Animal and Human Cloning

Posted: March 27th, 2020

Animal and Human Cloning

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Animal and Human Cloning

Introduction

The process of genetic cloning refers to the development of organisms that possess the same genetic copy, i.e., all aspects of their DNA are identical. Cloning occurs naturally among animals, for example in the case of identical twins. However, scientists have commercialized and exploited cloning in the laboratory setting. Reproductive cloning involves acquiring a cell from the cloned organism. The DNA originating from the donor cell is then relocated to an egg whose DNA has been extracted. This additional DNA is then activated, after which the cell develops into an embryo that is then transferred to finish its term inside a surrogate female. After the gestation period is complete, the surrogate will give birth to a cloned organism. The new cell is a genetic copy of its original donor. The scientific process of cloning is beneficial as it maximizes the regeneration of animal populations. The cloned animals are useful for drug and cosmetic tests. Many other benefits exist that justify the development and usage of this scientific procedure. However, reproductive cloning is marred by considerable challenges and complications. In addition, cloned animals have exhibited genetic diseases that are comparable to naturally reproduced animals. Despite the numerous potential benefits that cloning holds for science and agriculture, there is need to refine the existing technology before it can be commercialized.

The topic is important, as cloning has presented several massive opportunities to the healthcare sector. It holds the potential to alter major aspects of a country including its population, workforce, genetic predisposition, and expenditure on health and other social amenities. It is for this reason that cloning technology has attracted significant attention. For instance, cloning can drastically change the way in which the medical fraternity deals with fatal diseases. Across sectors such as the military and labor, cloning technology confers the ability to produce human beings that are more efficient. Most of the studies done on cloning have been experimental in nature where scientists experiment with diverse biochemical approaches with the intention of producing sustainable organisms. In the past, controversy has emerged over the ethical use of cloning technology to produce new animal and plant species.

The initial attempts at cloning were recorded in 1938 when Hans Spemann, in an experiment, replaced the nucleus in an egg with a foreign nucleus. Later, in1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas King tried to substitute an egg cell from a frog but the test failed (Pence, 2015). By 1970, many other scientists, such as John Gurdon, successfully managed to clone a frog. Gurdon’s efforts were groundbreaking since the cloned cell managed to grow into a tadpole before dying (Pence, 2015). Over the years, the experiments evolved and shifted to the use of cells from mice rather than frogs. As late as 1994, scientific progress in cloning did not deliver expected results. Neal First attempted to clone a sheep’s cell and only managed to reproduce 120 cells. Most of the progress in this field of science and medicine was very slow because of the limited research facilities.

The year 1995 marked another significant advancement for cloning. Two sheep – Moran and Megan – were successfully cloned. The pair was the first set of cloned animals that were the result of a different approach from the previous efforts in that the scientists used nuclei transfer. The main changes that were implemented by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell involved collecting the nucleus from a cell culture (Pence, 2015). The approach was a significant deviation from gathering cells from living animals. Wilmut and Campbell were also responsible for cloning Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal that originated from an adult animal. Between the years 1998 and 2002, different scientists successfully cloned various animals including rhesus monkeys, mice, pigs, cows, and buffalos. In 2009, scientists managed to clone an animal from the cells of an extinct species (Pence, 2015). However, the cloned Pyrenean ibex died of pulmonary complications.

Arguments Supporting Cloning

Many benefits are evident in the practice of cloning within scientific circles. For one, it is a practical solution for families struggling with infertility. Previous efforts to overcome infertility such as In vitro fertilization (IVF) have proven to be largely ineffective (Smith, Bordignon, Babkine, Fecteau, & Keefer, 2014). Women experiencing challenges with fertility have to rely on human cloning. Use of cloning as a solution for infertility has faced oppositions from stakeholders such as governments, religious organizations, and other interest groups in the community. However, cloning may be the only solution for families facing issues of infertility and thus the need regulate rather than ban it. In this way, the state can allow infertile couples to enjoy the comfort of a family using this innovation. Based on such a benefit, human cloning may become more acceptable as technology is refined to address some of the concerns raised (Smith et al., 2014). As such, the technology may help address the needs of families that want genetically related offspring but struggle with reproductive failure. Most of such couples have sexual conditions that still lack medical cures (Tsekos & Bissa, 2017). With advancements already in place, cloning is one of the most convenient ways of having a biological child. When compared to other modes of procreation, human cloning has a higher percentage of positive outcomes compared to other infertility treatments (Keefer, 2015). The alternative treatments such as in vitro fertilization, cell transplants, and insemination have risky consequences including high mortality rates, deformation, and disability. It would thus be prudent to avoid using large sums of money on ineffective medical procedures (Ayala, 2015). Human cloning represents the only option for a wide variety of people within the community including barren women, gay couples, and single mothers who find it impossible to have their own children because of biological challenges.

Apart from reproductive cloning that can help resolve issues with infertility, gene cloning may be useful in treating various hereditary diseases. Genes responsible for conditions such as Down’s syndrome and Huntington’s disease can be identified and separated during the cloning process. The lives of many children can be saved through this technological innovation, as it will ensure that cases of congenital disabilities and mortality rates are reduced significantly. The majority of genetic diseases are inherited from parents and they later manifest as severe complications. The most common conditions include sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sach, and cystic fibrosis. The origin of these conditions is in the parents who carry the recessive gene for the specific genetic disorder (Tsekos & Bissa, 2017). Therefore, if such parents have a child, the offspring will have a higher likelihood of displaying a fatal disease. When such children are allowed to live with such incurable diseases, it places great financial pressure on the household. Many of the parents have to give these special children extra care even though their survival rate is low. It is essential to provide a lasting medical solution for households with recurrent cases of such fatal diseases, and this is where human cloning comes in. The approach is one of the most effective methods of selecting and eliminating the defective gene. The process can also stop the recurrent cases of such diseases within the lineage.

