Cloning Controversy

Medical Miracle or Murder?


Biotechnology has finally been developed enough to clone homo sapiens and animalia alike by putting a donor's somatic cell into an oocyte that had it's own DNA nucleus removed. After the first mammal, Dolly the sheep, was successfully cloned, federal funding was cut off from stem cell research under the Bush administration because of the ethics of degrading life. The overall debate is that cloning can create a new being with identical organs and an identical mind as its donor, however it destroys the removed DNA of the original nucleus, and in technicality kills the potential of a new life. At the same time though, the DNA is not life yet. Some even argue that because any cell in the human body has the potential to become human life, should it be considered as conception?


Cloning and biology has always been a personal interest of mine; in particular, I have interest in the stages of life from cell to fetus to human. It's interesting to consider how this concept, although studied for hundreds of years, still remains a mystery. Scientists still don't understand how cells have become so sophisticated that they can organize themselves into complex beings complete with unique organ structures and an inquisitive thought process. In terms of cloning, I found an interesting video about the cloning of extinct animals at a young age. At the time I didn't understand how this was done, but now that I'm a little older and have developed a greater understanding, cloning seems like a more and more beneficial process in most of its branches.


Cloning is a beneficial process because it can revive extinct animals, help ecosystems, and benefit research on diseases. Many counterarguments evoke that the overall removal of DNA cells takes away the potential of a human life; however, with this type of thinking, a woman's menstrual cycle could also be considered to take away the potential of human life. The only main difference is the use of biotechnology. In general, women lose roughly twelve egg cells every year during their periods, and multiplied by the number of years until menopause, that's about six hundred 'lost lives' a lifetime for each non impregnated individual. This natural process gives no potential, so why is it not considered murder and banned? People could go with this and argue "but it's artificial technology." It is artificial technology, but the overall 'degradation' is no different than that of a natural process; the nucleus has a potential, but is not a life. Benefits extend past this as well, extinct animals can now be revived and can help balance ecosystems. As of now, Global Warming is heating the Earth too fast for species to evolve, furthermore this process can preserve life by reintroducing specific specimens to try and revive the damage done.
Big image

Works Cited

Tierney, John. "Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Nov. 2007. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

"Cloning: A Study in News Production." Cloning: A Study in News Production. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

"Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Em." Bryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

"Human Cloning." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

"Benefits of Human Cloning." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.


"2.0-Cloning Controversy _ Evaluation." 11ABCDNgppENGLISH -. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

"Stem-cells." Stem-cells. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

Fiona Macrae for the Daily Mail. "Embryo from Skin Cells: Cloning Era Closer after Men's DNA Put into Egg." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.