Grant 1
Stephanie Grant
Mr. Jennings
3 rd hour
12/12/11
Cloning: Evil or Misunderstood
Although it has yet to become a large-scale political issue, cloning and genetic engineering have been featured in multiple art forms in recent years. From Michael Bay’s 2005 film The Island , to James Patterson’s 2005 novel Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment , the preoccupation of humanity with the advancements of cloning and genetic engineering is obvious.
This preoccupation with the ethics of such science is new though, because as technology has advanced, mankind no longer needs to ask “Can we?,” which gives it the ability to ask “Should we?” With cloning on the scale of Bokanovsky’s Process in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World looking increasingly possible, society needs to settle the matter of whether or not cloning a person is ethical so progress can be either decidedly allowed to occur or prevented from occurring. To address the ethical concerns of cloning, we must transcend the conditioning that says that cloning is an abomination and examine the science of cloning and its actual yields.
Cloning is not evil; its image has merely been tarnished by fantastical misconceptions that can be traced back to science fiction.
But before the question of “Should we?” is even investigated, the question of “Can we?” must be fully addressed. Does the human race have the ability to clone a full organism? In short, yes; in 1996, Scottish geneticist Dr. Ian Wilmut announced that he had fully cloned a lamb that he named Dolly (Hyde and Setaro 76). After the announcement, other scientists underwent

Grant 2 attempts to clone other mammals including mice, goats, calves, and monkeys (Hyde and Setaro
77) and were successful. Human cloning went from an idea rooted in science fiction to a distinct possibility. There are certainly logistic issues with it, not limited to its low success rate, the number of human eggs and surrogate parents needed, and the issue of a shorter life span and increased risk of birth defects, but with time and practice, even this could be overcome (Hyde and Setaro 80). Dismissing human cloning because it is not yet a perfected art form is illogical; after all, during the eighteenth century, most people would not have believed in functioning cars either. Human perspective is much too focused on the limitations of the present rather than the possibilities of the future.
Even Bokanovsky’s Process which was used to create clones such as the giant groups of
‘twins’ found in
Brave New World is rooted in fact. “One egg, one embryo, one adult – normality. But a bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide. From eight to ninetysix buds, and every bud will grow into a perfectly formed embryo, and every embryo into a full sized adult. Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before” (Huxley 6).
Essentially, Bokanovsky’s Process creates twins in the same way that nature creates identical twins; it just continues to make many more sets (Hyde and Setaro 78).
In 1993, Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman managed to ‘clone’ early human embryos. They started with seventeen embryos and within the span of a few days, ended with forty-eight. The experiment was then aborted due to concerns about the ethics of continuing. At the point of termination, all of the embryos were developing normally. This experiment is likely the closest parallel to Bokanovsky’s Process, as it would have possibly caused the birth of identical twins or triplets (Silver 98). Though the few twins created in the experiment is nowhere near the scale of

Grant 3 the ‘budding’ in
Brave New World , given time and further attempts, there is a fair chance of making the process more efficient.
Clearly, Huxley’s concerns about humanity’s ability to clone itself and even the methods that he described are currently valid. Consequently, humans are wrapped up with the idea, wondering everything from whether a new Adolf Hitler or George Washington could be created to whether an army of clones could be made. There is now less hysteria about cloning but some certainly remains and the question must be addressed. Should we clone people?
To answer that question, it is best to address all the reasons that are given against cloning, the first of which is that cloning is sometimes considered a horrendous sin due to the nature of the United States when it comes to religion. As a so-called ‘Christian Nation,’ cloning seems almost like man’s attempt to have power that only a divine ruler should have. Politically, this should have no bearing on laws about cloning, because the United States is a secular nation, but ethically, should religion be considered? Morals may have a heavy religious basis, but using God to trump all logic is unreasonable. The main reason for a law should not be based upon the presumed desire of a disputably existent being. If it is, then all Americans would be forcibly subjected to the faith of the many, which goes against the First Amendment rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution. Even though only a minority supports cloning, it should not be squelched by a religious majority simply because of numbers. Even though four out of five
Americans think that cloning is morally wrong (Silver 105), ignoring twenty percent of the population seems rather unfair and against the values on which the United States was based.
After all, the Puritans were a religions minority that fled from a country that tried to force its religious beliefs on non-believers; how different is it, really, from Christians trying to force their beliefs on Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists?

