human cloning cons essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
• v.112(29); 2015 Jul 21

Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations

Author contributions: F.J.A. wrote the paper.

There are, in mankind, two kinds of heredity: biological and cultural. Cultural inheritance makes possible for humans what no other organism can accomplish: the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. In turn, cultural inheritance leads to cultural evolution, the prevailing mode of human adaptation. For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments. Nevertheless, natural selection persists in modern humans, both as differential mortality and as differential fertility, although its intensity may decrease in the future. More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities have a genetic causation. Health care and the increasing feasibility of genetic therapy will, although slowly, augment the future incidence of hereditary ailments. Germ-line gene therapy could halt this increase, but at present, it is not technically feasible. The proposal to enhance the human genetic endowment by genetic cloning of eminent individuals is not warranted. Genomes can be cloned; individuals cannot. In the future, therapeutic cloning will bring enhanced possibilities for organ transplantation, nerve cells and tissue healing, and other health benefits.

Chimpanzees are the closest relatives of Homo sapiens , our species. There is a precise correspondence bone by bone between the skeletons of a chimpanzee and a human. Humans bear young like apes and other mammals. Humans have organs and limbs similar to birds, reptiles, and amphibians; these similarities reflect the common evolutionary origin of vertebrates. However, it does not take much reflection to notice the distinct uniqueness of our species. Conspicuous anatomical differences between humans and apes include bipedal gait and an enlarged brain. Much more conspicuous than the anatomical differences are the distinct behaviors and institutions. Humans have symbolic language, elaborate social and political institutions, codes of law, literature and art, ethics, and religion; humans build roads and cities, travel by motorcars, ships, and airplanes, and communicate by means of telephones, computers, and televisions.

Human Origins

The hominin lineage diverged from the chimpanzee lineage 6–7 Ma, and it evolved exclusively in the African continent until the emergence of Homo erectus , somewhat before 1.8 Ma. Shortly after its emergence in tropical or subtropical Africa, H. erectus spread to other continents. Fossil remains of H. erectus (sensu lato) are known from Africa, Indonesia (Java), China, the Middle East, and Europe. H. erectus fossils from Java have been dated at 1.81 ± 0.04 and 1.66 ± 0.04 Ma and from Georgia at 1.6–1.8 Ma ( 1 ). Anatomically distinctive H. erectus fossils have been found in Spain, deposited before 780,000 y ago, the oldest in southern Europe ( 2 ).

The transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens occurred around 400,000 y ago, although this date is not well determined owing to uncertainty as to whether some fossils are erectus or archaic forms of sapiens. H. erectus persisted for some time in Asia, until 250,000 y ago in China and perhaps until 100,000 ago in Java, and thus was contemporary with early members of its descendant species, H. sapiens. Fossil remains of Neandertal hominids ( Homo neanderthalensis ), with brains as large as those of H. sapiens , appeared in Europe earlier than 200,000 y ago and persisted until 30,000 or 40,000 y ago ( 3 , 4 ).

There is controversy about the origin of modern humans. Some anthropologists argue that the transition from H. erectus to archaic H. sapiens and later to anatomically modern humans occurred consonantly in various parts of the Old World. Proponents of this “multiregional model” emphasize fossil evidence showing regional continuity in the transition from H. erectus to archaic and then modern H. sapiens . Most anthropologists argue instead that modern humans first arose in Africa somewhat before 100,000 y ago and from there spread throughout the world, eventually replacing elsewhere the preexisting populations of H. erectus , H. neanderthalensis, and archaic H. sapiens . The African origin of modern humans is supported by a wealth of recent genetic evidence and is therefore favored by many evolutionists ( 2 , 4 ).

We know about these matters in three ways: by comparing living primates, including humans, with each other; by discovery and investigation of fossil remains of primates that lived in the past; and by comparing their DNA, proteins, and other molecules. DNA and proteins give us the best information about how closely related we are to each of the primates and those to each other. However, to know how the human lineage changed in anatomy and behavior over time as our ancestors became more and more human-like, we have to study fossils and the tools they used and made, as well as other remnants of their activities ( 2 , 5 ).

Humans live in groups that are socially organized and so do other primates. However, other primate societies do not approach the complexity of human social organization. A distinctive human social trait is culture, which may be understood as the set of nonstrictly biological human activities and creations. Culture includes social and political institutions, ways of doing things, religious and ethical traditions, language, common sense and scientific knowledge, art and literature, technology, and in general all of the creations of the human mind. The advent of culture has brought with it cultural evolution, a superorganic mode of evolution superimposed on the organic mode, that has become the dominant mode of human evolution. Cultural evolution has come about because of cultural inheritance, a distinctively human mode of achieving adaptation to the environment ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

There are in mankind two kinds of heredity: the biological and the cultural. Biological inheritance in humans is very much like that in any other sexually reproducing organism; it is based on the transmission of genetic information encoded in DNA from one generation to the next by means of the sex cells. Cultural inheritance, on the other hand, is based on transmission of information by a teaching-learning process, which is in principle independent of biological parentage. Culture is transmitted by instruction and learning, by example and imitation, through books, newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures, through works of art, and through any other means of communication. Culture is acquired by every person from parents, relatives, and neighbors and from the whole human environment. Acquired cultural traits may be beneficial but also toxic; for example, racial prejudice or religious bigotry.

Biological heredity is Mendelian or vertical; it is transmitted from parents to their children, and only inherited traits can be transmitted to the progeny. (New mutations are insignificant in the present context.) Cultural heredity is Lamarckian: acquired characters can be transmitted to the progeny. However, cultural heredity goes beyond Lamarckian heredity, because it is horizontal and oblique and not only vertical. Traits can be acquired from and transmitted to other members of the same generation, whether or not they are relatives, and also from and to all other individuals with whom a person has contact, whether they are from the same or from any previous or ensuing generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible for people what no other organism can accomplish—the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. Animals can learn from experience, but they do not transmit their experiences or their discoveries (at least not to any large extent) to the following generations. Animals have individual memory, but they do not have a “social memory.” Humans, on the other hand, have developed a culture because they can transmit cumulatively their experiences from generation to generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible cultural evolution, a new mode of adaptation to the environment that is not available to nonhuman organisms. Organisms in general adapt to the environment by means of natural selection, by changing over generations their genetic constitution to suit the demands of the environment. However, humans, and humans alone, can also adapt by changing the environment to suit the needs of their genes. (Animals build nests and modify their environment also in other ways, but the manipulation of the environment by any nonhuman species is trivial compared with mankind's manipulation.) For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments.

To extend its geographical habitat, or to survive in a changing environment, a population of organisms must become adapted, through slow accumulation of genetic variants sorted out by natural selection, to the new climatic conditions, different sources of food, different competitors, and so on. The discovery of fire and the use of shelter and clothing allowed humans to spread from the warm tropical and subtropical regions of the Old World to the whole Earth, except for the frozen wastes of Antarctica, without the anatomical development of fur or hair. Humans did not wait for genetic mutants promoting wing development; they have conquered the air in a somewhat more efficient and versatile way by building flying machines. People travel the rivers and the seas without gills or fins. The exploration of outer space has started without waiting for mutations providing humans with the ability to breathe with low oxygen pressures or to function in the absence of gravity; astronauts carry their own oxygen and specially equipped pressure suits. From their obscure beginnings in Africa, humans have become the most widespread and abundant species of mammal on earth. It was the appearance of culture as a superorganic form of adaptation that made mankind the most successful animal species.

Cultural adaptation has prevailed in mankind over biological adaptation because it is a more effective mode of adaptation; it is more rapid and it can be directed. A favorable genetic mutation newly arisen in an individual can be transmitted to a sizeable part of the human species only through innumerable generations. However, a new scientific discovery or technical achievement can be transmitted to the whole of mankind, potentially at least, in less than one generation. Witness the rapid spread of personal computers, iPhones, and the Internet. Moreover, whenever a need arises, culture can directly pursue the appropriate changes to meet the challenge. On the contrary, biological adaptation depends on the accidental availability of a favorable mutation, or of a combination of several mutations, at the time and place where the need arises ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

Biological Evolution in Modern Humans

There is no scientific basis to the claim sometimes made that the biological evolution of mankind has stopped, or nearly so, at least in technologically advanced countries. It is asserted that the progress of medicine, hygiene, and nutrition have largely eliminated death before middle age; that is, most people live beyond reproductive age, after which death is inconsequential for natural selection. That mankind continues to evolve biologically can be shown because the necessary and sufficient conditions for biological evolution persist. These conditions are genetic variability and differential reproduction. There is a wealth of genetic variation in mankind. With the trivial exception of identical twins, developed from a single fertilized egg, no two people who live now, lived in the past, or will live in the future, are likely to be genetically identical. Much of this variation is relevant to natural selection ( 5 , 8 , 9 ).

Natural selection is simply differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. Natural selection will occur in mankind if the carriers of some genotypes are likely to leave more descendants than the carriers of other genotypes. Natural selection consists of two main components: differential mortality and differential fertility; both persist in modern mankind, although the intensity of selection due to postnatal mortality has been somewhat attenuated.

Death may occur between conception and birth (prenatal) or after birth (postnatal). The proportion of prenatal deaths is not well known. Death during the early weeks of embryonic development may go totally undetected. However, it is known that no less than 20% of all ascertained human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion during the first 2 mo of pregnancy. Such deaths are often due to deleterious genetic constitutions, and thus they have a selective effect in the population. The intensity of this form of selection has not changed substantially in modern mankind, although it has been slightly reduced with respect to a few genes such as those involved in Rh blood group incompatibility.

Postnatal mortality has been considerably reduced in recent times in technologically advanced countries. For example, in the United States, somewhat less than 50% of those born in 1840 survived to age 45, whereas the average life expectancy for people born in the United States in 1960 is 78 y ( Table 1 ) ( 8 , 10 ). In some regions of the world, postnatal mortality remains quite high, although there it has also generally decreased in recent decades. Mortality before the end of reproductive age, particularly where it has been considerably reduced, is largely associated with genetic defects, and thus it has a favorable selective effect in human populations. Several thousand genetic variants are known that cause diseases and malformations in humans; such variants are kept at low frequencies due to natural selection.

Percent of Americans born between 1840 and 1960 surviving to ages 15 and 45

Reprinted from ref. 8 .

It might seem at first that selection due to differential fertility has been considerably reduced in industrial countries as a consequence of the reduction in the average number of children per family that has taken place. However, this is not so. The intensity of fertility selection depends not on the mean number of children per family, but on the variance in the number of children per family. It is clear why this should be so. Assume that all people of reproductive age marry and that all have exactly the same number of children. In this case, there would not be fertility selection whether couples all had very few or all had very many children. Assume, on the other hand, that the mean number of children per family is low, but some families have no children at all or very few, whereas others have many. In this case, there would be considerable opportunity for selection—the genotypes of parents producing many children would increase in frequency at the expense of those having few or none. Studies of human populations have shown that the opportunity for natural selection often increases as the mean number of children decreases. An extensive study published years ago showed that the index of opportunity for selection due to fertility was four times larger among United States women born in the 20th century, with an average of less than three children per woman, than among women in the Gold Coast of Africa or in rural Quebec, who had three times or more children on average ( Table 2 ) ( 8 , 11 ). There is no evidence that natural selection due to fertility has decreased in modern human populations.

