Running Head: ALTERING GENES AND HUMAN CLONING
Altering Genes and Human Cloning
Jeyson Dougherty
Stark State College
1
ALTERING GENES AND CLONING HUMANS
2
General Overview
The topic of altering genes and cloning human beings is complex, controversial and
contains many subcategories. For the sake of this research, we will examine, specifically, the
benefits of reproductive cloning and genetic enhancement, the arguments for and against the
implementation of such technologies and how they could presumably be legislated. Reproductive
cloning is defined as “the genetic duplication of a fully developed adult animal or human”
(Vaughn, 2010, p. 233). Genetic enhancement is defined as “genetic intervention to make people
better than normal, to maximize human traits and capabilities” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 237).
For clarification, we must differentiate between genetic enhancement and gene therapy.
While gene therapy is “an intervention aimed at treating disease and restoring physical and
mental functions and capacities to an adequate baseline” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 238), genetic
enhancement is “an intervention aimed at improving functions and capacities that already are
adequate.” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 238). Keep in mind that reproductive cloning is not the
misinterpreted and often sensationalized cloning portrayed in cinema. In the text of Doing
Ethics, the author states:
“Perhaps the most common misapprehension… is that the clone would eventually look
like and be like the person who donated his or her DNA… This notion yields the fantasy
(also inspired by Hollywood) that if we want several more Einsteins, Gandhis or Platos,
all we have to do is clone the original person… This view however is false. DNA is not
the only factor that determines a person’s characteristics” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 234).
Actually, in reproductive cloning, “a clone begins as an embryo and develops as any other
embryo does, taking years to acquire is adult characteristics and being years in age behind its
DNA donor” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 233).
ALTERING GENES AND CLONING HUMANS
3
The proponents of reproductive cloning maintain that “cloning is permissible because it is
in keeping with the principles of autonomy and beneficence” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 237). In
addition, they contend, a largely social benefit of reproductive cloning would be that it “would
enable the duplication of individuals of great talent, genius, character or other exemplary
qualities” (Vaughn, 2010, p.275). Proponents of genetic enhancements also declare “if
enhancement could make adequately functioning bodily systems function even better, then
presumably there will be no limit to the extent to which bodily functions can be enhanced”
(Vaughn, 2010, p. 239).
Opponents of reproductive cloning, which includes some policymakers, researchers and
physicians, among others, hold the position that “the technique is risky, even dangerous, with a
good chance of birth defects and other physiological problems” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 233). Another
argument against cloning is that “it’s playing God, because it’s a violation of the principle of
justice, or because cloning would essentially be the manufacture of children, a practice that
would undermine respect for persons” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 237). Opponents of genetic
enhancement argue that “it’s an appeal to the principal of justice. The gist is that enhancement is
unjust because it would give enhanced people and unfair advantage over the unenhanced”
(Vaughn, 2010, p. 237).
Surely, these perspectives offer valid reasoning, and it is the purpose of this paper to
weigh the both sides of the argument. I offer the following perspective that persons could
embrace when considering this topic: How altering genes and cloning humans could prove
beneficial to our society, specifically as a viable solution to many of the current crisis we
face. I will examine this perspective through the lens of the Act-Utilitarian Theory,
demonstrating how this theory supports and challenges this perspective.
ALTERING GENES AND CLONING HUMANS
4
The ACT-Utilitarian Theory
In the course text Doing Ethics, we find that an Act-Utilitarian theorist believes that
“right actions are those that directly produce the greatest overall good, everyone considered. The
consequences that flow from a particular act are all that matter; rules are irrelevant to this
calculation” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 70). In short, the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount
of people. Applying this view to the legalization of genetic enhancements and reproductive
cloning, the concern of potential risks as well as the weighing of the greater good against the
chance of greater harm, is debated.
If, for example, genetic enhancement was to cause social discontentment by the
genetically enhanced people having an unfair advantage over the non-enhanced, or only those
who can afford the technology would have access to it, while many are worst off than others
(Vaughn, 2010, p. 234), then genetic enhancement would not be considered the greater good for
the greatest number of people. Contrarily, if it was properly legislated, regulated and made
available to publicly, then from this perspective, it could prove beneficial for the greater number
of people (Vaughn, 2010, p. 234).
If “the risk of genetic defects and early death caused by reproductive cloning remains
high, [producing] more harm than good” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 236), then this could cause an ActUtilitarian to disapprove of reproductive cloning. However, “if cloning’s technical problems and
safety issues were worked out so that the risks were minimal, Utilitarians might judge human
cloning to be morally permissible, even obligatory” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 234), then the ActUtilitarian could be in favor of this technology since it would yield the greater overall happiness
for the greatest number of people.
Summary
ALTERING GENES AND CLONING HUMANS
5
Through research, I have recognized that, from an Act-utilitarian perspective, the
concerns associated with reproductive cloning and genetic enhancement primarily center around
the potential sociological, mental and physiological consequences these technologies could pose
to specific individuals, and the possible social repercussions for our society in general. However,
does the legalization of reproductive cloning and genetic enhancement necessitate their
utilization on Earth? Would these technologies have to be integrated into our society?
Furthermore, might there be a need for such contentious technologies in our space programs and
in our relentless search for alternative life, vital resources and additional habitats? If we could
reproduce clones outfitted with genetic enhancements that enable them to perform as no ordinary
human can--clones who would remain alien to our society and way of life, then wouldn’t the
greatest good for the greatest number of people include the potential discovery of an abundance
of precious resources or sustainable habitats for humans to enjoy?
Personal Perspective
After viewing the topic of altering genes and reproductive cloning from the perspective
of the Act-Utilitarian Theory, I personally agree that these technologies could be potentially
problematic in our society. However, as I discern the conceivable success our future generations
could behold, due to our preemptive, conscientious efforts, I concede that they must be included
as a part of the greatest number of people for which I seek the greatest good. In other words, I
seek the greatest good for future generations, as they are the descendants of the greatest number
of people today. Consequently, I’m inclined to approve of the legalization of reproductive
cloning and genetic enhancement with the stipulation that these technologies be exclusively
concentrated toward space exploration, which would include the mining, extraction and
procurement of needed resources and the prospective discovery of sustainable habitats.
ALTERING GENES AND CLONING HUMANS
Resources
Vaughn, L. (2010). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
6