Is Cloning Ethical and Should it be Pursued?

When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. The controversy over cloning begins with the ethics of it and confusion over how it works. The general questions raised may be some of the following: If you had a clone would it be your child or your delayed twin? Does a clone have a soul? What about all the duds? What about creating clones for organs? Who should decide who is cloned? Who should have access to cloning technology – only people with good genes? Who should pay for the cloning? Should we be able to use this technology to design our children? (Gattaca) Who does genetic information belong to? Should people with genetic diseases be cured? Should they have children?

In 2002, President Bush stated “Cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another” President Bush pushed for a complete ban; he believed human cloning was morally wrong. However, some lawmakers believe that human cloning is OK when it's done to advance medical science. A few scientists and doctors want to clone humans primarily for therapeutic research or reproduction. Scientists who do therapeutic research look for new ways of curing disease. Bush and other scientists and ethicists argue that it is not clear whether there will be medical benefits from therapeutic human cloning. The possibility of wiping out some diseases is the chief reason many scientists and politicians argue that totally banning human cloning is wrong. The leader of the U.S. Senate, Democrat Tom Daschle says that he is opposed to cloning humans, but he differs strongly with the president on the "need to allow science and research to cure disease." Beyond government lawmakers, many have come out supporting cloning research. More than 40 Nobel Laureates issued a statement saying that a total ban, like what the president wants would have a chilling effect on scientific research.

There are many medical advantages of cloning. Instead of creating cloned babies, researchers want to use somatic cell nuclear transfer, the same process used to clone Dolly the sheep in 1997, to create embryonic stem cells. The cloned cells would be genetically identical to the patient's own, so they could replace part of an ailing brain or heart without touching off a full-scale attack from the patient's immune system. But creating a cloned embryo requires human egg cells, and egg cells aren't cheap. I believe continued research on cloning should be allowed. If medical advances are possible, and no one is being harmed during the research, there are no cons.