Mean number of children per family and index of opportunity for fertility selection I f , in various human populations

I f is calculated as the variance divided by the square of the mean number of children. The opportunity for selection usually increases as the mean number of children decreases. Reprinted from ref. 8 .

Natural selection may decrease in intensity in the future, but it will not disappear altogether. As long as there is genetic variation and the carriers of some genotypes are more likely to reproduce than others, natural selection will continue operating in human populations. Cultural changes, such as the development of agriculture, migration from the country to the cities, environmental pollution, and many others, create new selective pressures. The pressures of city life are partly responsible for the high incidence of mental disorders in certain human societies. The point to bear in mind is that human environments are changing faster than ever owing precisely to the accelerating rate of cultural change, and environmental changes create new selective pressures, thus fueling biological evolution.

Natural selection is the process of differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. In terms of single genes, variation occurs when two or more alleles are present in the population at a given gene locus. How much genetic variation exists in the current human population? The answer is “quite a lot,” as will be presently shown, but natural selection will take place only if the alleles of a particular gene have different effects on fitness; that is, if alternative alleles differentially impact the probability of survival and reproduction.

The two genomes that we inherit from each parent are estimated to differ at about one or two nucleotides per thousand. The human genome consists of somewhat more than 3 billion nucleotides ( 12 ). Thus, about 3–6 million nucleotides are different between the two genomes of each human individual, which is a lot of genetic polymorphism. Moreover, the process of mutation introduces new variation in any population every generation. The rate of mutation in the human genome is estimated to be about 10 −8 , which is one nucleotide mutation for every hundred million nucleotides, or about 30 new mutations per genome per generation. Thus, every human has about 60 new mutations (30 in each genome) that were not present in the parents. If we consider the total human population, that is 60 mutations per person multiplied by 7 billion people, which is about 420 billion new mutations per generation that are added to the preexisting 3–6 million polymorphic nucleotides per individual.

That is a lot of mutations, even if many are redundant. Moreover, we must remember that the polymorphisms that count for natural selection are those that impact the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers. Otherwise, the variant nucleotides may increase or decrease in frequency by chance, a process that evolutionists call “genetic drift,” but will not be impacted by natural selection ( 2 , 12 , 13 ).

Genetic Disorders

More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities that have a genetic causation have been identified in the human population. Genetic disorders may be dominant, recessive, multifactorial, or chromosomal. Dominant disorders are caused by the presence of a single copy of the defective allele, so that the disorder is expressed in heterozygous individuals: those having one normal and one defective allele. In recessive disorders, the defective allele must be present in both alleles, that is, it is inherited from each parent to be expressed. Multifactorial disorders are caused by interaction among several gene loci; chromosomal disorders are due to the presence or absence of a full chromosome or a fragment of a chromosome ( 14 , 15 ).

Examples of dominant disorders are some forms of retinoblastoma and other kinds of blindness, achondroplastic dwarfism, and Marfan syndrome (which is thought to have affected President Lincoln). Examples of recessive disorders are cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, and sickle cell anemia (caused by an allele that in heterozygous condition protects against malaria). Examples of multifactorial diseases are spina bifida and cleft palate. Among the most common chromosomal disorders are Down syndrome, caused by the presence of an extra chromosome 21, and various kinds due to the absence of one sex chromosome or the presence of an extra one, beyond the normal condition of XX for women and XY for men. Examples are Turner’s syndrome (XO) and Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) ( 16 ).

The incidence of genetic disorders expressed in the living human population is estimated to be no less than 2.56%, impacting about 180 million people. Natural selection reduces the incidence of the genes causing disease, more effectively in the case of dominant disorders, where all carriers of the gene will express the disease, than for recessive disorders, which are expressed only in homozygous individuals. Consider, for example, phenylketonuria (PKU), a lethal disease if untreated, due to homozygosis for a recessive gene, which has an incidence of 1 in 10,000 newborns or 0.01%. PKU is due to an inability to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine with devastating mental and physical effects. A very elaborate diet free of phenylalanine allows the patient to survive and reproduce if started early in life. The frequency of the PKU allele is about 1%, so that in heterozygous conditions it is present in more than 100 million people, but only the 0.01% of people who are homozygous express the disease and are subject to natural selection. The reduction of genetic disorders due to natural selection is balanced with their increase due to the incidence of new mutations.

Let’s consider another example. Hereditary retinoblastoma is a disease attributed to a dominant mutation of the gene coding for the retinoblastoma protein, RB1, but it is actually due to a deletion in chromosome 13. The unfortunate child with this condition develops a tumorous growth during infancy that, without treatment, starts in one eye and often extends to the other eye and then to the brain, causing death before puberty. Surgical treatment now makes it possible to save the life of the child if the condition is detected sufficiently early, although often one or both eyes may be lost. The treated person can live a more or less normal life, marry, and procreate. However, because the genetic determination is dominant (a gene deletion), one half of the progeny will, on the average, be born with the same genetic condition and will have to be treated. Before modern medicine, every mutation for retinoblastoma arising in the human population was eliminated from the population in the same generation owing to the death of its carrier. With surgical treatment, the mutant condition can be preserved, and new mutations arising each generation are added to those arisen in the past (refs. 17 and 18 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, but there are more than 2,000 known serious physical infirmities determined by genes. When all these hereditary ailments are considered together, the proportion of persons born who will suffer from a serious handicap during their lifetimes owing to their heredity is more than 2% of the total population, as pointed out above (refs. 15 , 16 , and 19 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. More than 2% of the population is affected by schizophrenia or a related condition known as schizoid disease, ailments that may be in some cases determined by a single mutant gene. Another 3% or so of the population suffer from mild mental retardation (IQ less than 70). More than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Natural selection also acts on a multitude of genes that do not cause disease. Genes impact skin pigmentation, hair color and configuration, height, muscle strength and body shape, and many other anatomical polymorphisms that are apparent, as well as many that are not externally obvious, such as variations in the blood groups, in the immune system, and in the heart, liver, kidney, pancreas, and other organs. It is not always known how natural selection impacts these traits, but surely it does and does it differently in different parts of the world or at different times, as a consequence of the development of new vaccines, drugs, and medical treatments, and also as a consequence of changes in lifestyle, such as the reduction of the number of smokers or the increase in the rate of obesity in a particular country.

Genetic Therapy

Where is human evolution going? Biological evolution is directed by natural selection, which is not a benevolent force guiding evolution toward sure success. Natural selection brings about genetic changes that often appear purposeful because they are dictated by the requirements of the environment. The end result may, nevertheless, be extinction—more than 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct. Natural selection has no purpose; humans alone have purposes and they alone may introduce them into their evolution. No species before mankind could select its evolutionary destiny; mankind possesses techniques to do so, and more powerful techniques for directed genetic change are becoming available. Because we are self-aware, we cannot refrain from asking what lies ahead, and because we are ethical beings, we must choose between alternative courses of action, some of which may appear as good and others as bad.

The argument has been advanced that the biological endowment of mankind is rapidly deteriorating owing precisely to the improving conditions of life and to the increasing power of modern medicine. The detailed arguments that support this contention involve some mathematical exercises, but their essence can be simply presented. Genetic changes (i.e., point or chromosome mutations) arise spontaneously in humans and in other living species. The great majority of newly arising mutations are either neutral or harmful to their carriers; only a very small fraction are likely to be beneficial. In a human population under the so-called “natural” conditions, that is, without the intervention of modern medicine and technology, the newly arising harmful mutations are eliminated from the population more or less rapidly depending on how harmful they are. The more harmful the effect of a mutation, the more rapidly it will be eliminated from the population by the process of natural selection. However, owing to medical intervention and, more recently, because of the possibility of genetic therapy, the elimination of some harmful mutations from the population is no longer taking place as rapidly and effectively as it did in the past.

Molecular biology has introduced in modern medicine a new way to cure diseases, namely genetic therapy, direct intervention in the genetic makeup of an individual. Gene therapy can be somatic or germ line. Germ-line genetic therapy would seek to correct a genetic defect, not only in the organs or tissues impacted, but also in the germ line, so that the person treated would not transmit the genetic impairment to the descendants. As of now, no interventions of germ-line therapy are seriously sought by scientists, physicians, or pharmaceutical companies.

The possibility of gene therapy was first anticipated in 1972 ( 20 ). The possible objectives are to correct the DNA of a defective gene or to insert a new gene that would allow the proper function of the gene or DNA to take place. In the case of a harmful gene, the objective would be to disrupt the gene that is not functioning properly.

The eminent biologist E. O. Wilson (2014) has stated, many would think somewhat hyperbolically, that the issue of how much to use genetic engineering to direct our own evolution, is “the greatest moral dilemma since God stayed the hand of Abraham” ( 21 ).

The first successful interventions of gene therapy concerned patients suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), first performed in a 4-y-old girl at the National Institutes of Health in 1990 ( 22 ), soon followed by successful trials in other countries ( 23 ). Treatments were halted temporarily from 2000 to 2002 in Paris, when 2 of about 12 treated children developed a leukemia-like condition, which was indeed attributed to the gene therapy treatment. Since 2004, successful clinical trials for SCID have been performed in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Germany ( 24 , 25 ).

Gene therapy treatments are still considered experimental. Successful clinical trials have been performed in patients suffering from adrenoleukodystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and hemophilia ( 26 , 27 ). Initially, the prevailing gene therapy methods involved recombinant viruses, but nonviral methods (transfection molecules) have become increasingly successful. Since 2013, US pharmaceutical companies have invested more than $600 million in gene therapy ( 28 ). However, in addition to the huge economic costs, technical hurdles remain. Frequent negative effects include immune response against an extraneous object introduced into human tissues, leukemia, tumors, and other disorders provoked by vector viruses. Moreover, the genetic therapy corrections are often short lived, which calls for multiple rounds of treatment, thereby increasing costs and other handicaps. In addition, many of the most common genetic disorders are multifactorial and are thus beyond current gene therapy treatment. Examples are diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease, which at the present state of knowledge and technology are not suitable for gene therapy.

If a genetic defect is corrected in the affected cells, tissues, or organs, but not in the germ line, the ova or sperm produced by the individual will transmit the defect to the progeny. A deleterious gene that might have been reduced in frequency or eliminated from the population, owing to the death or reduced fertility of the carrier, will now persist in the population and be added to its load of hereditary diseases. A consequence of genetic therapy is that the more hereditary diseases and defects are cured today, the more of them will be there to be cured in the succeeding generations. This consequence follows not only from gene therapy but also from typical medical treatments.

The Nobel laureate geneticist H. J. Muller eloquently voiced this concern about the cure, whether through genetic therapy or traditional medical treatment, of genetic ailments. “The more sick people we now cure and allow them to reproduce, the more there will be to cure in the future.” The fate toward which mankind is drifting is painted by Muller in somber colors. “The amount of genetically caused impairment suffered by the average individual…must by that time have grown….[P]eople’s time and energy…would be devoted chiefly to the effort to live carefully, to spare and to prop up their own feebleness, to soothe their inner disharmonies and, in general, to doctor themselves as effectively as possible. For everyone would be an invalid, with his own special familial twists….” (ref. 29 ; Fig. 1 ).