The ability of therapeutic cloning to overcome challenges that limit use of transplants to treat conditions also supports the development of human cloning. One of these challenges during transplantation is the lack of immunocompatibility between the donor and recipient and thus leading to the rejection of the transplanted organ or tissue. As Hochedlinger and Jaenisch (2003) observed, therapeutic cloning may be used to develop stem cells and tissue that are compatible with the recipient’s immune system and thus eliminate cases of transplant rejection. This potential would help in the treatment of blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and diabetes whose treatment faces the challenge of immunocompatibility. Further, unlike reproductive cloning which faces issues with inadequate genetic programming of the nucleus, such issues have not been noted in therapeutic cloning, which has been shown to select effectively for functional genes (Hochedlinger & Jaenisch, 2003). As such, therapeutic cloning offers a novel approach for treating ailments that require transplant without bringing about the complications associated with transplantation.

Arguments against Cloning

            While the arguments discussed above support the practice of cloning, there are an equally convincing set of disputes against this practice. The massive health risks associated with engaging in human cloning should discourage anyone from considering it as an option. It is very common for abnormal offspring to be born from cloning. Specifically for reproductive cloning, as Hochedlinger and Jaenisch (2003) highlighted, there have been challenges in activating genes responsible for embryonic development without activating those required for differentiation during the early stages of embryo development. Such error-prone mechanism has contributed to high cases of abnormalities for clones that arise from the process. The approach in itself is extremely risky on various levels (Wright, 2018). A specific concern is the likelihood that the genetic material collected from adult humans will continue to grow. In this way, it is possible that an offspring conceived through cloning can collect DNA information from their donor cells. Numerous cloning efforts using DNA from animals have resulted in disfigured offspring with severe abnormalities (Nisbet, 2016). Further, within the commercial healthcare setting, there are concerns that scientists may clone a large number of embryos and consequently destroy the deformed ones as they develop within the lab. This approach is inhumane, and may even fail to capture some of the abnormalities that emerge after birth.

            While cloning has resulted in the successful formation of independent living cells, there is still the issue of complete genetic construction. While a few cases such as Dolly’s have been successful, most of the previous attempts at cloning resulted in either death, paralysis, or total organ malfunction (Tsekos & Bissa, 2017). The results indicate that while the process holds great potential for scientific progress, much more work needs to be done in refining the technology before it can be commercialized. In its current state, the information on human cloning and genetic alteration is still insufficient to make an absolute conclusion about the outcome of each procedure. For this reason, cloning should be reserved for experimental purposes until major positive strides can be made in the discipline.

            Another reason for rejecting the continued usage of cloning for reproduction is the possibility of unscrupulous individuals abusing this technology. The utilization of cloning methods may open up the world to completely new approaches towards biochemistry. It is highly possible for this type of technology to be exploited for unethical purposes. In the military, access to such technology would be misused to generate thousands of soldiers to be used in wars. In under-populated countries, cloning may be abused to create the much-needed workforce to drive the economy. These and other examples show the real potential of cloning technology in the absence of a moral compass.

            Investing in an improvement of the existing cloning technology increases the chances of making the potential to clone a reality. Closely related to this argument is that embracing cloning technology in its current state would transform childbearing into a commercial activity (Jensen, 2016). For parents, it becomes not just a matter of producing children but determining different optimal aspects of their physical composition. In so doing, there is a possibility that parents may be inclined to handpick the perfect child rather than letting nature takes its course. Given that cloning demands recreating an existing genetic code, prospective parents have the option of selecting their child’s DNA. A more worrying implication of such an approach is that parents may consider their cloned children as property rather than fully fledged individuals. This is because cloning strips the embryo of its humanity. Cloning is, for all purposes, an artificial conception that detaches the human aspect from all embryos. Consequently, children originating from the cloning process may be denied their full rights like other ordinary children borne through conventional conception.

Conclusion

Personally, I support the move to increase focus on cloning technology. The analysis into cloning technology has revealed that it is a popular and fast-growing area within biochemistry. Scientists are interested in understanding more about animal genetics. They are also concerned with developing new ways to clone human beings and other animals successfully. So far, most cloning efforts have generated mixed results. Cloned animals may live, but they display signs of deformity, organ failure, and even disability. As such, while cloning technology is an excellent innovation that will no doubt change many aspects of life, there is need to consider the moral implications of embracing cloning in the lives of human beings. Additional information is necessary on the way in which the value of life will change after human cloning becomes an acceptable procedure.

References

Ayala, F. J. (2015). Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(29), 8879–8886

Hochedlinger, K., & Jaenisch, R. (2003). Nuclear transplantation, embryonic stem cells, and the potential for cell therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 275-86.

Jensen, E. A. (2016). The therapeutic cloning debate: Global science and journalism in the public sphere. New York, NY: Routledge.

Keefer, C. L. (2015). Artificial cloning of domestic animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(29), 8874-8878. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501718112

Nisbet, M. (2016). The controversy over stem cell research and medical cloning. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved from https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/controversy_over_stem_cell_research_and_medical_cloning

Pence, G. E. (2015). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Smith, L. C., Bordignon, V., Babkine, M., Fecteau, G., & Keefer, C. (2014). Benefits and problems with cloning animals. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 41(12), 919–924.

Tsekos, C. A., & Bissa, M. N. (2017). Two important issues in environmental ethics: Cloning and genetic engineering. Voice of the Publisher, 3, 34-41. https://doi.org/10.4236/vp.2017.33004

Wright, D. W. M. (2018). Cloning animals for tourism in the year 2070. Futures, 95, 58-75.