Genetic Engineering Essay- Cloning

Cloning: A Blessing or a Curse?

Most of the time, when the word "cloning" is mentioned, there is a very negative connotation attached to it. In fact, people tend to feel very strongly, one way or another, about the issue itself. Those who condone the practice hope that the human way of life will be dramatically improved by the successful cloning of organs and tissues for repair and donation. They also feel that reproductive problems that keep couples from having children could be resolved, and defective genes that cause illness and disease could be eliminated. On the flip side, those who oppose the idea of cloning fear that the human race is "playing god"; it is not right to interfere with the natural way of life because the technology is too new, and therefore, the long-term negative effects are unknown. The debate is very interesting, and I for one, am able to empathize with both views.

There are many ways that cloning could be beneficial. As I mentioned earlier, new tissues and organs can be grown from embryonic stem cells to replace or repair those that are damaged. Obviously, this would be great, because people would no longer have to die while waiting for a donor. Skin could be manufactured for those with severe burns, cloned brain cells may actually help those with brain damage, and spinal cord cells may actually be engineered to help someone who has never walked do just that. Scientists are confident that they can actually help combat the number one killer in the U.S.: heart disease. This would be done by cloning healthy heart cells and injecting them into those with heart disease so that they can replicate and replace the damaged cells. Couples who are heartbroken because they are infertile might have the chance to actually have their own children, should human cloning occur. Heck, it is even said that, with cloning, aging can be reversed! Perhaps the strongest argument in support of cloning is the one that asserts we may even be able to get rid of defective genes all together, thus eliminating numerous diseases, even some that are fatal. Imagine if there was never another child who was born into a miserable life because he or she has Tay-sachs disease. It is exciting to think of all of the developments that could occur to create a better way of life for Americans.
However, cloning presents a moral dilemna that is hard to ignore. Are we not taking nature into our own hands when we decide that we can control the process of life and death? Is the advancement of science worth taking the potential of life (embryonic stem cells) away? One of the main concerns regarding cloning is that it upsets the basic notion that humans are all different. Cloning would definitely reduce the variability present in our genes because the gene would be copied and reproduced. IE., producing many clones would create a population that is essentially the same. Because the genetic makeup would be the same in all of these clones, a single disease could destroy them all. Cloning would interfere with evolution, because each clone is a copy of the first. Suppose the human race became comfortable with one type of cow: that species would continue to be copied and not allowed to evolve into something potentially better. Also, cloning is still extremely experimental! It took scientists 277 tries before Dolly the sheep was cloned. Even though it was considered successful, the poor animal had to be put down at approx. six years of age because of her lung cancer and paralyzing arthritis. Cloning, as of now, results in many severe abnormalities, and therefore, a terrible quality of life for the clone. Cloning could even lead to the willful genetic tailoring of offspring. It is not inconceivable that people will someday be able to choose exactly what their child will look like. SCARY! Again, this leads to a lack of diversity and much to much control over what should be a natural process: a miracle. Shouldn't some things just be left to the natural way? Oh, and here's a kicker: if cloning were perfected, there would be no genetic need for men, because they would not be needed for reproduction!

This is obviously a "loaded" debate, and I can understand why. As in everything else in life, humans bring their own experiences with them when they decide to support or reject an idea, or a way of life. If someone in my family were really sick, and cloning might save his life, I can assure you I would be a proponent of cloning to save my loved one. However, I also understand that humans tend to mess things up. The potential for harm using this technological breakthrough is overwhelming.