Position Paper
Human Cloning
Ginger Lynn Enis
MUW ED503 Fall 2009
It has been more than 12 years since scientists announced to the world that they had
cloned a sheep. In the 1970’s, human cloning became an ethical debate in the United States.
Most European countries have already forbidden any type of cloning altogether. Although
research on human cloning holds some positive aspects toward medical benefits, the actual
prospect of cloning a human for many individuals has many morally disturbing issues. However,
these ethical decisions should only be made when and if one has all the information and
knowledge of the scientific facts. I read and examined 3 articles concerning cloning humans and
while all three gave a brief history of cloning in general, each cited particular reasons and issues
as to why human cloning should not even be explored.
On July 5, 1996 Scottish scientists announced to the world that they had cloned a sheep
named Dolly by combining the nucleus of an adult mammary cell with the egg of an enucleated
sheep (Kassirer & Rosenthal). Each article mentioned that while general cloning could hold
promise toward medical breakthroughs, such as infertility and organ transplants, cloning humans
is a far more complex, troubling and unsettling matter. Many have argued persistently that
human cloning is a matter that should be banned indefinitely. Some have called it morally
wrong, sickening, and distasteful. Although there are individuals, which include several
scientists, who adamantly support any type of cloning, there are others, such as free-marketers
and bioethicists, who have suggested that some types of cloning would be perfectly safe. But
where will the lines be drawn? Almost any implication of cloning exposes the main problem: the
devaluing of persons by depriving them of their uniqueness (Kassirer and Rosenthal, 1998).
The authors mentioned that a form of cloning, embryo splitting, might be acceptable for
infertile couples only because this procedure does not involve replicating an existing genome.
Every organism, including humans, has a genome that contains all of the biological information
needed to build and maintain a living example of that organism. Situations of cloning, only in
older children, by nuclear transfer are only to create a genetic replica. All three of the articles
generally state that this type of procedure encourages the devaluation of children and ultimately
make them transposable commodities. An example lies in parents who might lose a child to
some type of tragedy and rather than mourning the loss parents would be given a replica of the
deceased. By cloning an individual it would drastically change what it means to be “human”.
The danger is that we as humans will lose something imperative to our development, the
distinctiveness, value, worth, and dignity within ourselves.
In conclusion, there many distinctive arguments that can be raised when human cloning is
the subject at hand. However, in my opinion, cloning is something that should be studied and
explored for organ transplants and curing purposes only. There are many others who might
disagree. The very idea that if my loved ones passed away and could be replaced sounds very
disturbing. Death is simply a part of life and without suffering there would be no compassion.
Bibliography/ Citations
Annas, George J. (1998). Why We Should Ban Human Cloning. New England Journal of
Medicine, 339, Issue 2, 122-125
Jaenisch, Rudolph. (2004). Human Cloning – The Science and Ethics of Nuclear
Transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, Issue 27, 2787-2791
Kassirer, Jerome P. & Rosenthal, Nadia A. (1998). Should Human Cloning Research Be Off
Limits? New England Journal of Medicine, 338, Issue 13, 905-906