|
To those against it, cloning presents as much a moral problem as a
technical problem. For them, cloning is an affront to religious
sensibilities; it seems like "playing God," and interfering with the
natural process. There are, of course, more logical objections,
regarding susceptibility to disease, expense, and diversity. Others are
worried about the abuses of cloning. Cloning appears to be a powerful
force that can be exploited to produce horrendous results. Their basic
objections to cloning research are outlined here.
Cloning may reduce genetic variability, Producing many clones runs
the risk of creating a population that is entirely the same. This
population would be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease
could devastate the entire population. One can easily picture humans
being wiped out be a single virus, however, less drastic, but more
probable events could occur from a lack of genetic diversity. For
example, if a large percentage of an nation's cattle are identical
clones, a virus, such as a particular strain of mad cow disease, could
effect the entire population. The result could be catastrophic food
shortages in that nation.
Cloning may cause people to settle for the best existing animals,
not allowing for improvement of the species. In this way, cloning could
potentially interfere with natural evolution.
Cloning is currently an expensive process. Cloning requires large
amounts of money and biological expertise. Ian Wilmut and his
associates required 277 tries before producing Dolly. A new cloning
technique has recently been developed which is far more reliable.
However, even this technique has 2-3% success rate.
There is a risk of disease transfer between transgenic animals and
the animal from which the transgenes were derived. If an animal
producing drugs in its milk becomes infected by a virus, the animal may
transmit the virus to a patient using the drug.
Any research into human cloning would eventually need to be tested
on human. The ability to clone humans may lead to the genetic tailoring
of offspring. The heart of the cloning debate is concerned with the
genetic manipulation of a human embryo before it begins development. It
is conceivable that scientists could alter a baby's genetic code to
give the individual a certain color of eyes or genetic resistance to
certain diseases. This is viewed as inappropriate tampering with
"Mother Nature" by many ethicists.
Because clones are derived from an existing adult cell, it has older
genes. Will the clone's life expectancy be shorter because of this?
Despite this concern, so far, all clones have appeared to be perfectly
normal creatures.
A "genetic screening test" could be used to eliminate zygotes of a particular gender, without requiring a later abortion.
Cloning might be used to create a "perfect human," or one with above
normal strength and sub-normal intelligence, a genetic underclass.
Also, if cloning is perfected in humans, there would be no genetic need
for men.
Cloning might have a detrimental effect on familial relationships. A
child born from an adult DNA cloning of his father could be considered
a delayed identical twin of one of his parents. It is unknown as to how
a human might react if he or she knew he or she was an exact duplicate
of an older individual.
|
(0 vote)