The bionic human, on the cover of Science : an image that could represent how H. J. Muller anticipates the human condition, a few centuries hence, showing the accumulation of physical handicaps as a consequence of the medical cure of hereditary diseases. Image by Cameron Slayden and Nathalie Cary; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

It must be pointed out that the population genetic consequences of curing hereditary diseases are not as immediate (“a few centuries hence”) as Muller anticipates. Consider, as a first example, we look at the recessive hereditary condition of PKU. The estimated frequency of the gene is q = 0.01; the expected number of humans born with PKU is q 2 = 0.0001, 1 for every 10,000 births. If all PKU individuals are cured all over the world and all of them leave as many descendants, on the average, as other humans, the frequency of the PKU allele will double after 1/q = 1/0.01 = 100 generations. If we assume 25 y per generation, we conclude that after 2,500 y, the frequency of the PKU allele will be q = 0.02, and q 2 = 0.0004, so that 4 of every 10,000 persons, rather than only 1, will be born with PKU.

In the case of dominant lethal diseases, the incidence is determined by the mutation frequency of the normal to the disease allele, which is typically of the order of m = 10 −6 –10 −8 , or between one in a million and one in one hundred million. Assuming the highest rate of m = 10 −6 , the incidence of the disease after 100 generations will become 1 for every 10,000 births. It would therefore seem likely that much earlier than 2,500 y, humans are likely to find ways of correcting hereditary ailments in the germ line, thereby stopping their transmission.

It must be pointed out that, although the proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, there are many such hereditary ailments, which on the aggregate make the problem very serious. The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. As pointed out above, more than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Human cloning may refer to “therapeutic cloning,” particularly the cloning of embryonic cells to obtain organs for transplantation or for treating injured nerve cells and other health purposes. Human cloning more typically refers to “reproductive cloning,” the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to obtain eggs that could develop into adult individuals.

Human cloning has occasionally been suggested as a way to improve the genetic endowment of mankind, by cloning individuals of great achievement, for example, in sports, music, the arts, science, literature, politics, and the like, or of acknowledged virtue. These suggestions seemingly have never been taken seriously. However, some individuals have expressed a wish, however unrealistic, to be cloned, and some physicians have on occasion advertised that they were ready to carry out the cloning ( 30 ). The obstacles and drawbacks are many and insuperable, at least at the present state of knowledge.

Biologists use the term cloning with variable meanings, although all uses imply obtaining copies more or less precise of a biological entity. Three common uses refer to cloning genes, cloning cells, and cloning individuals. Cloning an individual, particularly in the case of a multicellular organism, such as a plant or an animal, is not strictly possible. The genes of an individual, the genome, can be cloned, but the individual itself cannot be cloned, as it will be made clear below.

Cloning genes or, more generally, cloning DNA segments is routinely done in many genetics and pharmaceutical laboratories throughout the world ( 12 , 31 ). Technologies for cloning cells in the laboratory are seven decades old and are used for reproducing a particular type of cell, for example a skin or a liver cell, in order to investigate its characteristics.

Individual human cloning occurs naturally in the case of identical twins, when two individuals develop from a single fertilized egg. These twins are called identical, precisely because they are genetically identical to each other.

The sheep Dolly, cloned in July 1996, was the first mammal artificially cloned using an adult cell as the source of the genotype. Frogs and other amphibians were obtained by artificial cloning as early as 50 y earlier ( 32 ).

Cloning an animal by SCNT proceeds as follows. First, the genetic information in the egg of a female is removed or neutralized. Somatic (i.e., body) cells are taken from the individual selected to be cloned, and the cell nucleus (where the genetic information is stored) of one cell is transferred with a micropipette into the host oocyte. The egg, so “fertilized,” is stimulated to start embryonic development ( 33 ).

Can a human individual be cloned? The correct answer is, strictly speaking, no. What is cloned are the genes, not the individual; the genotype, not the phenotype. The technical obstacles are immense even for cloning a human’s genotype.

Ian Wilmut, the British scientist who directed the cloning project, succeeded with Dolly only after 270 trials. The rate of success for cloning mammals has notably increased over the years without ever reaching 100%. The animals presently cloned include mice, rats, goats, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, and other mammals. The great majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion ( 34 ). Moreover, as Wilmut noted, in many cases, the death of the fetus occurs close to term, with devastating economic, health, and emotional consequences in the case of humans ( 35 ).

In mammals, in general, the animals produced by cloning suffer from serious health handicaps, among others, gross obesity, early death, distorted limbs, and dysfunctional immune systems and organs, including liver and kidneys, and other mishaps. Even Dolly had to be euthanized early in 2003, after only 6 y of life, because her health was rapidly decaying, including progressive lung disease and arthritis ( 35 , 36 ).

The low rate of cloning success may improve in the future. It may be that the organ and other failures of those that reach birth will be corrected by technical advances. Human cloning would still face ethical objections from a majority of concerned people, as well as opposition from diverse religions. Moreover, there remains the limiting consideration asserted earlier: it might be possible to clone a person’s genes, but the individual cannot be cloned. The character, personality, and the features other than anatomical and physiological that make up the individual are not precisely determined by the genotype.

The Genotype and the Individual

The genetic makeup of an individual is its genotype. The phenotype refers to what the individual is, which includes not only the individual’s external appearance or anatomy, but also its physiology, as well as behavioral predispositions and attributes, encompassing intellectual abilities, moral values, aesthetic preferences, religious values, and, in general, all other behavioral characteristics or features, acquired by experience, imitation, learning, or in any other way throughout the individual’s life, from conception to death. The phenotype results from complex networks of interactions between the genes and the environment.

A person’s environmental influences begin, importantly, in the mother’s womb and continue after birth, through childhood, adolescence, and the whole life. Impacting behavioral experiences are associated with family, friends, schooling, social and political life, readings, aesthetic and religious experiences, and every event in the person’s life, whether conscious or not. The genotype of a person has an unlimited number, virtually infinite, of possibilities to be realized, which has been called the genotype’s “norm of reaction,” only one of which will be the case in a particular individual ( 37 ). If an adult person is cloned, the disparate life circumstances experienced many years later would surely result in a very different individual, even if anatomically the individual would resemble the genome’s donor at a similar age.

An illustration of environmental effects on the phenotype, and of interactions between the genotype and the environment, is shown in Fig. 2 ( 38 ). Three plants of the cinquefoil, Potentilla glandulosa , were collected in California—one on the coast at about 100 ft above sea level (Stanford), the second at about 4,600 ft (Mather), and the third in the Alpine zone of the Sierra Nevada at about 10,000 ft above sea level (Timberline). From each plant, three cuttings were obtained in each of several replicated experiments, which were planted in three experimental gardens at different altitudes, the same gardens from which the plants were collected. The division of one plant ensured that all three cuttings planted at different altitudes had the same genotype; that is, they were genetic clones from one another. ( P. glandulosa , like many other plants, can be reproduced by cuttings, which are genetically identical.)

Interacting effects of the genotype and the environment on the phenotype of the cinquefoil Pontentilla glandulosa . Cuttings of plants collected at different altitudes were planted in three different experimental gardens. Plants in the same row are genetically identical because they have been grown from cuttings of a single plant; plants in the same column are genetically different but have been grown in the same experimental garden. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Comparison of the plants in any row shows how a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments. Genetically identical plants (for example, those in the bottom row) may prosper or not, even die, depending on the environmental conditions. Plants from different altitudes are known to be genetically different. Hence, comparison of the plants in any column shows that in a given environment, different genotypes result in different phenotypes. An important inference derived from this experiment is that there is no single genotype that is best in all environments.

The interaction between the genotype and the environment is similarly significant, or even more so, in the case of animals. In one experiment, two strains of rats were selected over many generations; one strain for brightness at finding their way through a maze and the other for dullness ( Fig. 3 ; ref. 39 ). Selection was done in the bright strain by using the brightest rats of each generation to breed the following generation, and in the dull strain by breeding the dullest rats of every generation. After many generations of selection, the descendant bright rats made only about 120 errors running through the maze, whereas dull rats averaged 165 errors. That is a 40% difference. However, the differences between the strains disappeared when rats of both strains were raised in an unfavorable environment of severe deprivation, where both strains averaged 170 errors. The differences also nearly disappeared when the rats were raised with abundant food and other favorable conditions. In this optimal environment, the dull rats reduced their average number of errors from 165 to 120. As with the cinquefoil plants, we see ( i ) that a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments and ( ii ) that the differences in phenotype between two genotypes change from one environment to another—the genotype that is best in one environment may not be best in another.

Results of an experiment with two strains of rats: one selected for brightness and the other for dullness. After many generations of selection, when raised in the same environment in which the selection was practiced (normal), bright rats made about 45 fewer errors than dull rats in the maze used for the tests. However, when the rats were raised in an impoverished (restricted) environment, bright and dull rats made the same number of errors. When raised in an abundant (stimulating) environment, the two strains performed nearly equally well. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Cloning Humans?

In the second half of the 20th century, as dramatic advances were taking place in genetic knowledge, as well as in the genetic technology often referred to as “genetic engineering,” some utopian proposals were advanced, at least as suggestions that should be explored and considered as possibilities, once the technologies had sufficiently progressed. Some proposals suggested that persons of great intellectual or artistic achievement or of great virtue be cloned. If this was accomplished in large numbers, the genetic constitution of mankind would, it was argued, considerably improve.

Such utopian proposals are grossly misguided. It should be apparent that, as stated above, it is not possible to clone a human individual. Seeking to multiply great benefactors of humankind, such as persons of great intelligence or character, we might obtain the likes of Stalin, Hitler, or Bin Laden. As the Nobel Laureate geneticist George W. Beadle asserted many years ago: “Few of us would have advocated preferential multiplication of Hitler’s genes. Yet who can say that in a different cultural context Hitler might not have been one of the truly great leaders of men, or that Einstein might not have been a political villain” ( 8 ). There is no reason whatsoever to expect that the genomes of individuals with excellent attributes would, when cloned, produce individuals similarly endowed with virtue or intelligence. Identical genomes yield, in different environments, individuals who may be quite different. Environments cannot be reproduced, particularly several decades apart, which would be the case when the genotype of the persons selected because of their eminent achievement might be cloned.

Are there circumstances that would justify cloning a person, because he or she wants it? One might think of a couple unable to have children, or a man or woman who does not want to marry, or of two lesbian lovers who want to have a child with the genotype of one in an ovum of the other, or of other special cases that might come to mind ( 40 ). It must be, first, pointed out that the cloning technology has not yet been developed to an extent that would make possible to produce a healthy human individual by cloning. Second, and most important, the individual produced by cloning would be a very different person from the one whose genotype is cloned, as belabored above.

