Butler 1
Brandon Butler
Crown 80A
Kristin Conard 11:00-12:10
2 December 2011
Cloned Imperfection
Over the past few decades, the subject of stem cell research has been the topic of debates
around the world. In the blink of an eye, clones, perfect children, and immortality are no longer a
myth told by elders around campfires. Through various techniques, scientists are able to better
the lives of those living, but at what cost? In their articles “Cloning Human Beings: An
Assessment of Pro and Con,” by author Dan W. Brock; “The Ethical Implications of Guman
Cloning,” by Michael J. Sandel; “Theriputic Human Cloning Is Ethical,” by Ian Wilmut and
Roger Highfield; and various other articles, each author discusses his or her view on the morality
of stem cell research and its use for human cloning. Kantian deontology is defined as treating the
individual as more than a means for an end. (Hinman 23). In other words, people ought to act in
a way as to not violate the individual’s rights and to treat him or her respectfully. Though the
cost may be great, the use of human stem cell research in the growing world of science would be
beneficial so long as certain moral guidelines were put in place to limit the abuse of technologies
and only allow said procedures to take place when they do not violate the autonomy of a human
being.
The use of stem cell research and cloning to personalize the medical world would allow
doctors to more accurately treat sickness and disease in each individual. As World Health
Organization introduces in their section on the justifications of nonreproductive cloning:
Butler 2
“Scientists engaged in cloning for research argue that it presents a unique method for studying
genetic changes in cells derived from patients suffering from such diseases as Parkinson’s
disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes” (WHO 129). Genetic differences in diseased
patients can be traced and linked together through the use of stem cells and can then be
interpreted for a cure. Through this, doctors will be able to create more personalized medicine
that attains to each individual and reduces the risk of complication. In addition, in his section on
cloning for medical treatments, Highfield states, “One day doctors will be able to use cloning to
grow a patient’s own cells and tissues and tissues to carry out repairs” (Highfield 163). No
longer will patients have to wait in hope that a donor will become available for their damaged
organ. Doctors will be able to grow the perfect organ matched for the individual, eliminating the
chance of rejection, and alleviating the struggle many transplant patients face with rejection
medication. While cloning organs and tissues to repair the body would be beneficial in the
medical world, doctors must be careful not to let the power slip into the wrong hands.
Some extremists of stem cell research argue that with the ability to clone new life, one is
capable of achieving immortality. Author Hayry states in his section “Considerable Life
Extension and the Meaning of Life” that, “Three factors contribute to human mortality, namely,
trauma, disease, and aging” (Hayry 183). The human body, in some cases, is only a vessel
carrying one through his or her life. With the ability to replenish and repair the building blocks of
the vessel through the cloning of organs, tissues or the human body; its lifespan can be greatly
increased. In addition as Brock states in his section on social benefits of cloning, “Human
cloning would enable the duplication of individuals of great talent, genius, character, or other
exemplary qualities” (Brock 139). In addition to brining back people of the past, people who felt
that their legacy should live on would be able to clone themselves to take their place when they
Butler 3
pass on. While they themselves wouldn’t be living eternally, their genetic replicas would.
However, while clones may be a genetic match to the original patient, they would not share the
same minds. No matter how closely you are able to clone an individual, the clone will never be
the same person as the original. As Wilmut argues in his section on natural clones, or identical
twins, that “they may start off with the same genetic code, but can suffer different errors and
mistakes as genes multiply in their bodies”(Wilmut 165). Development along with environment,
and experiences are all things that affect the way each and every person defines him or herself.
Twins may be identical but as they grow, each experiences and interprets the world in a different
way. No matter how much one tried to influence their clone’s life, it would never turn out to be
exactly the same as him or herself. Twins are not the same people, and neither would clones be.
Cloning, however, can be a valuable tool for prospective parents. In his section on
cloning for genetic defects, Wilmut expresses the valuable aspects of reproductive cloning when
addressing a doctors ability clone an embryo relieved of genetic defects and then implant that
back into the mothers womb to begin pregnancy (Wilmut 163). Families would no longer have
to worry about passing on genetic diseases or defects. Diseases such as Parkinson’s and
Alzheimer’s may one day be eradicated from the human population with the use of said
technologies. In addition, as Brock states in his article on social benefits of human cloning that “
Human cloning would allow women who have no ova or men who have no sperm to produce an
offspring that is biologically related to them” (Brock 137). Same sex couples would no longer
rely on “donors” to achieve children of their own. Children might eventually have “two daddys”
or “two mommys” that are both genetically related to them. While the use of stem cell
technologies is greatly beneficial to society, people must still be careful not to become corrupt
with their newfound power.
Butler 4
When dealing with the morality of stem cell research, there are several boundaries that
need to be set in order to prevent the misuse of technologies. Parents, for example, must be
careful not to abuse the powers given to them with such technologies. In his article on the ethics
of reproductive cloning, Sandel explains, “What makes reproductive cloning morally troubling is
that its primary purpose is to create children of a certain kind” (Sandel 156). If parents begin to
use the technology to create the ideal child in their eyes, they are not only violating his or her
autonomy, but limiting individuality and diversity in the growing world. Every child born has
the right to be what he or she wishes and is different in his or her own way. When parents step
in to change that before birth, children have no room to grow, no room to express themselves and
must live in the shadow their parents set up for them. In addition, immortality is a goal only
reached through the immoral obstruction of a clones life and autonomy. As Brock discusses in
his section on social harms of cloning: “The availability of human cloning for this purpose would
amount to a form of insurance policy to enable treatment of certain kinds of medical needs”
(Brock 138). By creating a clone to fulfill ones dream of immortality, one is voiding that
“persons” right of autonomy and life. To create someone only to exploit them for “resources”
would be using them purely as a means, and would therefore, according to Kantian deontology,
be immoral. In order to ethically achieve said procedure, the cloned individual would have to be
stripped of its abilities to become a “human being” and would then be considered a mere
biological vessel. With the corruptive dangers present around stem cell technology, society
must first decide where the line is drawn on its usage.
Stem cells, genetic diseases, clones, every advancement or discovery in science and
medicine brings with it new answers, and more problems. What is done with those answers and
how those problems are solved is not an easy decision to make. Stem cells have been debated
Butler 5
since they first showed up in the scientific community and will continue to be until some sort of
guidelines are laid out. Following the definition of Kantian deontology, the use of stem cells
only pushes immorality when the rights of an individual are violated and his or her autonomy is
denied. So long as limits are placed, stem cell research should be used to advance the world of
science and medicine into the brinks of the unknown.
Butler 6
Works Cited
Brock, Dan W. “Cloning Human Beings: An assessment of the ethical issues. Commissioned
Paper.” Georgetown.edu, 1997. Web. 20 July 2011.
Häyry, M. “Considerable Life Extension and the Meaning of Life.” Raionality and the Genetic
Challenge: Making People Better? Cambridge University Press (2007): 183-195. Print.
Hinman, Lawrence M. “Introduction: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory.” Contemporary
Moral Issues (2nd Ed.). Prentice-Hall, New York (1999): 17-28. Print
Sandel, Michael J. “The Ethical Implications of Human Cloning.” Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine. 40.2 (Spring 2005): 155-161. Print.
Wilmut, Ian and Highfield, Roger. “Therapeutic Human Cloning is Ethical.” Veiwpoint 2 in
Biomedical Ethics (ed. Viqi Wagner). Greenhaven Press (2007): 162-166. Print.
World Health Organization. “A Dozen Questions (and Answers) on Human Cloning.” Who.int,
2009. Web. 20 July 2011.