will be any different. Onora O'Neil (2002, 678) argues that such responses are misplaced. While she acknowledges that there are already children now with confused family relationships, she argues that it is very different when prospective parents seek such potentially confused relationships for their children from the start.

Other concerns related to cloning focus on the potential harmful effects of cloning for others. Sometimes these concerns are related to those about the wellbeing of the clone. For example, McGee's concern about confused family relationships not only bears on the clone but also on society as a whole. However, since I have already mentioned this concerns, I will, in the remainder of this entry, focus on other arguments

The strongest reason for why reproductive cloning should be permissible, if safe, is that it will allow infertile people to have a genetically related child. This position relies on the view that having genetically related children is morally significant and valuable. This is a controversial view. For example, Levy and Lotz (2005) have denied the importance of a genetic link between parents and their children. Moreover, they have argued that claiming that this link is important will give rise to bad consequences, such as reduced adoption rates and diminished resources for improving the life prospects of the disadvantaged, including those waiting to be adopted. Levick (2004, 185) and Ahlberg and Brighouse (2011) have also advanced this view. Since, according to these authors, these undesirable consequences would be magnified if we allowed human cloning, we have good reason to prohibit it. In response, Strong (2008) has argued that this effect is uncertain, and that there are other, probably more effective, ways to help such children or to prevent them from ending up in such a situation. Moreover, if cloning is banned, infertile couples may opt for embryo or gamete donation rather than adoption.

Another concern is that because cloning is an asexual way of reproducing it would decrease genetic variation among offspring and, in the long run, might even constitute a threat to the human race. The gene pool may narrow sufficiently to threaten humanity's resistance to disease (AMA, 1999, 6). In response, it has been argued that if cloning becomes possible, the number of people who will choose it as their mode of reproduction will very likely be too low to constitute a threat to genetic diversity. It would be unlikely to be higher than the rate of natural twinning, which, occurring at a rate of 3.5/1000 children, does not seriously impact on genetic diversity. Further, even if millions of people would create children through cloning, the same genomes will not be cloned over and over: each person would have a genetic copy of his or her genome, which means the result will still be a high diversity of genomes. Others argue that, even if genetic diversity were not diminished by cloning, a society that supports reproductive cloning might be taken to express the view that variety is not important. Conveying such a message, these authors say, could have harmful consequences for a multicultural society.

Some see the increase in control of what kind of genome we want to pass on to our children as a positive development A major concern, however, is that this shift from chance to choice will lead to problematic eugenic practices.

One version of this concern states that cloning would, from the outset, constitute a problematic form of eugenics. However, critics have argued that this is implausible: the best explanations of what was wrong with immoral cases of eugenics, such as the Nazi eugenic programs, are that they involved coercion and were motivated by objectionable moral beliefs or false non-moral beliefs. This would not necessarily be the case were cloning to be implemented now (Agar, 2004; Buchanan, 2007). Unlike the coercive and state-directed eugenics of the past, new liberal eugenics defends values such as autonomy, reproductive freedom, beneficence, empathy and the avoidance of harm. Enthusiasts of so-called liberal eugenics are interested in helping individuals to prevent or diminish the suffering and increase the well-being of their children by endowing them with certain genes.

Another version of the eugenics concern points out the risk of a slippery slope: the claim is that cloning will lead to objectionable forms of eugenicsfor example, coercive eugenicsin the future. After all, historical cases of immoral eugenics often developed from earlier well intentioned and less problematic practices (for a history of eugenics as well as an analysis of philosophical and political issues raised by eugenics, see Kevles, 1985 and Paul, 1995). According to Sandel (2007, Ch.5), for example, liberal eugenics might imply more state compulsion than first appears: just as governments can force children to go to school, they could require people to use genetics to have better children.

A related concern expressed by Sandel (2007, 527) that cloning, and enhancement technologies in general, may result in a society in which parents will not accept their child for what it is, reinforcing an already existing trend of heavily managed, high-pressure child-rearing or hyper-parenting. Asch and Wasserman (2005, 202) have expressed a similar concern; arguing that having more control over what features a child has can pose an affront to an ideal of unconditioned devotion. Another concern, most often expressed by disability rights advocates, is that if cloning is used to have better children, it may create a more intolerant climate towards the disabled and the diseased, and that such practices can express negative judgments about people with disabilities. This argument has also been advanced in the debate about selective abortion, prenatal testing, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Disagreement exists about whe
ther these effects are likely. For example, Buchanan et al. (2002, 278) have argued that one can devalue disability while valuing existing disabled people and that trying to help parents who want to avoid having a disabled child does not imply that society should make no efforts to increase accessibility for existing people with disabilities.

UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) was the first international instrument to condemn human reproductive cloning as a practice against human dignity. Article 11 of this Declaration states: Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted This position is shared by the World Health Organization, the European Parliament and several other international instruments. Critics have pointed out that the reference to human dignity is problematic as it is rarely specified how human dignity is to be understood, whose dignity is at stake, and how dignity is relevant to the ethics of cloning (Harris 2004, Ch.2, Birnbacher 2005, McDougall 2008,). Some commentators state that it is the copying of a genome which violates human dignity (Kass 1998); others have pointed out that this interpretation could be experienced as an offence to genetically identical twins, and that we typically do not regard twins as a threat to human dignity (although some societies in the past did), nor do we prevent twins from coming into existence. On the contrary, IVF, which involves in increased risk to have twins, is a widely accepted fertility treatment.

Human dignity is most often related to Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, namely the idea that we should never use a person merely as a means to an end. I have, however, already discussed this concern in section 4.2.2.

No unified religious perspective on human cloning exists; indeed, there are a diversity of opinions within each individual religious tradition. For an overview of the evaluation of cloning by the main religious groups see, for example, Cole-Turner (1997) and Walters (2004). For a specifically Jewish perspective on cloning, see, for example, Lipschutz (1999), for an Islamic perspective, Sadeghi (2007) and for a Catholic perspective, Doerflinger (1999).

Read the original post:

Cloning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of an original organism or thing.

A cloning in the biological sense, therefore, is a molecule, single cell (like bacteria, lymphocytes etc.) or multi-cellular organism that has been directly copied from and is therefore genetically identical to another living organism.

Sometimes this term can refer to "natural" clones made either when an organism is asexually reproduced by chance (as with identical twins), but in common parlance, a clone is an identical copy created intentionally.

Molecular cloning refers to the procedure of isolating a DNA sequence of interest and obtaining multiple copies of it in an organism.

Cloning is frequently employed to amplify DNA fragments containing genes, an essential step in their subsequent analysis.

Frequently, the term cloning is misleadingly used to refer to the identification of the chromosomal location of a gene associated with a particular phenotype of interest.

In practice, localisation of the gene does not always enable one to amplify the relevant genomic sequence.

Cloning of any DNA sequence involves the following four steps: amplification, ligation, transfection, and screening / selection.

Link:

Cloning - Science Daily

"I am a clone, I am not alone... If you had ever seen us you'd rejoice in your uniqueness And consider every weakness something special of your own" Robert Calvert (Hawkwind), "Spirit of the Age" In Speculative Fiction, being a clone absolutely sucks. It's enough to make a clone sing the blues. Though Real Life artificial clones have to start at conception and go through childhood all over again, and can even have phenotypes that vary from their parent, Speculative Fiction clones are like perfect meta-xerox copies of the cloned person. They are exactly like the target at the moment of cloning, (possibly excused by age acceleration) with all their forebearers' memories and skills, although their personalities can develop from there. As a result, many clones brood about how they're not "real," just hollow imitations of the original. The clones tend to deal with this rather badly. Some make desperate attempts to act different. Others go mad and try to murder the original to take their place. (Emphasis on "try" hardly any succeed.) If the clone is a main character, they will spend the whole show angsting about how they're the Tomato in the Mirror. Occasionally they will have powers just like the Artificial Human. This often just ups their feelings of alienation, though. But Fridge Logic kicks in and makes this Wangst when you realize that clones occur in Real Life all the time; they're called identical twins, and they generally don't have existential crises over it. That's for the lucky clones who are created properly. In many shows, cloning is an imprecise science, so there is a high probability that any clone will turn out to be an Evil Twin almost as high as the probability of creating an evil computer (Because everyone knows that Science Is Bad). Other unlucky clones will just have birth defects, Resurrection Sickness or be increasingly inexact duplicates. And that's for the clones who are just unlucky. The really unlucky clones have malevolent creators who can make custom clones grown in a vat, sometimes in bulk which are exact meta-xerox copies of the original except that they have fanatical loyalty to the creators. You can expect all that tinkering to make something Go Horribly Wrong, too. A clone like this is always considered highly expendable by their creator, except in rare cases where said Evilutionary Biologist has developed an attachment to it. Because of all this (or possibly as a cause of all this), clones get very little respect. Heroes who hesitate at killing intelligent life might still kill their evil clone. In the question of What Measure Is a Non-Human?, most clones rank somewhere between the Big Creepy-Crawlies and the Mecha-Mooks. Interestingly, on the question of What Measure Is a Non-Unique? the only clone that matters is the last one...provided the original is dead. This assumes the clone ever had a mind of its own, of course. Sometimes a clone is an Empty Shell without the original's soul, and exists only so that the creator can overwrite their mind and personality onto it in case of accident. In this case, it's more like coming Back from the Dead although if the clone has a mind of its own at the start, this is yet another reason its life sucks. And let's not debate how Our Souls Are Different, in which case clones (especially of the deceased) will be soulless abominations before God and nature. Some clones aren't biological clones at all they're robot doubles, or copies created by the good old transporter. These have more reason to be exact xerox copies but they get even less respect. Note that all instances of actual cloning in Real Life require a live animal of the same species with a womb to carry the cloned animal to term. Science fiction tends to ignore this requirement competely, which only enforces the Trope. Unrelated to Something Blues, and to cloning Proto Man (i.e. Blues). See also Scale of Scientific Sins and Creating Life. Closely related to Expendable Clone. Contrast with Clones Are People Too, where they do get to live their own lives. Warning: This trope is often introduced as a Plot Twist, so expect spoilers.

