Evolution of love

Cloning

Cloning:

The ethics of human cloning has become a great issue over the past few years. The advocates for both sides of the issue have many reasons to clone or not to clone. A recent poll has shown the differences in opinions with half as many women as men approving of the process. Many people find it strange to see such a clear difference between men and women with twenty-six percent of men favouring cloning.

So, what is cloning? It has been defined as “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer”. You take an egg and remove its nucleus, which contains the DNA/genes. Then you take the DNA from an adult cell and insert it into the egg, either by fusing the adult cell with the enucleated egg, or by a sophisticated nuclear transfer. You then stimulate
the reconstructed egg electrically or chemically and try to make it start to divide and become an embryo. You then use the same process to implant the egg into a surrogate mother that you would use with artificial insemination. What cloning does is that it copies the DNA/genes of the person and creates a genetic duplicate. The person will not be a Xerox copy. He or she will grow up in a different environment than the clone, with different experiences and different
opportunities. Genetics does not wholly define a person and the personality.

In February 1997, when embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at Roslin Institute in Scotland were able to clone a lamb named Dolly, the world was introduced to a new possibility and will never be the same again. Before this, cloning was thought to be impossible, but now there is living proof that the technology and knowledge to clone animals exist. Questions began
to arise within governments and scientific organisations and they began to respond. Are humans next? Is it possible to use this procedure to clone humans also? Would anyone actually try? What can we learn if we clone humans? How will this affect the world? These are only a few of the questions that have surfaced and need answering. A whole new concept in ethics was created when the birth of Dolly was announced.

When the cells used for cloning are stem cells, we are talking about cells that are pluripotential. This means that they have the capacity to develop into any of the numerous differentiated cell types that make up the body. Early embryonic cells are pluripotent and a limited number of stem cells are also found in adults, in bone marrow for instance. There is an important distinction to be made between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning would be exactly like Dolly; it would involve the creation of a cloned embryo which would then be implanted into a womb to develop to term and the birth of a clone. On the other hand, therapeutic cloning involves the use of pluripotent cells to repair damaged tissue, such as found after strokes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries.

There is evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic cloning as shown by work involving the introduction of stem cells into the brain of patients suffering from brain diseases, when the cells which have been added differentiate to form nerve cells which can in turn then lead to recovery of the lost function. In the US, foetal human cells have been similarly used though recent reports indicate that the results so far are disappointing. However, apart from the ethical problems associated with the use of foetal cells in this way, there are simply not enough cells available for it to be an effective treatment, since it needs the cells from three foetuses to treat one patient.

FAfter Dolly, governments began to take control and make laws before anything drastic could ever happen. Several ethics committees were asked to decide whether scientists should be allowed to try to clone humans. In the United States, the Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended a five-year moratorium on cloning a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer. In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission have approved human cloning for therapeutic purposes, but not to clone children. Many organisations have come out and stated their opinions also. Amongst all this ethical defining, many people are being ignored by the governments. People are speaking out about what they want done.

Historically, we find that many a great medical breakthrough, now rightly seen as a blessing, was in its own time condemned by bio-conservative moralists. Such was the case with anesthesia during surgery and childbirth. People argued that it was unnatural and that it would weaken our moral fiber. Such was also the case with heart transplantation's and with in vitro fertilization. It was said children created by IVF would be dehumanized and would suffer grave psychological harm. Today, of course, anesthesia is taken for granted; heart transplantation is seen as one of medicine’s glories and the public approval rate of IVF is up from 15% in the early seventies to over 70% today.