“The social implications of new and emerging human biotechnologies

are far-reaching and profound. Genetic, reproductive and biomedical

technologies have the power to promote or undermine individual well-

being and public health, create private fortunes or advance the public

interest, and foster or threaten a just and fair society.” -http:

//tinyurl.com/cnvpt7

Scientifically, there are many ways to clone a living organism.

Regardless of the method used to impregnate a new embryo, however, the

goal is to have a developing embryo either in uterus or an artificial tube,

made of cloned cells.

“For the purposes of this report, the term “cloning” will refer to the

production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear

transfer. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer” refers to the process in which

the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing (or previously existing)

organism is transferred into an oocyte from which the nucleus has

been removed. “Human cloning” will be used to refer to the

application of somatic nuclear transfer technology to the creation of a

human being that shares all of its nuclear genes with the person

donating the implanted nucleus. Cloning is distinct from techniques

such as embryo splitting and twinning. Human cloning, as defined in

this report, does not include the use of somatic cells to create a

pluripotent cell line that could, for instance, also be used for extra-

uterine production of transplantable tissues without the creation of an

 entire being. Nor does it include the use of cloning technology for the

production of human tissues or human proteins from transgenic

mammals.” -quoted from http://tinyurl.com/cg5hol.

The cloned creature will have the chromosomes of another being, and

inherits all genetic information and pre-disposition to various traits and

trends of development. For example, the theory is a clone of a being with a

high chance of cancer will be just as likely to develop the same string of

cancer. So far in reality, things have not been so nice. Cloning is far from a

perfect science yet. The sheep named Dolly, famous for being the first

cloned mammal, was a result of the 278th embryo used in the experiment.

The first 276 all failed, generally after 5 to 6 cells divided. This rate of failure

might not seem very high, but what if Dolly had been a human? What would

the world have thought of her creators if she had been the first survivor of

278 human embryos? Odds are the humans will be cloned soon enough, if it

has not already happened. All across the world, scientists are trying to

develop new cloning techniques to eliminate the amount of failing clones.

” It took 277 attempts to create Dolly but since then the cloning

procedure in animals has been refined and it has now become more

efficient, although most experts in the field believe that it is still too

dangerous to be allowed as a form of human fertility treatment. Dr.

Zavos dismissed these fears saying that many of the problems related

to animal cloning – such as congenital defects and oversized offspring

– have been minimized.” –from http://tinyurl.com/cqsucn

Dr. Zavos claimed to have cloned 14 human embryos, transferred 11 of them

into the wombs of different women. All 11 of those embryos failed. So

clearly, his assessment about the current state of human cloning is still for

the future. And one must consider what would happen to a clone after birth.

Dolly died at age 6, the rough equivalent of a 40 year old human. Since then

the rate of survival has gotten much better for cloned mammals.

“Xiangzhong Yang of the University of Connecticut in Storrs and

Chikara Kubota of the Kagoshima Prefectural Cattle Breeding Institute

in Kagoshima, Japan, made the Guiness Book of World Records in 2000

when they reported that they had cloned one of the most famous bulls

of all time: Kamitakafuku, a 17-year-old Japanese bull that has been

used to inseminate more than 350,000 cows.

The cloning of Kamitakafuku in 1998 resulted in the births of six

offspring, and four calves survived.

Now, the researchers have created another success for the record

books. They have cloned Saburo, one of Kamitakafuku’s clones. The

effort produced two live calves in 200l; one clone died shortly after

birth due to anemia, but the second, called Sho-zaburo or “Saburo

Junior,” has thrived for the past four years in Japan.” -Quoted from

http://tinyurl.com/dz9rbh.

As this passage states, the survival of Kamitakafuku’s clones and grand-

clones was fairly high. 2/3rds of the first cloned filial generation survived,

and ½ of the second cloned filial generation survived, while those numbers
sound dismal, the generations were small, and Dolly was only 0.359% of all

the embryos that eventually created her. But these increasing numbers do

not yet allow for use on more humans than is widely accepted. Dr. Zavos

himself had to set up a hidden laboratory, assumed to be in the Middle East

where there is no restriction on human cloning, just to be able to carry out

his experiments. This radical departure from his old working grounds of

England and America is caused by the general view of human cloning to be

unethical and against most morals. One reason why mankind has widely

been un-accepting of human cloning is the re-creation of advanced humans

(Einstein) to unwanted (Hitler). A statement saying why this is an unfair

reason to judge human cloning is below:

“Coverage of advances in cloning, especially in the popular press, has

described the prospects of manufacturing armies of programmed

killers, duplicating sports stars or academic geniuses, and recreating

deceased loved ones.