Grant 4
More logical arguments can be made though, and among these is the issue of genetic diversity; how will humanity evolve if clones are being made? Evolution will cease if the gene pool is not randomized and this randomization occurs during crossing over in Prophase I and independent assortment in Metaphase I during Meiosis, which occurs only when a male gamete and female gamete mix. In short, if cloning becomes the norm, then genetic diversity will fall to the wayside. New York Times columnist William Safire said that “cloning’s identicality would restrict evolution...the continued interplay of genes… is central to humankind’s progress” (Silver
122). In this argument, he is wrong on two key points. The first is that there is no way to prove that evolution equates to progress, because evolution is random. Whether humans will someday evolve into greater or lesser creatures remains to be seen (Silver 122). Furthermore, there are not enough people that would opt to clone themselves. In a survey of American adults, only a bit more than six percent said that they would wish to clone themselves (Silver 117). The plethora of naturally-born children created by ninety-four percent of Americans would make up for the tiny amount of diversity that is lost due to cloning (Silver 122).
Then there is a question of individuality and there are two sides to this issue; the side of the original and the side of the clone. From the standpoint of the original living organism, it should all come down to whether or not a person is willing to be cloned. If the original organism consents to the cloning, then what should stop them? This idea that humanity needs to be saved from itself is illogical; if someone wants a clone of himself or herself due to infertility, what is the reason to stop the person? In a country that continually drones on about how free its citizens are, why is this even an issue? How does cloning interfere with someone’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

Grant 5
And what about the clone? Surely the clone would be forced to live in the shadow of its cell donor. What many people fail to realize is that a clone is not an exact replica of the original cell donor. Clones are not the Frankenstein-esque monsters that mimic every component of their original and they already exist in nature. Identical twins are genetically and physically the same, just as clones would be. But all twins do not, in fact, behave in the same manner. When twins are described, one may be called the louder one or the more empathetic one. It is inarguable that identical twins are the same person, so why does the argument seem valid for clones?
One large reason for society’s distaste for clones is the idea that clones would come out the same age and with the same memories as the original, which is a fallacy. Clones would have to be ‘born’ and would thus grow up with different experiences and perceptions, and even if a clone was made from an adult, it would still be born as if it were a baby. These changes would shape the clone’s personality based on environmental factors, ensuring that it would not be identical to its predecessor. Clones are much less like the soulless drones in science fiction; they are more like late-born identical twins. Cloning a person is not the same as making an identical copy; it is making a whole new person (Hyde and Setaro 78).
And this is where an anti-cloning argument falls completely flat. With religion and the question of uniqueness removed from the equation, there is no logical reason to bar cloning and yet, there are laws in place to do just that. Clones could serve as children to infertile parents or perfect matches for those with medical conditions that cannot find a donor. Why then is cloning looked down upon?
Cloning is new, which makes it scary. Humans do not have a particular affinity for change and any attempt at it scares them. A similar debate to the cloning debate was had over in vitro fertilization, and now IVT has become a common and unquestioned procedure, which

Grant 6 suggests something that is very interesting; perhaps the ethical issues with cloning stem actually from a fundamental issue with humanity. When Galileo proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which went against the Bible, he was almost killed. Since that theory is commonly accepted now, we look on the ancestors that targeted him as cruel and uneducated. Time changes views and someday, perhaps we will be the infantile generation that refused to accept cloning as a legitimate method of reproduction. Blame the media, blame older generations, or blame religion; whatever the reason, a hundred years from now, our time may well be looked at as if it were a primitive and hateful age.
It is high time for humanity to leave its fears behind and start a new chapter of history that not only allows cloning but promotes it. Science should not be blocked because of its potential to harm; it should be encouraged for its potential to help. Research and knowledge that applies to cloning can neither help nor hurt society anyway; it is how we use that knowledge that has all the power. Huxley’s novel challenged mankind to consider how to use technology but it should not cause us to cease its use completely and set us spiraling back to a Puritan-esque society of the likes of
The Handmaid’s Tale
; Huxley simply wanted us to take great care, and that, we both can and should do. He revealed one of the worst possible worlds that science can create, but science and technology is not stopping us from achieving the best. Only people have the power to do that.

Grant 7
Works Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World . New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Print.
Hyde, Margaret O., and John F. Setaro. "Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning." Medicine's
Brave New World Bioengineering and the New Genetics . Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First
Century, 2001. 76-80. Print.
Silver, Lee M. "From Science Fiction to Reality." Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a
Brave New World . New York: Avon, 1997. 97-98. Print.
Silver, Lee M. "Human "Cuttings"" Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New
World . New York: Avon, 1997. 105-22. Print.