Ethical, social, and religious values will come into play when seeking to decide whether a person might be allowed to be cloned. Most people are likely to disapprove. Indeed, many countries have prohibited human cloning. In 2004, the issue of cloning was raised in several countries where legislatures were also considering whether research on embryonic stem cells should be supported or allowed. The Canadian Parliament on March 12, 2004 passed legislation permitting research with stem cells from embryos under specific conditions, but human cloning was banned, and the sale of sperm and payments to egg donors and surrogate mothers were prohibited. The French Parliament on July 9, 2004 adopted a new bioethics law that allows embryonic stem cell research but considers human cloning a “crime against the human species.” Reproductive cloning experiments would be punishable by up to 20 y in prison. Japan’s Cabinet Council for Science and Technology Policy voted on July 23, 2004 to adopt policy recommendations that would permit the limited cloning of human embryos for scientific research but not the cloning of individuals. On January 14, 2001, the British government amended the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 by allowing embryo research on stem cells and allowing therapeutic cloning. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 2008 explicitly prohibited reproductive cloning but allowed experimental stem cell research for treating diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease ( 41 , 42 ). On February 3, 2014, the House of Commons voted to legalize a gene therapy technique known as mitochondrial replacement, or three-person in vitro fertilization, in which mitochondria from a donor’s egg cell contribute to a couple’s embryo ( 43 ). In the United States, there are currently no federal laws that ban cloning completely ( 42 ). Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia) ban reproductive cloning, and three states (Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for research on reproductive cloning ( 44 ).

Therapeutic Cloning

Cloning of embryonic cells (stem cells) could have important health applications in organ transplantation, treating injured nerve cells, and otherwise. In addition to SCNT, the method discussed above for cloning individuals, another technique is available, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), although SCNT has proven to be much more effective and less costly. The objective is to obtain pluripotent stem cells that have the potential to differentiate in any of the three germ layers characteristic of humans and other animals: endoderm (lungs and interior lining of stomach and gastrointestinal tract), ectoderm (nervous systems and epidermal tissues), and mesoderm (muscle, blood, bone, and urogenital tissues). Stem cells, with more limited possibilities than pluripotent cells, can also be used for specific therapeutic purposes ( 45 ).

Stem cell therapy consists of cloning embryonic cells to obtain pluripotent or other stem cells that can be used in regenerative medicine, to treat or prevent all sorts of diseases, and for the transplantation of organs. At present, bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy; stem blood cells are used in the treatment of sickle cell anemia, a lethal disease when untreated, which is very common in places where malaria is rife because heterozygous individuals are protected against infection by Plasmodium falciparum , the agent of malignant malaria. One of the most promising applications of therapeutic cloning is the growth of organs for transplantation, using stem cells that have the genome of the organ recipient. Two major hurdles would be overcome. One is the possibility of immune rejection; the other is the availability of organs from suitable donors. Another regenerative medical application that might be anticipated is the therapeutic growth of nerve cells. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the world paralyzed from the neck down and confined for life to a wheelchair as a consequence of damage to the spinal cord below the neck, often as a consequence of a car accident or a fall, that interrupts the transmission of nerve activity from the brain to the rest of the body and vice versa. A small growth of nerve cells sufficient to heal the wound in the spinal cord would have enormous health consequences for the wounded persons and for society.

At present, the one gene therapy modification of the embryo that can be practiced is mitochondrial replacement (MR), legalized in the United Kingdom by the House of Commons on February 3, 2014 ( 43 ), as mentioned earlier. Mutations in the mitochondrial DNA of about 1 in 6,500 individuals account for a variety of severe and often fatal conditions, including blindness, muscular weakness, and heart failure ( 46 ). With MR, the embryo possesses nuclear DNA from the mother and father, as well as mtDNA from a donor female who has healthy mtDNA. However, MR remains technically challenging, with a low rate of success. One complicating issue is that mtDNA replacement is not 100% successful; disease-causing mutant mtDNA persists in the developing embryo and may account for eventual diseases due to heteroplasmy, at least in some tissues. A second issue of concern is that mtDNA disorders often appear late in life. It remains unknown whether the benefits of MR as currently practiced may persist in advanced age.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “In the Light of Evolution IX: Clonal Reproduction: Alternatives to Sex,” held January 9–10, 2015, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete program and video recordings of most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/ILE_IX_Clonal_Reproduction .

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Clinical Case Studies
• Journal Club
• Clinical Chemistry Podcasts
• Clinical Trainee Council
• Special Issues
• Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
• Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Call for Papers
• Why Publish?
• About Clinical Chemistry
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

The Cloning Debates and Progress in Biotechnology

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Paul L Wolf, George Liggins, Dan Mercola, The Cloning Debates and Progress in Biotechnology, Clinical Chemistry , Volume 43, Issue 11, 1 November 1997, Pages 2019–2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/43.11.2019

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The perception by humans of what is doable is itself a great determiner of future events. Thus, the successful sheep cloning experiment leading to “Dolly” by Ian Wilmut and associates at Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK, compels us to look in the mirror and consider the issue of human cloning. Should it occur, and if not, how should that opposing mandate be managed? If human cloning should have an acceptable role, what is that role and how should it be monitored and supervised?

In the February 27, 1997, issue of Nature , Ian Wilmut et al. reported that they cloned a sheep (which they named “Dolly”) by transferring the nuclear DNA from an adult sheep udder cell into an egg whose DNA had been removed ( 1 ). Their cloning experiments have led to widespread debate on the potential application of this remarkable technique to the cloning of humans. Following the Scottish researchers’ startling report, President Clinton declared his opposition to using this technique to clone humans. He moved swiftly to order that federal funds not be used for such an experiment and asked an independent panel of experts, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), chaired by Princeton University President Harold Shapiro, to report to the White House with recommendations for a national policy on human cloning. According to recommendations by the NBAC, human cloning is likely to become a crime in the US in the near future. The Commission’s main recommendation is to enact federal legislation to prohibit any attempts, whether in a research or a clinical setting, to create a human through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.

The concept of genetic manipulation is not new and has been a general practice for more than a century, through practices ranging from selective cross-pollination in plants to artificial insemination in domestic farm animals.

Wilmut and his colleagues made 277 attempts before they succeeded with Dolly. Previously, investigators had reported successful cloning in frogs, mice, and cattle ( 2 )( 3 )( 4 )( 5 ), and 1 week after Wilmut’s report, Don Wolf and colleagues at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center reported their cloning of two rhesus monkeys by utilizing embryonic cells. The achievement of Wilmut’s team shocked nucleic acid experts, who thought it would be an impossible feat. They believed that the DNA of adult cells could not perform similarly to the DNA formed when a spermatozoa’s genes mingle with those of an ovum.

On July 25, 1997, the Roslin team also reported the production of lambs that contained human genes ( 6 ). Utilizing techniques similar to those they had used in Dolly, they inserted a human gene into the nuclei of sheep cells. These cells were next inserted into the ova of sheep from which the DNA had been removed. The resulting lambs contained the human gene in every cell. In this new procedure the DNA had been inserted into skin fibroblast cells, which are specialized cells, unlike previous procedures in which DNA was introduced into a fertilized ovum. The new lamb has been named “Polly” because she is a Poll Dorset sheep. The goal of this new genetically engineered lamb is for these lambs to produce human proteins necessary for the treatment of human genetic diseases, such as factor VIII for hemophiliacs, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) substance for patients with cystic fibrosis, tissue plasminogen activator to induce lysis of acute coronary and cerebral artery thrombi, and human growth factor.

Charles Darwin was frightened when he concluded that humans were not specifically separated from all other animals. Not until 20 years after his discovery did he have the courage to publish his findings, which changed the way humans view life on earth. Wilmut’s amazing investigations have also created worldwide fear, misunderstanding, and ethical shock waves. Politicians and a few scientists are proposing legislation to outlaw human cloning ( 7 ). Although the accomplishment of cloning clearly could provide many benefits to medicine and to conservation of endangered species of animals, politicians and a few scientists fear that the cloning procedure will be abused.

The advantages of cloning are numerous. The ability to clone dairy cattle may have a larger impact on the dairy industry than artificial insemination. Cloning might be utilized to produce multiple copies of animals that are especially good at producing meat, milk, or wool. The average cow makes 13 000 pounds (5800 kg) of milk a year. Cloning of cows that are superproducers of milk might result in cows producing 40 000 pounds (18 000 kg) of milk a year.

Wilmut’s recent success in cloning “Polly” represents his main interest in cloning ( 8 ). He believes in cloning animals able to produce proteins that are or may prove to be useful in medicine. Cloned female animals could produce large amounts of various important proteins in their milk, resulting in female animals that serve as living drug factories. Investigators might be able to clone animals affected with human diseases, e.g., cystic fibrosis, and investigate new therapies for the human diseases expressed by these animals.

Another possibility of cloning could be to change the proteins on the cell surface of heart, liver, kidney, or lung, i.e., to produce organs resembling human organs and enhancing the supply of organs for human transplantation. The altered donor organs, e.g., from pigs, would be less subject to rejection by the human recipient. The application of cloning in the propagation of endangered species and conservation of gene pools has been proposed as another important use of the cloning technique ( 9 )( 10 ).

The opponents of cloning have especially focused on banning the cloning of humans ( 11 ). The UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, and Denmark have implemented laws barring human cloning. Opponents of human cloning have cited potential ethical and legal implications. They emphasize that individuals are more than a sum of their genes. A clone of an individual might have a different environment and thus might be a different person psychologically and have a different “soul.” Cloning of a human is replication and not procreation.

Morally questionable uses of genetic material transfer and cloning obviously exist. For example, infertility experts might be especially interested in the cloning technique to produce identical twins, triplets, or quadruplets. Parents of a child who has a terminal illness might wish to have a clone of the child to replace the dying child. The old stigma, eugenics, also raises its ugly head if infertile couples wish to use the nuclear transfer techniques to ensure that their “hard-earned” offspring will possess excellent genes. Moral perspectives will differ tremendously in these cases. Judgments about the appropriateness of such uses are outside the realm of science.

Opponents of animal cloning are concerned that cloning will negate genetic diversity of livestock. This also applies to human cloning, which could negate genetic diversity of humans. Cloning creates, by definition, a second class of human, a human with a determined genotype called into existence, however benevolently, at the behest of another. The insulation of selection-of-mate is lost, and the second class is created. Few contrasts could be so clear. Selection-of-mate is so imprecise that, at present, would-be parents have to accept a complete new genome for the sake of including or excluding one or a few traits; cloning, in contrast, is the precise determination of all genes. If we acknowledge that the creation of a second class of humans is unethical, then we preempt any argument that some motivations for human cloning may be acceptable.

The opponents of cloning also fear that biotechnically cloned foods might increase the risk of humans acquiring some malignancies or infections such as “mad cow disease,” a prion spongiform dementia encephalopathy (human Jakob–Creutzfeldt disease).

The technological advances associated with manipulation of genetic materials now permit us to envision replacement of defective genes with “good” genes. Although current progress is not sufficient to make this practical today for human diseases, any efforts to stop such research as a result of cloning hysteria would preclude the development of true cures for many hereditary human diseases. Unreasonable restrictions on the use of human tissues in gene transfer research will have the inevitable consequences of delaying, if not preventing, the development of strategies to combat defective genes.

Wise legislation will enable humankind to realize the benefits of gene transfer technologies without risking the horrors that could arise from misuse of these technologies. Our hope is that such wise legislation is what will be enacted. In our view, the controversy surrounding human cloning must not lead to prohibitions that would prevent advances similar to those described here.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhire J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997 ; 385 : 810 -813.

Pennisi E, Williams N. Will Dolly send in the clones?. Science 1997 ; 275 : 1415 -1416.

Gurdon JB, Laskey RA, Reeves OR. The developmental capacity of nuclei transplanted from keratinized skin cells of adult frogs. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1975 ; 34 : 93 -112.