open/close all folders

Anime & Manga

Comic Books

Fanfic

"Are you an angel?" his voice is the sound of leaves brushing over a tombstone. This the awful question, because if he hadn't asked it, he would still love her. His eyes are so blue, so strange set into the roped scars on his head.

"I don't know," she says, and as soon as her voice sounds, she knows it is the wrong answer. The first time he asked, when she was five, she said she was whatever he wanted her to be. Her left arm had never mended right.

Celestia was ticked, let me tell you. I mean, just creating life like that, kind of a big deal. Didn't help that I was in the middle of a breakdown, you know, the usual 'am I real' kinda thing you read in sci-fi, but the gala went pretty good despite all that.

Films Live Action

Angier: "You have no idea how much courage it took to step into that machine every night, not knowing if I'd be the Prestige . . . or the man in the box."

Literature

Carib: You're [Leia] a sophisticated woman, a politician and diplomat, fully accustomed to dealing with the whole spectrum of sentient beings. And you're good at it. Yet you, too, feel uncomfortable in our presence. Admit it.

Cordelia: Half my genes run through your body, and my selfish genome is heavily evolutionarily pre-programmed to look out for its copies. The other half is copied from the man I admire most in all the worlds. The artistic combination of the two, shall we say, arrests my attention.

Live Action TV

Music

In the valley of silly clones, where the people turn to stone In the valley of silly clones, people made of styrofoam In the valley of silly clones, where the people die alone

Puppet Shows

Tabletop Games

Toys

Video Games

Web Comics

AyleeBot: According to the latest available galactic census data, blue-haired, Caucasian human males are now the largest single sapient ethnicity in the galaxy. You outnumber several entire sapient species.

McNinja: How'd it go? Did we do it?! Ben Franklin: You're one of the clones. Get in line. McNinja: Aw...

McNinja: So...you just cloned...a clone of me. But they...don't want to kill me? Clone: I am far too busy coming to terms with the existential dread of being a clone.

Web Original

Western Animation

Real Life

Read the original:

Cloning Blues - TV Tropes

Molecular Cloninghas served as the foundation of technical expertise in labs worldwide for 30 years. No other manual has been so popular, or so influential. Molecular Cloning, Fourth Edition, by the celebrated founding author Joe Sambrook and new co-author, the distinguished HHMI investigator Michael Green, preserves thehighly praised detail and clarity of previous editions and includes specific chapters and protocols commissioned for the book from expert practitioners at Yale, U Mass, Rockefeller University, Texas Tech, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Washington University, and other leading institutions. The theoretical and historical underpinnings of techniques are prominent features of the presentation throughout, information that does much to help trouble-shoot experimental problems.

For the fourth edition of this classic work, the content has been entirely recast to include nucleic-acid based methods selected as the most widely used and valuable in molecular and cellular biology laboratories.

Corechapters from the third edition have been revised to feature current strategies and approaches to the preparation and cloning of nucleic acids, gene transfer, and expression analysis. They are augmented by 12 new chapters which show how DNA, RNA, and proteins should be prepared, evaluated, and manipulated, and how data generation and analysis can be handled.

The new content includes methods for studying interactions between cellular components, such as microarrays, next-generation sequencing technologies, RNA interference, and epigenetic analysis using DNA methylation techniques and chromatin immunoprecipitation. To make sense of the wealth of data produced by these techniques, a bioinformatics chapter describes the use of analytical tools for comparing sequences of genes and proteins and identifying common expression patterns among sets of genes.

Building on thirty years of trust, reliability, and authority, the fourth edition of Molecular Cloning is the new gold standardthe one indispensable molecular biology laboratory manual and reference source.