Based on the intrinsic limitations of human cloning technology, some

widely mentioned undesirable applications of cloning are impossible,

and others, which may be possible technically, are clearly prohibited

by existing law, public policy, and professional ethical standards. The

following sections describe these issues in more detail. In order to

clarify the many misconceptions about human cloning, physicians

should help educate the public about the intrinsic technical limits of
human cloning as well as the ethical and legal protections that should

prevent abuses of human cloning.

A. Replicating specific persons

The term “cloning” may suggest that one organism is the exact replica

of another. Human clones would be identical insofar as they would

have the same nuclear genes as the donor. However, as observed in

natural monozygotic twins, having identical genes does not result in

two indistinguishable individuals. A clone must— because of the

different environment and circumstances in which he or she creates

his or her life story— be a different person from the person from whom

he or she was cloned. Although human cloning may be thought of as a

sort of “delayed twinning,” twins may be more similar than clones

since most twins are conceived and nurtured in the same environment

in utero and often during childhood. Since environment has a profound

influence on development, human clones likely would be different in

terms of personality and other characteristics. Because cloning would

not produce exact replicas, several applications of human cloning are

illogical. In particular, human cloning would not be a solution to

terminal illness or mortality. Children are already thought of as a way

to “soften the blow of mortality,” and clones may be seen as a more

powerful approach since there is no sharing or mixing of genomes. The

possibility of having one’ s life to live over again, or of getting back a

lost child, might be attractive. But the clone would not be the same
 person as the cloned individual. The fact remains that the person does

die and cannot be replaced. The same reasoning applies to recreating

sports stars, dictators, and geniuses— genetics does not wholly define

a person. Cloning may allow the persistence of certain genotypes and

derived phenotypic traits, but it does not provide individual

immortality or replication. A clone of a sports star will not necessarily

be a superb athlete, and even if he or she did possess keen athletic

ability, he or she would not be identical to the cloned sports star.

However, the idea that the clone’s life choices would be affected by

other’s expectations raises additional disturbing possibilities.” From

http://tinyurl.com/dz9rbh

An example of this in action would be a tragic accident in which a couple lost

their only child(ren) and were unable to have more. If the technology were

available to clone the deceased child, the new offspring would not be the

same person.

If human cloning is not going to create an un-fair advantage to select

humans, what other negative reasons exist to stop cloning? Respecting the

rights of clones is a huge issue. In George Lucas’ “Star Wars” saga, a clone

army is created. In the back-story of this army, it is revealed that the clone

army is exploited; they have no rights, not even the right to live their own

life. While “Star Wars” might be a far-fetched Space Opera, the risk of

disrespecting a cloned human is real. Human right is the one issue that is
clearly not going to go away with the advances of science being made to

eliminate the above mentioned issues.

All the ethics in the world cannot argue with one thing however; that

human cloning does have a major plus side. Used as a way to clone single

organs, it could become the ultimate medical breakthrough. If a patient has a

faulty lung, doctors could just grow a copy of the lung that would be perfect

for that person. Unlike with cloning a whole person, an individual organ

would be completely identical, and even aged the same amount of time.

Many previously non-curable diseases would become a simple transplant

away. A second positive effect of human cloning would be assisted

reproduction. If a couple cannot reproduce naturally, they could pursue

methods of having offspring through cloning.

“scientists recently have pioneered a technique in which DNA is

transferred from an infertile woman’s oocyte to a viable donor oocyte.

In addition, the development of somatic cell gene therapy and other

technologies may allow for the treatment of genetic disorders— an

alternative to avoiding all genetic contribution from a partner with a

disease gene.” Again from http://tinyurl.com/dz9rbh.

So, to recap, human cloning is justifiable. Currently human cloning

might not be possible, the idea of subject that many human embryos

through risk of death is against most morals of the world, and certain

procedures and applications for cloning, such as personal recreation or

slaves, are un-ethical by some standards, but human cloning is a leap into
the future that will be made soon enough and should be made, as it would

represent a day where humans can finally see themselves as a superior race:

the only race to make more of themselves in artificial conditions.