Prather RS. Nuclei transplantation in the bovine embryo. Assessment of donor nuclei and recipient oocyte. Biol Reprod 1987 ; 37 : 859 -866.

Kwon OY, Kono T. Production of identical sextuplet mice by transferring metaphase nuclei from 4-cell embryos. J Reprod Fert Abst Ser 1996 ; 17 : 30 .

Kolata G. Lab yields lamb with human gene. NY Times 1997;166:July 25;A12..

Specter M, Kolta G. After decades of missteps, how cloning succeeded. NY Times 1997;166:March 3;B6–8..

Ibrahim YM. Ian Wilmut. NY Times 1997;166:February 24;B8..

Ryder OA, Benirschke K. The potential use of “cloning” in the conservation effort. Zoo Biol 1997 ; 16 : 295 -300.

Cohen J. Can cloning help save beleaguered species?. Science 1997 ; 276 : 1329 -1330.

Williams N. Cloning sparks calls for new laws. Science 1997;275:141-5..

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1530-8561
• Print ISSN 0009-9147
• Copyright © 2024 Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Human Cloning: Biology, Ethics, and Social Implications

Affiliations.

• 1 MAGI'S LAB, Rovereto (TN), Italy.
• 2 Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
• 3 MAGI EUREGIO, Bolzano, Italy.
• 4 MAGISNAT, Peachtree Corners (GA), USA.
• 5 School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Technological University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
• 6 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Ca-nada.
• 7 Department of Ophthalmology, Center for Ocular Regenerative Therapy, School of Medicine, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
• 8 Centre for Bioethics, Department of Philosophy and Applied Philosophy, University of St. Cyril and Methodius, Trnava, Slovakia.
• 9 Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
• 10 nstitute of Ophthalmology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
• 11 MAGI BALKANS, Tirana, Albania.
• 12 Department of Biotechnology, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius, Trnava, Slovakia.
• 13 International Centre for Applied Research and Sustainable Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia.
• 14 UOC Neurology and Stroke Unit, ASST Lecco, Merate, Italy.
• 15 Center for Preclincal Research and General and Liver Transplant Surgery Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
• 16 Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
• 17 Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
• 18 UOC Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Dentistry, Fondazione IRCCS Ca Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
• 19 Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus.
• 20 Department of Medical Genetics, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey.
• 21 Vascular Diagnostics and Rehabilitation Service, Marino Hospital, ASL Roma 6, Marino, Italy.
• 22 San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
• 23 Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, SyNaBi, Grenoble, France.
• 24 Department of Biotechnology, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania.
• 25 Total Lipedema Care, Beverly Hills, California, and Tucson, Arizona, USA.
• 26 Federation of the Jewish Communities of Slovakia.
• 27 Department of Psychological Health and Territorial Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
• 28 Unit of Molecular Genetics, Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
• 29 Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, UK.
• PMID: 37994769
• DOI: 10.7417/CT.2023.2492

This scholarly article delves into the multifaceted domains of human cloning, encompassing its biological underpinnings, ethical dimensions, and broader societal implications. The exposition commences with a succinct historical and contextual overview of human cloning, segueing into an in-depth exploration of its biological intri-cacies. Central to this biological scrutiny is a comprehensive analysis of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and its assorted iterations. The accomplishments and discoveries in cloning technology, such as successful animal cloning operations and advances in the efficiency and viability of cloned embryos, are reviewed. Future improvements, such as reprogramming procedures and gene editing technology, are also discussed. The discourse extends to ethical quandaries intrinsic to human cloning, entailing an extensive contemplation of values such as human dignity, autonomy, and safety. Furthermore, the ramifications of human cloning on a societal plane are subjected to scrutiny, with a dedicated emphasis on ramifications encompassing personal identity, kinship connections, and the fundamental notion of maternity. Culminating the analysis is a reiteration of the imperative to develop and govern human cloning technology judiciously and conscientiously. Finally, it discusses several ethical and practical issues, such as safety concerns, the possibility of exploitation, and the erosion of human dignity, and emphasizes the significance of carefully considering these issues.

Keywords: Human cloning; biology; dignity; ethical considerations; safety; social implications.

Publication types

• Cloning, Organism*
• Nuclear Transfer Techniques*
• Self Concept

23 Major Human Cloning Pros and Cons

Human cloning in the form of identical twins is the closest comparison that we have to this scientific concept at this time. Artificial cloning processes have yet to be developed, and they may never be brought to light because of the numerous ethical and moral concerns involved with the technology that would allow a genetically identical copy of an existing or previously existing individual to be grown.

Even when there are naturally duplicated “clones” that share a nearly identical genetic profile, they are not exact duplicates. Each person has different experiences, thoughts, and perspectives that combine to create a unique individual. Even people who share a similar environment with similar DNA can turn out to be very different individuals.

When looking at the major human cloning pros and cons, it is essential that we balance the need to evolve the scientific processes involved in this artificial task while addressing the ethical and moral concerns which currently exist when manually creating or changing a genome. These are the crucial points to review.

List of the Pros of Human Cloning

1. Human cloning could resolve fertility issues. Couples who are unable to naturally conceive will be able to create children to whom they are a genetic relative thanks to human cloning. Infertility could become an issue of the past because doctors could take the genetic profile of each parent, infuse it into an embryo outside of the body, and potentially grow the fetus in a laboratory environment. This process could help countries such as Japan who are struggling with low birth rates right now.

The BBC reported in late 2018 that there was a remarkable decline in fertility rates in the developed world. In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children during their lifetime. In 2018, the fertility rate was just 2.4 children per woman. In the UK, that rate is just 1.7 children. When a country drops below 2.1 children per family, the population will eventually shrink.

2. Human cloning could lead to medical advancements. The processes of human cloning could help to create new advances in medical science. By creating a duplicated individual, it would become possible to share genetic material which could help to prevent or cure diseases that may have a negative impact on that person’s life. It could create a new line of research that is equivalent to what we see today with embryonic stem cell therapy potential.

3. Human cloning unlocks the benefits of genetic modification. Human cloning requires a precise form of genetic engineering. Using our current technologies, we would implement enzymes from bacteria to locate genes with in our DNA to create the necessary modifications for duplication. This technology has been in use since 2015, so it is not something from which we are completely unfamiliar. We know of five potential benefits to genetic modification within the human genome that are worth exploring.

• It could help us to begin curing genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or thalassaemia. • Genetic modification could also help us deal with complex diseases such as schizophrenia or heart disease. • Human cloning could help us discover new ways to combat the natural aging process, including potential opportunities to stop it. • Babies would no longer need to go through a genetic lottery before birth to know what their human potentiality would be during their lifetime. • It could begin to reduce the overall cost of disease treatments around the world.

4. Human cloning could help us to recover faster from devastating injuries. Interventional orthopedics is a non-surgical option which uses a patient’s own cells to help repair the damage that occurs during a traumatic injury. Sprains or strains to a ligament will typically heal in 4 to 6 weeks with rest, but when a tear occurs, the primary treatment option (especially with an ACL) is to apply a tissue graft at a steeper angle to encourage the healing process.

The current procedure increases a patient’s risk for osteoarthritis and cartilage damage later in life. Through the processes of human cloning, the cells can begin to rebuild on their own. It creates an opportunity for a faster recovery because doctors are duplicating the exact cells that the body requires.

5. Human cloning reduces issues of socioeconomic equality. According to the Science X Network, up to 10% of children in the developed world are currently taking medication such as Ritalin to help with their poor self-control issues. This medication makes it possible for today’s kids to improve their educational prospects because they have more control over their behaviors. Education, special services, diet, and other social interventions are also used to correct the natural inequality that occurs through the natural reproduction process.

Moving toward human cloning would allow the next generation of children to require fewer interventions throughout their life because they would be genetically equipped to handle the challenges which might come their way.

6. Human cloning could eliminate defective genes and chromosomes. The statistics on genetic diseases are particularly grim in today’s world. About 1% of the population in the United States will develop a specific disorder with a genetic foundation at some point during their life. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people in the U.S. have Syndrome A at the present time, with 100,000 children worldwide dealing with Syndrome B. The current leading cause of newborn death is due to birth defects. All of these issues could be reduced or eliminated if we were to embrace the benefits that human cloning provides.

7. Human cloning would allow great minds to continue benefiting humankind. Imagine what Albert Einstein would’ve been able to accomplish if he had 100 years to work instead of a few decades during a single lifetime. Where would we be today if Leonardo da Vinci had access to modern technology with his impressive imagination? Because of human cloning, we would be able to set the stage for humankind’s greatest minds to continue doing their work, albeit as new individuals, which would help our society advance at an even more rapid pace.

Significant contributions to science, music, literature, and the arts are possible because of the technologies involved in human cloning.

8. Human cloning would help us to create more stem cells. Stem cells are what help to build, maintain, and repair the body throughout our lives. There are processes that these cells perform naturally, allowing them to be manipulated by doctors to repair diseased or damage to organs and tissues. When they are transferred from one person to another, then the recipient sees these cells as being foreign bodies, triggering an immune response. Cloning is a way to create genetically identical cells that could help to create better health outcomes for people, especially if they suffer from a rare genetic disease.

9. Human cloning could eliminate viral epidemics. The primary goal of treating a virus such as HIV/AIDS is to suppress the mechanisms involved that harm human health. Human cloning could help to replicate a natural resistance to these diseases, disorders, and conditions when discovered in the general population. For as long as disease has existed on our planet, there have been a select few people who have a natural resistance to specific illnesses. A mutation of the CCR5 gene, for example, creates a natural resistance to HIV.

Some people naturally resist the influenza virus better than others. Researchers even found that a group of women in West Africa remained perfectly healthy despite repetitive exposure to the Ebola virus. Human cloning would allow us to take advantage of these natural immunities to create new vaccines, medical treatments, or even children in future generations who would not be forced to struggle with such devastating illnesses.

10. Human cloning could adapt our population to changing planetary conditions. The processes of evolution allow humankind to begin adapting to changing conditions on our planet. Future generations may be able to adapt to a warming world thanks to the slow adaptations of our genetic profile to this shift. Human cloning could speed up this process to help save lives that would normally be lost through the process of natural selection. We would be able to take the genetic profile of those who are the most resistant to any change, duplicate it, and then spread it to the rest of the population.

11. Human cloning could lead to advancements in organ transplantation. There are over 100,000 people on organ transplantation wait lists in the United States right now. Roughly 10,000 individuals are waiting for a critical organ, such as a heart. Through the processes of human cloning, it may become possible to duplicate a patient’s needed organ in a laboratory setting to create a viable outcome. This process would also reduce the immune response that occurs after this procedure takes place because the new organ would be based on the cells of the individual instead of a random donation.

12. Human cloning could help us understand the reasons why spontaneous abortions occur. Spontaneous abortion, which is the medical term for a pregnancy loss or “miscarriage,” is the natural death of a fetus or embryo before it can survive independently. Approximately 80% occur in the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy, with about half of the incidents involving a chromosomal abnormality of some type. Among women who are currently pregnant, up to 1 in 5 may experience this outcome. The processes behind human cloning would help us to understand more about these abnormalities, and then correct them to prevent future losses.

List of the Cons of Human Cloning

1. Human cloning might cause people to age faster instead of slower. As cells begin to age, the information they obtain is imprinted within their physical structure. When a person begins to grow up, they generate genetic information that their genome maintains. Although we know that cloning is possible, what we do not understand at this present time is whether the information contained within our DNA could cause an artificial duplicate to develop more rapidly than normal.

