Mellen 1
Haylee Mellen
Professor Kimberly Strickland
English 1010
11/16/14
Are Cloning and Genetics the Answer to Saving Humans and Animals?
Cloning began back in October of 1990 with the Human Genome Project. The
Human Genome Project was federally funded with approximately $3 billion dollars in
order to begin translating the genomes of animals, plants, and humans. “A clone is an
identical copy of a plant or animal, produced from the genetic material of a single
organism.” (Gale, 2014) A gene is a segment that carries the code for producing a
protein or some other cell product. After reviewing my sources of academic journals
and viewpoints, I believe that cloning and genetic sequencing can be beneficial to
human health, and save endangered species.
A phenomenon occurred in 1997 when Dolly the sheep was created, and became
the first successful adult mammal that was cloned. Ian Wilmut, the Scottish Scientist
took a mature cell from the breast gland of a 6 year-old sheep to produce the embryo
that later turned into Dolly. Wilmut discovered that it is essential to use a mature cell in
order to achieve true cloning. If you don’t use a mature cell the cloned organism may
not turn out to be the exact replica of the original.
It is now the 21st century and we still have only scrapped the surface of genetics.
Thanks to the Human Genome Project scientists and researchers were able to develop
Mellen 2
high-speed gene-sequencing technology, which allows us to determine which genes are
associated with any given disease. With all this new information scientists have been
able to construct genetic testing. Genetic testing is where you send in a sample of your
DNA (saliva) and you will receive an analysis of your DNA. In that analysis, it will tell you
what type of diseases you are at risk for based on your genetics.
Christopher Hood, of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in London states, “ Test
results can be unreliable and difficult to interpret, and they are often offered to people
with little or no genetic counseling or support.” Think about it, if you knew you were at
high risk of getting cardiovascular disease wouldn’t you start eating healthier ? Would
you start exercising more to help make you stronger? In contrast, would you start
getting anxiety because you have high stress levels now? Now I believe that these
genetic tests will either help us or destroy us.
Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health questioned these
tests. Collins decided to send in samples of his DNA to 3 of these testing companies
using a fake ID in order to see how the companies would match up . Collins received
mixed results and concluded that, “personal genomics shows promise, but needs
substantial work before it’s ready for prime time.” (Clemmitt, 2011) completely agree
with Collins conclusion. James P. Evans, Professor, Genetics and Medicine, University of
North Carolina is against genetic tests. Evans believes that we cannot interpret these
tests correctly and that they lack medical significance. Evans also explains that there are
Mellen 3
no statistics as to why having genetic tests would motivate people to live healthier since
cardiovascular disease and cancer are common.
On the other hand, David Becker, a Chief Scientific Officer supports genetic
testing. David Becker believes that providing information to people about their genes
can promote their health and lives. Becker learned that some people have made
changes in their lives in order to prevent and even manage disease that were connected
to their genes. Becker believes that genetic testing can be the one thing that motivates
people to live healthier lives.
The majority of scientists still stand against cloning humans; even Ian Wilmut
(the scientist who created Dolly) agrees that the risks are just too high. Medical ethicist
Dan W. Brock argues in his article that it’s not morally wrong to use human cloning for
stem cell research. Brock believes that the human embryos used are not completely
people. The research could also benefit couples that are having difficulties with
fertilization. Brock claims that embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and
cloning to make embryos for research are all moral. I agree with Brock that cloning can
be ethical and moral.
In contrast, Michael Cook explains that embryonic stem cell cloning has not
cured one single person yet. Cook talks about the debate on therapeutic cloning and
how it could supposedly lead to cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. I hope
Mellen 4
that in time we can provide cloned organs for human transplants with better
technology, and be able to save countless lives.
There are two types of cloning: therapeutic and reproductive. Reproductive
cloning is reproducing a entire animal/human. Therapeutic cloning focuses on tissue and
single organs rather than a whole organism. Therapeutic and reproductive cloning are
currently still highly controversial topics.
Ever since human cloning was thrown off the table, scientists have resorted to
animal cloning. Scientists began to question whether or not animal cloning could save
endangered species. Steve Conner believes that cloning won’t be the ultimate answer to
saving endangered species, but it could however, save those animals that are on the
brink of extinction.
Scientists have actually already tried to clone an extinct species of mountain
goat: Pyrenean ibex or bucardo. Jose Folch and a group of scientists wanted to find a
way to preserve the genetic make-up of a bucardo. In 1999 the scientists took samples
from Celia, the last known female bucardo and began experimentation. The scientists
had to use domestic goats as the surrogate mothers, and used the cell nuclear transfer
technique to transfer bucardo’s DNA into the domestic goat’s egg cells. Sadly, they
discovered Celia dead in 2000, but the scientists had stored some of her skin cells in
liquid nitrogen at minus 196 degrees Celsius. The resurrection failed and the baby
Mellen 5
bucardo died within minutes due to deformed lungs. Still, I think this was an amazing
feat to actually construct another bucardo.
Scientists have successfully cloned endangered species for example, the African
wildcat, a banteng (a cow), and a few gray wolves were all successfully cloned. Scientists
are focusing on the world’s most threated species ranging from the Sumatran tiger and
the giant panda, to the pygmy hippo and the African bongo antelope. A problem with
trying to save these animals would be their biggest threats. Habitat loss, pollution,
poaching and climate change are all threats to wild animals.
In conclusion, cloning could be the cure for disease. Scientists have successfully
been able to clone quite a few different types of animals ranging from frogs to cats. I
personally believe that everyone deserves a second chance. It is absolutely scary and
devastating to learn that someone you love has cancer, and that there life is slipping
away. As for endangered species, we are part of the reason that some incredible
animals are on the brink of extinction. Cloning could help reverse what we have done,
and give these animals another chance to continue their genetic lines. In all, I believe
that cloning and genetic sequencing can be beneficial to human health, and save
endangered species.
Mellen 6
Works Cited
Brock, Dan W. "Research Cloning Is Ethical." Cloning. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Creating
Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research." Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
38.2 (Summer 2010): 229-237. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Nov.
2014.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Genes and Health." CQ Researcher 21 Jan. 2011: 49-72. Web. 13
Oct. 2014.
"Cloning." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Connor, Steve. "Animal Cloning Can Save Endangered Species." Cloning. Ed. Jacqueline
Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"The Big Question: Could Cloning Be the Answer to Saving Endangered Species
from Extinction?" Independent 3 Feb. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Cook, Michael. "Human Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning Has Failed to Yield Effective
Cures." Human Genetics. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven
Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Not with a Bang but a Whimper."
MercatorNet. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Grossman, Anna Jane. "There Are Worse Things than Dog Cloning." Cloning. Ed.
Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints.
Rpt. from "The Clone Wars: Is Dog Cloning Worse than All the Other Things We
Mellen 7
Do to Dogs?" Huffington Post. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3
Nov. 2014.
Masci, David. "Designer Humans." CQ Researcher 18 May 2001: 425-40. Web. 13 Oct.
2014.
Shanks, Pete. "Pet Cloning and Endangered Species Cloning Are Terrible Ideas."
Cloning. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing
Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Cloning for Kicks." GeneWatch 22.5 (4 Oct. 2009).
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.