Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning
Abstract and introduction
Pose the critical question for deliberation:

Is animal clothing ethical?

Does the humanity really understand what cloning is and which consequences will it lead to?

How would we know that cloning is successful?
The state of animal cloning science
Make the timeline of the events
1995 – the first successful attempt at cloning two lambs in Scotland.
1997 – an attempt to manufacture protein Factor IX to treat hemophilia.
1998-2005 – genetic modifications of agricultural animals.
2000 – cloning of a sheep with the intention of treating alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency leading to emphysema.
2001 – cloning of a gaur (endangered type of wild ox) that died in infancy from dysentery unrelated to cloning
procedure.
2002 – cloning of cows resistant to brucellosis.
2003 – work on cloning goats with less fatty milk, chickens with no feathers, pigs with less phosphorus in
manure; bucks with larger antlers.
2004 – launch of a cloning project of pigs with genetically altered hearts in Korea.
(2-3 people) Consequence-Based Arguments Against Animal Cloning p. 331-334
Topic sentence1: The minimal suffering of a limited number of kettle may be outwaved by a treatment benefits
to human beings and animals that can be derived.
Argument 1: Animal cloning science ought not to be condemned for causing animal pain and suffering if that
same level of pain is morally permissible outside biotechnology research.
Evidence: cloning is not more morally wrong than animal manufacturing or pharmaceutical industry.
Your opinion: I’m strictly against that position because developing industry will inevitably increase already
existing level of animal suffering many times. I also condemn all the industries where animals are used so it
makes this argument inconsistent – it is totally wrong even to compare levels of suffering of animals in one
industry or another. No living being must suffer because of someone else’s intention.
1
A topic sentence is a sentence, sometimes at the beginning of a paragraph, that states or suggests the main idea (or topic) of a
paragraph.
1
MY PART (1 person) Consequence-Based Arguments Against Animal Cloning p. 334-335
Topic sentence: Animal cloning will negatively affect the lives of non-cloned animals.
Argument 2: There will be millions of unwanted living pets because of produced twins of deceased pets.
Argument 3: Money and energy spent on animal cloning is a terrible waste of financial and intellectual
resources which could be put into other gravely important global problems.
Argument 4: Moral status of animals will be so low that it will inevitably cause cruelty to them.
Evidence: According to ASPCA (the organization that concerns pets), in 2003 8-12 million animals entered
shelters in the US, 60-70% of them were euthanized. In 2003 there were 70 million stray dogs/cats in the USA.
These numbers constantly grow with the course of time.
Your opinion: I see two aspects of this problem: from the personal and general points of view. Judging a
certain person’s point of view, I would be happy if my beloved pet lives forever and stays with me for my entire
life. But judging the whole situation with pets in the world, where so many of them suffer because of human
cruelty, I’d rather spare another life and try to make it better than clone the very same animal. Of course, a great
work with public consciousness must be held. We must raise awareness of the problem of homeless pets, we
must create more shelters with more comfortable conditions for them, and we must propagate the fact that
people can adopt a pet rather than buying it, but first and foremost, we must never leave alone those who are
dependent on us.
Animal cloning should never be accessible to public.
(2 people) Consequence-Based Arguments Against Animal Cloning p. 335-337
Topic sentence: Animal cloning might not only have negative consequences for the environment, but also for
human beings.
Arguments 5: Negative consequences for the environment.
Evidence: Using animal cloning for conservation purposes: history has shown that temperate ecosystem has
often wreaked havoc on the animal and plant life; bringing rabbits to Australia resulted in overpopulation of
them. Cloning of livestock proposes hard regulation terms.
Argument 6: Negative consequences for human beings.
Evidence: If primate cloning is successful, it will not take much time to clone humans (China and South Korea
already have human cloning programs). Products from cloned animals may not be safe to eat (according to
FDA, we don’t have enough evidences to state that it is safe).
Your opinion: Cloning will certainly cause the chaos in all nature and humanity lives as we might not be able
to predict and control natural processes. Nature forces are immense and infinite; in the end, nature always takes
over. Primate cloning has already posed more serious threats to the humanity as our consciousness aren’t ready
for cloned human individuals.
2
(2 people) Principle-Based Arguments Against Animal Cloning p. 337-339
Topic sentence: People shouldn’t play gods and be builders of new life.
Argument 1: Animal cloning is wrong from the religious point of view, as it is a hubristic attempt by human
beings to be divine.
Argument 2: Secular version: we dehumanize ourselves and devalue the natural world.
Evidence: no real evidences.
Your opinion: I don’t think that the Bible and other holy books can be a profound source of solutions to this
serious problem. With technologies advancing, we can’t rely on it anymore as even planes and cars are miracles
for the Bible. On the other hand, holy books may represent the moral aspect of cloning, but again: where is the
prohibition that we can’t create stated?
(2 people) Principle-Based Arguments For Animal Cloning p. 339-341
Topic sentence: cloning doesn’t negate the intrinsic value of animals and is considered to be subject a fraud
and false promising.
Argument 1: Cloning doesn’t bring animal commodification to some higher extent as the same breeding of
livestock.
Evidence:
Your opinion: I’m strictly against that position because developing industry will inevitably increase already
existing level of animal suffering many times. I also condemn all the industries where animals are used so it
makes this argument inconsistent – it is totally wrong even to compare levels of suffering of animals in one
industry or another. No living being must suffer because of someone else’s intention.
Conclusion
Do consequence-based and principle-based objections to cloning science constitute a serious critique? Why?
All these objections and rejoinders do constitute a serious critique as they clearly show both moral (how can we
stand animal suffering?), biological (cloned livestock and products from it are harmful) and social (primate
cloning will lead to human cloning) threats. The article obviously state that the humanity/society are not ready
to the consequences animal cloning is leading to.
Is your view more negative than positive? Why?
My view on the problem of animal cloning is totally negative, as reaching prospective benefits seem more like a
wild-goose chase, while negative consequences are already present nowadays.
3
Deliberation Guide
Deliberation (meaningful discussion) is the focused exchange of ideas and the analysis of arguments with the
aim of making a decision.
Please, choose the number. Circle one
Was it difficult to read an article on your cell phone?
1
2
3
4
5
Yes
No
Did you manage the questions for deliberation posed at the beginning of the discussion?
1
2
3
4
5
Yes
No
Which number best describes your understanding of the focus issue?
1
2
3
4
5
No deeper
Much deeper
understanding
understanding
Do you need to work on to improve your personal deliberation skills?
1
Yes
2
3
4
5
No
4