If genetic age imprinting does apply to the human genome, then providing embryos with older cells could create issues with premature aging. This process could lead to new genetic diseases, potentially increasing the risk for premature death.

2. Human cloning would change how we perceive individuality. Human cloning creates two or more individuals with the same genetic profile. Each person would have their own brains and bodies, which means they would be like any other family member within a specific genetic profile. Although each person will develop uniquely based on their circumstances, there would still be issues with individuality because of the physical similarities that exist. Other people who are not involved with the cloning process could begin to treat those who are differently within society, creating a new social class reserved only for those who are genetic duplicates of an “authentic” human.

3. Human cloning would only be available to the wealthy initially. Although human cloning will eventually help everyone at some level, the first procedures would be available only to those with enough money to take advantage of his potential benefits. There is a general rule in the humankind that says those who have power will do whatever it takes to maintain it. Even if the technologies become affordable to everyone, those who received the benefits first will already have a distinct advantage over those who did not.

We would still have our socioeconomic divides in place, even with this science, because those with money could afford more features, add-ons, or processes than those who are struggling to put food on their table.

4. Human cloning would face the same dangers as animal cloning. It requires over 100 embryos to create one viable animal clone in many circumstances. Although scientists have successfully brought back an extinct species through the technologies and understanding of the research in this field, the results were less than spectacular. The bucardo, an extinct wild goat, only lived for about 10 minutes after it reached a stage of meaningful life. That is why this process is illegal in most parts of the world today, relying on the research in cloning stem cells as a way to advance the science instead of duplicating entire individuals.

5. Human cloning will always have spiritual, moral, and ethical consequences attached to it. There will always be physical risks to humans associated with the artificial cloning process. People have ethical and moral objections to this science as well. When Dolly the Sheep was born as a clone in 1997, it did not take religious leaders long to speak out against the science from the pulpit. The Roman Catholic church is against human cloning of any kind, and they have held that position since 1987. Jewish leaders do not necessarily see a fertilized embryo as having full human status.

These debates will never go away. Some people have no problem with the idea of creating human clones. Others will be fundamentally opposed to this science for a lifetime. This difference of opinion would create additional rifts in society that could become problematic in the future.

6. Human cloning attempts have been mostly unsuccessful. When we look at the processes of genetic treatments and their outcomes, more than 90% of the efforts taken to treat humans have resulted in failure. Even when there is a successful medical treatment using genetic techniques, the individual typically needs to keep taking their treatment over the course of their entire life to continue experiencing the benefits of this technology and research. This disadvantage may go away as our understanding of this topic increases, but it is something that we must consider before advancing to the next steps as well.

7. Human cloning could contaminate our DNA diversity. Although newborns go through a series of “chance” developments during their embryonic development stage, having a higher level of genetic diversity within human populations is beneficial to the overall health of our species. When we stay locked in closed genetic groups, then our DNA becomes contaminated with higher levels of mutations. This outcome creates a higher risk of disease later in life.

We have already seen this issue play out with the Ashkenazi Jewish population. There are five common genetic diseases which are much more prevalent in their community than in general humankind. Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Familial Dysautonomia, Spinal Muscular atrophy, and Gaucher disease are all severe issues with a prevalence rate as high as 1 in 10.

8. Human cloning could lead to exploitation. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity suggest that one of the most significant disadvantages of human cloning would be how it could lead to a new exploitation of women. Scientists would need to manufacture enough cloned embryos to create a sufficient number of stem cell lines that are viable. Women would need to be injected with medication that would help them to ovulate rapidly, and then undergo an invasive procedure to extract the eggs. Even under current circumstances, up to 5% of patients experience hyperstimulation that leads to ongoing abdominal pain and even infertility in rare cases.

9. Human cloning would initially target women who are struggling financially. The women who would be willing to take on the health risks involved with egg harvesting procedures are those who are struggling financially. These women are not seeking to have children. They want the money associated with the procedure instead. Advanced Cell Technology paid up to $4,500 to each woman who donated eggs for their failed cloning experiments already. Amping up the research in this field would require an approach that was similar as a way to access the genetic materials that are necessary.

10. Human cloning creates people as a means to an end. It is unethical to view humans, regardless of their age, as a means to an end. Even people who support the development of stem cells and embryonic research are opposed to the idea of creating embryos specifically for the purpose of research or to produce medical outcomes for another person. When we start to research human cloning, this is exactly what we are doing. Activated cells are still part of the human experience. Therapeutic cloning might provide medical information that we can use in the future, but the costs may be too high to see any advantages happening from this process.

11. Human cloning would change how we grieve. Imagine a world where parents lose their child to tragic circumstances. Instead of embracing the natural grieving process, human cloning would suggest that the genetic materials could be used to create a duplicate. Although the clone would be a different individual, some parents may not treat them as such. It could create shifts in our society that alter the very way we approach the unforeseen moments of life. There is even the possibility of this science devaluing human life. Did you lose someone you love? Then create another person to limit your emotional reaction.

These human cloning pros and cons are essential to review because science is slowly progressing toward this outcome. It may be a process that becomes available in our lifetimes. When we reach this new plateau, there will be several philosophical and moral questions that each person must answer on their own. Do people have a soul? Is there a God? What happens when we die? If we can begin to find the answers today, then tomorrow’s technology will not experience implementation delays.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Cloning — Human Cloning: Pros and Cons Around This Debatable Topic

Human Cloning: Pros and Cons Around This Debatable Topic

• Categories: Cloning Ethical Dilemma Medical Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1204 |

Published: Aug 14, 2023

Words: 1204 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Human cloning: pros and cons of this debate.

• Bradford, Alina. “Facts About Cloning.” ​LiveScience​, Purch, 2 Mar. 2017, www.livescience.com/58079-cloning-facts.html.
• Brenner, Laurie. “The Pros & Cons of Cloning.” ​Sciencing​, 2 Mar. 2019, sciencing.com/pros-cons-cloning-5453902.html.
• Hrubenja, Aleksandar, et al. “46 Crucial Endangered Species Statistics for 2020 and Beyond.” Petpedia​, 28 Feb. 2020, petpedia.co/endangered-species-statistics/.
• Davis, Nicola. “Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua: First Primates Born Using Dolly the Sheep Cloning Method.” ​The Guardian​, Guardian News and Media, 24 Jan. 2018, www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/24/zhong-zhong-and-hua-hua-first-primates-born-using-dolly-the-sheep-cloning-method.
• Chief, Editor in. “23 Major Human Cloning Pros and Cons.” ​ConnectUS​, 12 Mar. 2019, connectusfund.org/23-major-human-cloning-pros-and-cons.
• “Positive And Negative Effects Of Cloning Biology Essay.” ​UKEssays.com​, www.ukessays.com/essays/biology/positive-and-negative-effects-of-cloning-biology-essay.php​.
• Jones, Judy. “Cloning May Cause Health Defects.” ​BMJ : British Medical Journal​, British Medical Journal, 8 May 1999, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115633/.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 673 words

3 pages / 1215 words

3 pages / 1236 words

6 pages / 2570 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Cloning

Animal cloning, a scientific technique that involves creating genetically identical copies of animals, has been a subject of fascination, debate, and innovation since its inception. This complex and ethically charged topic has [...]

Human cloning is one of the most revolutionary yet controversial topics in the world of genetic research. To clone, or create an organism with an exact genetic copy as that of an existing organism’s, not only provokes a plethora [...]

Understanding any functionally biological product is very important. For this, we need to understand and know the location of that particular gene from where the product from that gene is being transcribed and translated. The [...]

Dolly the sheep is the first mammal to ever be cloned using an adult somatic cell through the process of nuclear transfer. This is where the nucleus of a cell (a mammary cell in this case) is placed within an unfertilized [...]

Ionising radiation is a method of treatment that commonly used to treat cancer. Radiation therapy uses high-energy particles or waves, such as x-rays, gamma rays, electron beams, or protons, to destroy or damage cancer cells. [...]

Reflecting on effect of change and relieving unnecessary human suffering in a country of approximately 1.25 billion people, almost one-sixth of the world's population, Palliative care is reassurance to the patient that whatever [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Human Cloning Essay

IELTS Human Cloning Essay

This is a model answer for a  human cloning  essay.

If you look at the task, the wording is slightly different from the common  'do you agree or disagree'  essay.

However, it is essentially asking the same thing.

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

Understanding the Question and Task

You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts (in other words, what are the benefits), and what reservations (concerns) you have (in other words, what are the disadvantages).

So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer.

As always, you must read the question carefully to make sure you answer it fully and do not go off topic.

You are specifically being asked to discuss the issue of creating human clones to then use their body parts. If you write about other issues to do with human cloning, you may go off topic.

Model Human Cloning Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating other human beings and then eventually killing them in order to use their organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

(276 words)

The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic:

• The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.

And it has a thesis statement that makes it clear exactly how the human cloning essay will be structured and what the candidate's opinion is:

• Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of cloning humans, and then the second body paragraph looks at the problems associated with this. The change of direction to look at the other side is clearly marked with a transition word ("however") and a topic sentence:

• However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development.

Other transition words are used effectively to guide the reader through the ideas in the human cloning essay: Firstly,.. Also,... Furthermore,...

The candidate demonstrates that they can use a mix of complex structures. For example:

• Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past.
• It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder.
• ...if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Pros and Cons of Human Cloning

In 1997, scientists successfully cloned a sheep from an adult cell. This breakthrough in genetic technology sparked a heated debate regarding the moral, legal, and scientific viability of genetic cloning. Similarly, in 2017, scientists in China were able to clone two identical macaques. The concept of biological cloning means creating a full genetic copy of an individual or the tissue of a particular species. While cloning does exist in nature in the form of twins, the artificial process is a cause of emotive debate. Over the years, cloning technology has advanced to the point where humans cloning is a real possibility. Admittedly, human cloning presents certain scientific benefits that would positively impact the world. However, human cloning is challenged by significant moral and scientific barriers.

First, genetic cloning of humans stands out as a positive innovation that would positively benefit the world. The most prominent of these benefits include the capacity to alter the genetic make-up of individuals with genetic abnormalities. Forms of gene editing such as cloning are a way of eliminating defective genes and mutations thereby curing some genetic disorders (Savulescu, Pugh, Douglas, & Gyngell, 2015). Moreover, cloning technology has applications in therapeutic medicine where it can be used to aid procedures such as transplants as well as tissue damage repair. Based on research (Sachs, Mollica, & Bruno, 2017), cloning can radically enhance the success of these procedures. Most importantly, genetic cloning has significant relevance to reproductive health. For instance, infertile individuals can use technology to produce younger versions of themselves and eliminate the pain caused by infertility. Equally, there are outstanding scientific disadvantages of genetic cloning in humans.

Despite notable progress in genetic cloning technology, the process has had more failures than successes. According to Ayala (2015), genetic cloning attempts have higher rates of failure than success. For example, attaining a successful close would require damage to a large number of human embryos. Moreover, the risks associated with genetic cloning outweigh the benefits given that these failures come with the possibility of contaminating the human genome. Presently, animal studies show a high rate of failure. Given that there are still aspects of human cloning that are not understood by science, there is a likelihood of inadvertent outcomes that cannot be handled by science. For example, Ayala (2015) shows that cloning can result in unwanted genetic effects. Similarly, the fact that cloning uses the cells of an already-aged adult, it is possible that this age may be passed on to the clone creating the risk of complications such as early death. Moral complexities also form a major weak point for human cloning.