Highlights of the new edition:

Praise for the previous edition:

Any basic research laboratory using molecular biology techniques will benefit from having a copy on hand of the newly published Third Edition of Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual...the first two editions of this book have been staples of molecular biology with a proven reputation for accuracy and thoroughness. The Scientist

In every kitchen there is at least one indispensable cookbook...Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual fills the same niche in the laboratory (with) information to help both the inexperienced and the advanced user. (It) has once again established its primacy as the molecular laboratory manual and is likely to be found on lab benches...around the world. Trends in Neurosciences

Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual has always been the laboratory mainstay for protocols and techniques. It has a pure-bred ancestry, and the new edition does not disappoint. (It) includes information panels at the end of each chapter that describe the principles behind the protocols.... The addition of this information extends Molecular Cloning from an essential laboratory resource into a new realm, one merging the previous prototype with a modern molecular monograph...the next generation of Molecular Cloning not only carries on the proud heritage of the first two editions but also admirably expands on that tradition to provide a truly essential laboratory manual. Trends in Microbiology

Link:

Molecular Cloning

Written by Patrick Dixon

Futurist Keynote Speaker: Posts, Slides, Videos - What is Human Cloning? How to Clone. But Ethical?

Human cloning: who is cloning humans and arguments against cloning (2007)

How human clones are being made - for medical research. Arguments for and against human cloning research. Why some people want to clone themselves or even to clone the dead (and not just cloning pets).

Why investors are moving away from human cloning and why human cloning now looks a last-century way to fight disease (2007)

Should we ban human cloning? Arguments against cloning

An abnormal baby would be a nightmare come true. The technique is extremely risky right now. A particular worry is the possibility that the genetic material used from the adult will continue to age so that the genes in a newborn baby clone could be - say - 30 years old or more on the day of birth. Many attempts at animal cloning produced disfigured monsters with severe abnormalities. So that would mean creating cloned embryos, implanting them and destroying (presumably) those that look imperfect as they grow in the womb. However some abnormalities may not appear till after birth. A cloned cow recently died several weeks after birth with a huge abnormality of blood cell production. Dolly the Sheep died prematurely of severe lung disease in February 2003, and also suffered from arthritis at an unexpectedly early age - probably linked to the cloning process.

Even if a few cloned babies are born apparently normal we will have to wait up to 20 years to be sure they are not going to have problems later -for example growing old too fast. Every time a clone is made it is like throwing the dice and even a string of "healthy" clones being born would not change the likelihood that many clones born in future may have severe medical problems. And of course, that's just the ones born. What about all the disfigured and highly abnormal clones that either spontaneously aborted or were destroyed / terminated by scientists worried about the horrors they might be creating.

A child grows up knowing her mother is her sister, her grandmother is her mother. Her father is her brother-in-law. Every time her mother looks at her, she is seeing herself growing up. Unbearable emotional pressures on a teenager trying to establish his or her identity. What happens to a marriage when the "father" sees his wife's clone grow up into the exact replica (by appearance) of the beautiful 18 year old he fell in love with 35 years ago? A sexual relationship would of course be with his wife's twin, no incest involved technically.

Or maybe the child knows it is the twin of a dead brother or sister. What kind of pressures will he or she feel, knowing they were made as a direct replacement for another? It is a human experiment doomed to failure because the child will NOT be identical in every way, despite the hopes of the parents. One huge reason will be that the child will be brought up in a highly abnormal household: one where grief has been diverted into makeing a clone instead of adjusting to loss. The family environment will be totally different than that the other twin experienced. That itself will place great pressures on the emotional development of the child. You will not find a child psychiatrist in the world who could possibly say that there will not be very significant emotional risk to the cloned child as a result of these pressures.

What would Hitler have done with cloning technology if available in the 1940s? There are powerful leaders in every generation who will seek to abuse this technology for their own purposes. Going ahead with cloning technology makes this far more likely. You cannot have so-called therapeutic cloning without reproductive cloning because the technique to make cloned babies is the same as to make a cloned embryo to try to make replacement tissues. And at the speed at which biotech is accelerating there will soon be other ways to get such cells - adult stem cell technology. It is rather crude to create a complete embryonic identical twin embryo just to get hold of stem cells to make - say - nervous tissue. Much better to take cells from the adult and trigger them directly to regress to a more primitive form without the ethical issues raised by inserting a full adult set of genes into an unfertilised egg.

Related news items:

Older news items:

Thanks for promoting with Facebook LIKE or Tweet. Really interested to hear your views. Post below.

Javacript is required for help and viewing images.

Reply to Trinity Heckathorn

Reply to the great cornholio

Reply to the great cornholio

Reply to the great cornholio

Reply to jazmine Smith =)

Reply to jazmine Smith =)

1

Read the original post:

Reasons Against Cloning - VIDEOS & ARTICLES