From a moral perspective, human cloning interferes with nature and the sanctity of life. Many opponents of human cloning argue that the artificial process of human cloning challenges the natural order of life. Typically, the process of procreation occurs mostly without the influence of human beings. Consequently, many human characteristics cannot be altered. However, with genetic cloning, it would be possible to pre-select the desired traits of an offspring. This issue becomes even more complicated when viewed from a religious viewpoint because it is considered to compromise the sanctity of human life (Allum et al., 2017). Subsequently, divisions would expand in society between clones and average human beings. In practice, these divisions would occur when parents discontented with normal children would clone new children with the hope of getting the perfect child.

As the technology of human cloning continues to advance, the divide between opponents and proponents is unlikely to narrow. Nonetheless, the reality that human cloning has both benefits and shortcomings cannot be disputed. Genetic cloning carries immense scientific benefits as well as dangers. Additionally, genetic cloning presents major moral issues that are not easy to resolve. Exploring the pros and cons of genetic cloning is one way of introducing some clarity and hopefully create some form of consensus

Allum, N., Allansdottir, A., Gaskell, G., Hampel, J., Jackson, J., Moldovan, A., & Stoneman, P. (2017). Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: Attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States.  PloS one ,  12 (4), e0176274.

Ayala, F. J. (2015). Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  112 (29), 8879-8886.

Sachs, P. C., Mollica, P. A., & Bruno, R. D. (2017). Tissue-specific microenvironments: a key tool for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.  Journal of Biological Engineering ,  11 (1), 34.

Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., & Gyngell, C. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos.  Protein & Cell ,  6 (7), 476-479.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Xbox vs. playstation, exploring innovative solar panel technologies, frequently using tylenol will decrease the immune system in toddler, effects of algorithms on human culture, fuel selection and metabolic function, healthcare delivery and quality case study, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

• How It Works
• Our Discounts
• Free essays

Human Cloning: Pros and Cons

• Speech analysis

The question of human cloning arose after the first cloning of an animal, namely the sheep Dolly. Since that time, scholars and scientists became interested in cloning of people. Human cloning could make fundamental changes in the development of transplantology and reproductive medicine. It may help infertile or unisexual couples create real families and have children. Moreover, single men or women could have genetically related descendants. Further, with the aid of cloning, scientists may create organs for people who need transplants. In addition, animal cloning could help produce new medicines and methods of treatment of serious diseases. However, many people argue that human cloning should not be allowed because of the negative consequences, which the cloned individuals would face. First, clones may run health risks and hazard of early death. Second, clones may feel like they are not unique and are only the copies of a human. Third, many people argue that cloning is immoral and unacceptable because person cannot create other humans in an artificial way. Though human cloning is of high importance for the evolution of science and medicine, it can be allowed only for creating transplants but not for producing people on account of ethical and moral principles.

Human cloning should be prohibited since it may be dangerous because of possible mistakes and deflections. For example, animal cloning had taken 277 tries to produce one cloned sheep (Ehlers 525). The first attempts ended with failures and defections. If to consider human cloning, the main victims of the experiments will be the children. In his article “The Case against Human Cloning,” Vernon J. Ehlers writes the following, “There would be a loss of many fetuses, and some babies would die shortly after birth” (525). It means that almost every initial experiment would end with failure. In such case, people have no right to hazard human’s health and life, even if they are sure that the risk is small. Nevertheless, there are those who would say that danger and risk are not the reasons for prohibiting human cloning. For instance, in the article “Cloning and the Preservation of Family Integrity,” David Orentlicher tells that such objections are temporary and cannot be the cause of banning the human cloning (1021). The author affirms that scientists would not allow cloning until they know that it is safe. However, one can argue that there could be unscrupulous doctors who would hide the information about the possible risks. Human cloning would always be connected with potential hazards. Nevertheless, there exists another thought that human cloning could be useful.

Need custom written paper? We'll write an essay from scratch according to your instructions! Plagiarism and AI Free Price from only 10.99$/page Call Now Start Chat Order Now

Some scientists consider that cloning would help people who cannot give birth to children but want to have a genetically related child (Robertson 618). Human cloning is the best way to solve the problem of infertility. However, there are other methods, which are used in reproductive medicine and provide a natural process of birth. Among them are artificial fertilization, surrogate maternity, using of sperm or oocyte donors. In the last resort couples can adopt children. If all these methods are not acceptable, cloning could help but only in several cases. However, if it is allowed for some individuals and prohibited for others, discussions will arise. For this reason, cloning cannot be allowed.

There is one more reason for cloning. Many people could use clones for personal purposes such as producing a cloned baby for using his or her bones for their living child. Besides, some scholars could create clones and sell their organs. Of course, one cannot assert that it will necessarily happen; however, people are not perfect, and there would always be greedy and amoral individuals. Thus, if human cloning is allowed, the experiments can take too many lives, and it is unacceptable. In spite of possible advantages and benefits of human cloning, it cannot be allowed because the risks are too big, and people’s lives cannot be endangered, no matter whether they are born naturally or in an artificial way.

Human cloning should be forbidden because clones may suffer from the problem of non-identity. It means that cloned children may feel that they are different and not unique. They would not be born in a natural way like other children but would be produced with the help of cloning their parents’ or other people’s cells. Such children may be harmed by others at school; in turn, it may lead to various psychological and physical problems. They may become unsociable and the fear of ignorance may appear. The cloned children may be afraid of not knowing their origin and absence of genetic ties with one of their parents. Besides, cloned people may be discriminated because of social prejudices. They may feel like they are defective or worse than others. Nevertheless, David Orentlicher argues that people do not prize identity, and adolescents often suppose that it is “‘cool’ to look and be like their peers” (1023). Moreover, the scientist contends that it cannot be harmful to a child to be born as a non-identical individuality if the only alternative is not to be born at all (Orentlicher 1023). On the contrary, in their article “Human Cloning and Child Welfare,” Burley and Harris write that a clone will not have a life that is fully his or hers (110). They will live a life in the shadow of those who created them. Besides, a cloned person may feel guilty or dependent on their parents because owing to them, he or she came into this world. Some would say that children who were born naturally can have the same problems. However, one cannot compare a natural process of birth and artificial one. On the one hand, people who do not want children would not clone them, unlike those who have unwanted pregnancies, but on the other, parents could create children for personal purposes. The state would not be able to control the process of cloning and creating families with cloned children. That is why human cloning is not the best way to solve the problem of reproduction. Though social and psychological issues, faced by clones, are not as horrible as possible health problems, well-being of a person should be of a high priority.

The last and the most important reason to prohibit cloning is its immorality and interference in natural processes. Human beings are not Gods, and they cannot create other people as if they produce robots. Religious opponents believe that “there is a taboo against human beings possessing God’s power to create human life” and “cloning violates the sanctity of human life” (Shapiro, Long, and Gideon 26). Besides, human cloning may seem unmoral and unfair regarding other people. Human cloning may have a negative influence on the social structure. Ehlers writes, “I imagine that most of us are uncomfortable with the notion of our friends and neighbors creating designer children” (526). Many persons would agree with him because people are envious by nature, and they may judge others because of this feature. In addition, human beings may have prejudices against cloned people. They may consider clones to be defective or abnormal. Furthermore, another aspect emerges, i. e. some scholars argue that the problem of overpopulation or appearing a new “super race” may arise (Orentlicher 1026). However, Orentlicher denies this concern telling that it is impossible to create a new race of people because it will need at least twenty years of time and require many women to be surrogate mothers (1026). On the other hand, there is no assurance that scholars would not be able to make this process faster. If they were allowed to begin experiments with human cloning, they could do everything possible to get some benefits of it. Nevertheless, any intervention in nature may lead to unexpected results.

Get a Price Quote

First Order Discount 15% For New Client

Cloning could be an essential part of science and medicine development; however, human cloning is unacceptable in the view of ethics and morality. The attempts to clone animals showed that it is not safe, and that many problems and deflections can appear during the experiment. Nevertheless, animal cloning could help investigate new remedies and treatments for humans. From this perspective, cloning may be allowed, but only animals may be cloned. Human cloning should be prohibited because it contradicts the principles of morality. Every society should value human life and protect it from the risky experiments. If human cloning is not safe and can cause unforeseen outcomes, it must be forbidden. On the other hand, if scientists and scholars could use cloning for creating transplants, it may save lives of thousands of people. Taking into account the evidence mentioned above, the answer to the question whether to clone people or not may be contradictory. Thus, human cloning seems to be immoral, but when used in transplantology, it can be helpful for the doctors to save patients’ lives.

Ethics Free Samples

Ethical Considerations in the Oil Industry

Ethics in Construction Industry

Ethical Dilemma in Nursing: Cardiology Section

The Pros and Cons of Human Cloning

Kamya Pandey

• By Kamya Pandey
• Published February 4, 2023

Preserving human life or the threat of mass extinction: here are both sides of the argument surrounding human cloning.

Clones, human or otherwise, are genetically identical copies of a living organism produced artificially in a laboratory. Over the years, many animals have been cloned. Starting from the cloning of a tadpole in 1952 to the cloning of a sheep named Dolly from adult mammal cells in 1996, cloning has come a long way. 

When it comes to human cloning, we are getting closer and closer to the possibility of creating human replicas.  Technology, such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink , might make it possible to, one day, create a virtual clone from all our memories. But the same cannot be said about our bodies, at least not yet. While there have been attempts to clone human embryos, none have emerged successful yet. Not only are there technological challenges, but there are a lot of ethical factors associated with cloning. Here is a detailed look at the benefits of cloning and why scientists might be wary of the idea despite them. 

Pros of human cloning

Creating organs for transplants .

The first major advantage of successful human cloning would be the ease of conducting organ transplants. In fact, the ongoing embryo cloning experiments are largely to this effect. If a person suffering from organ failure has an embryo clone of themselves, then cells from this clone could generate organs that would perfectly match the original. This could help bring patients back from the brink of death. 

Treating genetic defects

No one is born perfect; it is estimated that an average person has 400 defects in their genes, and some of these might be associated with diseases. This includes conditions such as Hemophilia (where blood doesn’t clot normally) and cystic fibrosis (where organs absorb too much sodium and water). These conditions can be effectively dealt with by human cloning. A couple with a genetic condition in their family history could produce an embryo through in-vitro fertilization (where the egg is fertilized in a lab) and screen it for genetic abnormalities. Then, stem cells from this embryo would be taken and used to correct abnormalities via genetic engineering. The corrected cells could be placed inside a new clone embryo that would be identical to the original but without genetic issues. 

Removing barriers to fertility 

Cloning can serve as a blessing to those unable to have children, be it same-sex couples or couples struggling with fertility problems. Cloning not only allows couples to have children but also makes it possible to genetically modify the child so they have the traits of both parents. 

Cons of human cloning 

Lack of dna diversity.

The issues with animal and plant cloning give us a fair idea of the downsides of creating human clones. The first is that cloning takes away genetic diversity, which could make a child more susceptible to a range of issues. This includes cancer, genetic malfunction and shortened lifespan. Although cloning can be used to treat genetic disorders, it can end up perpetuating them as well. So, multiple copies of a person with genetic issues could even lead to the complete extinction of a species. 

The process of cloning is also extremely complex. For instance, it took 277 tries to successfully clone the sheep, Dolly, that we had discussed earlier. Even after the clone was successfully created, it died of a rare lung disease at the age of six (less than half the age a sheep typically lives to). 

Premature aging

Another major concern with human cloning is the risk of premature aging. Every human being has a substance called telomere that protects their DNA. Every time the cell divides, these telomeres become shorter and shorter, eventually reaching a point where the cells will stop regenerating. Thus, if an adult’s stem cells are used in the cloning process, then the resulting clone might age quickly .

Of course, we cannot gloss over the ethical implications of creating life through cloning. Artificially creating life and destroying it after its role (for creating organs) is objectionable to some. That, as well as the health risks of cloning, is probably why 46 countries across the world, including Japan, South Korea, France and Germany, have banned human reproductive cloning (clones meant to be born and brought up as children). 

This, in itself, is an obstruction to the development of human cloning technology. However, experts suggest that, from a technological point of view, cloning human beings should be possible one day. Whether we would see it become commonplace or just remain a one-off scientific discovery is yet to be determined. 

• How Far Are We from Achieving Immortality?
• What Is Neuralink? The Ethics of Elon Musk’s Brain Chip

Header image courtesy of Envato. 

• Features , Health Tech , Industries , Latest

SHARE THIS STORY

• About Kamya Pandey

RELATED POSTS

5 Social Media Phenomena Messing With Your Mind

Social media, a tool designed to connect us, can ironically isolate and disconnect us. Here’s how. Despite widespread connectivity at our fingertips, a striking sense

How Over-Tourism Is Destroying Popular Destinations and What We Can Do

The unseen consequences of over-tourism reveal a need for change in how we travel more sustainably. People love to travel, whether it’s for the thrill

What Are Altcoins and Is It Safe to Invest in These Cryptocurrencies?

In the crypto world, while Bitcoin continues to dominate headlines, there’s a growing interest in alternative cryptocurrencies, known as “altcoins”. Recent developments, such as Ethereum’s significant Shanghai upgrade and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of Bitcoin ETFs, have spotlighted these innovative Bitcoin alternatives. Altcoins like Ethereum, Binance Coin and newcomers are carving out their own niches and pushing the boundaries of what cryptocurrencies can do.

The New Way to Travel: Discovering India’s Top Caravan Destinations

Catch the caravan craze and see India in a whole new way. Traversing the open road in a mobile home isn’t a new idea, but

How Indian Startups Can Leverage 5G for Explosive Growth in 2024

5G is the ultimate staircase toward better IT days. The arrival of 5G has unleashed a new wave of potential for the digital landscape. With

PetSmart Steps Up to Expand Sustainable Pet Care Solutions

PetSmart’s latest leap in sustainability ensures your pets’ carbon pawprint is as small as their real ones. PetSmart, a provider of pet products and services,

SIGN UP FOR JUMPSTART'S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

For upcoming news, opportunities, giveaways and more.

• Enter Email Address *

Working with us

The Concept of Human Cloning Analytical Essay

Introduction, background study, methodology used, results and analysis.

The contemporary world has been associated with an advanced technology which has greatly boosted efficiency and effectiveness across all sectors ranging from business, engineering to the medical field.

The concept of cloning is among the most recent human discoveries that have greatly transformed societies. The invention has been associated with many benefits such as the ability to supplement natural organs with those generated those cloning.

For instance, cloning has enabled generation of organs which has created an alternative organs supply which those organs that are delivered from donors during the organ transplant instances. Organs generated through cloning have been noted to be very effective as they are not known to experience any rejections since they share the same gene with the body system.

Animal cloning has experienced a considerable success in the past few years. The first successful animal cloning was realized in 1997 when the Dolly sheep was successfully cloned.

Since then, animal cloning has greatly improved as noted by the ability of scientists to regenerate pigs, rabbits, goats among other animals. Despite, the great success in animal cloning, human cloning has remained a great problem to many scientists. The recent success of a Korean scientist to generate stem cells from cloned human embryos is a great step for the success of human cloning.

In spite of the presence of a very advanced technology in animal cloning, the process has been associated with many failures with a success rate of one or three in a hundred experiments. Human cloning on the other hand refers to the process of creation of genetically copy of a human.

There are generally three diverse processes of cloning which include Embryonic cloning, adult DNA cloning and the therapeutic cloning. Embryo cloning is also regarded as artificial twinning. This process involves removing one or more cells from an embryo and enabling the cell to develop on separately having the same DNA as the original embryo.

This type of cloning has recorded a significant success and especially in animal cloning. It has being tested minimally on humans. The Adult DNA cloning is the process that entails removing the DNA from the embryo and replacing it with another one from an adult animal.

The method is employed to give an exact duplicate of an existing animal. The process has been successfully carried out on sheep and goats, but not tried on human beings. Therapeutic cloning is the process that is used to clone human tissues or a human organ for transplant.

Various scholars and individuals perceive the issue of human cloning differently depending on one’s ethnicity, age, religion and gender. The researcher used the family members who included his parents, his younger brother and sister to find out how the aforementioned variables influence people’s perception about human cloning.

The research entailed a survey where the researcher prepared a questionnaire that the participants were required to fill accordingly and return them. The researcher in addition, organized a face –to-face interview with respective participants in order for him to clarify some issues and gather sufficient and relevant data for analysis.

The researcher used the questioner as his instrumental tool for collecting relevant data that was required to determine how age, ethnicity, religion and gender influenced an individual’s perception about human cloning. The questions that were contained in the questioner included both open and closed questions.

The closed questions were tailored in manner so that the interviewee could identify an answer from the range of alternatives provided. This was important since it enabled quantification of the variables. On the other hand, the use of open questions helped the participants to give their personal views pertaining to specific issues.

This helped in the qualitative study. The study used the researcher family members as the participants who included his, mother, father, younger brother and sister. After collecting relevant data, the questionnaires were coded, filtered and the data analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The study was subjected to a number of limitations. One of the limitations that was observed was lack of a larger number of participants who participated in this survey; the failure meant that the researcher did not get sufficient data to facilitate proper inferences from the results presented.

Lack of larger number of participants meant that the researcher did not have an opportunity to study some important variables. For instance, all my participants being Christian denied me an opportunity to learn how other religions perceive the issue of human cloning.

The lack of large number of participants was necessitated by lack of enough resources that is, money and time to conduct the survey on a larger context. All my participants participated actively while responding to the questions posed to them, apart from my dad who was noted to shy away while addressing some issues.

All my family members embraced the concept of therapeutic cloning as an appropriate medical strategy to address the shortage of organs for transplant. All the four members agreed that the use of therapeutic cloning will greatly enhance the living of many people and especially those that require organs transplants such as the kidney and liver.

Although all of them were aware that these organs can alternatively be received from compatible donors, they were of the opinion that therapeutic cloning should be used to produce necessary organs for cloning since organs produced through this process are the best and cannot be subjected to rejection by the recipients system since they have the DNA of the recipient.

They also embraced the therapeutic cloning as they viewed it as a very appropriate technique to address the prevalent shortages for organs for transplant and especially in this era when peoples are opting for the sale of their organs rather than offer them for free.

My younger brother and sister accepted the human cloning as being the best strategy for procreation, since it gives individuals a great opportunity to determine whether he/she opts for twins or triplets.

They also supported human cloning as the best strategy for procreation since it’s more flexible than the natural method. Through this process one is given the opportunity to select offspring with the desired traits. Human cloning is very flexible and thus, the concerned party is more privileged in selecting the most perfect donor for one’s offspring.

This opportunity offers relevant individuals chances to select the donor of one’s offspring depending on one’s desired traits. On the other hand, my father and mother disagreed with human cloning as being the best strategy to foster twin offspring. They advocated for the natural twinning method which they argued was very effective and not prone to uncertainty of failure.

They equally contested the use of human cloning in establishing a pedigree child. My parents rejected the use of cloning technology to bring up a superb generation, since the offspring generated will lack varieties which brings beauty in life. My mother argued that although cloning may be employed to bring forth a race of people with super strengths such as Michal Jordan, the generation generated may unfortunately suffer from low intelligence which can make it being exploited as slaves.

Thus, cloning of humans should only guarantee emergence of a super human being who are both physically and intelligently dominate than the present humans we have today.

My sister and mother showed some inclination towards greatly accepting the idea of cloning as a solution to instances of infertility or genetically inherited illness. They argued that instead of someone engaging into extra marital affairs in the process of looking for a child, the use of cloning is an effective method of one getting one’s offspring.

In addition they argued those people that suffer from genetically inheritable diseases should consider opting for cloning method as their process of procreation to eradicate chances of passing these genes to their offspring.

My dad was of the opinion that instead of the use of cloning method as the process to foster children, the couple in question should consider adapting children. With adaption of the children, the family will have an opportunity to raise their own children and save the society and government the burden of looking after the adapted children.

When it came to the issue that cloning is the best strategy to guarantee the sex of a child, my dad greatly appreciated this concept by dad arguing that cloning was a better strategy to adapt for fostering children as it gives one a guarantee of a 100% about the sex of the child.

He argued that with the great medical technology, one is given an opportunity to get a baby of one’s preferred sex, without undergoing the natural method of try and error.

Similarly, my younger sister equally accepted the use of cloning as a technique of fostering siblings of desired sex. She argued that the ability to choose the sex of the child will greatly help in addressing the great gender imbalances that exist between men and women.

My mother and younger brother did not support the use of cloning in procreating siblings of one desired sex. My mother argued that the sex of a child does not matter and emphasized that God has His own unique way of ensuring harmony in the society between men and women. From this discussion, it was evident about how one’s ethnicity background is influential in one’s perception towards certain issues.

My dad being raised in a society where the boy child was greatly honored than the girl child was noted to emphasize more on the importance of determining the sex of a child. My mother being a bit younger and having been raised through more modernized setting shared similar opinions with my younger brother.

Therefore the issue of one’s background upbringing should not be underrated when addressing certain issues and in particular gender issues, since those people that share similar views with my dad are be termed as being greatly affected by gender stratification, where boys are regarded as being more superior to girls.

All the four considered human cloning as an unethical issue that tries to rob God his procreation powers which was only vested on humans upon their coming together through sexual intercourse.

My mother and dad greatly objected cloning since they complained that it will foster homosexuality since this is the only method that can guarantee the gay an opportunity to get children a situation that has greatly been used by many Christian to question the practicability of the gay marriages.

Similarly, all my family members rejected the idea of human cloning as a means of body replacement. They considered this cloning aspect as only a myth that is only founded in the scientist dreams.

The cloning idea that predicts the chances of replacement of human body is like giving humans the power to resurrect which is out of context and contradicts the Christian teachings that believes that it is only God the ‘Yahweh’ who has the power to resurrect people.

My family members all being Christians felt very offended by this proposition. This explained how one’s religion belief is very influential in determining one perception of the things or action that one interacts with.

From the proceeding discussion, it is apparent that different age groups possess diverse views concerning some of the issues that we face in our dairy activities. The research indicated that ethnicity, gender, religion and education featured as very important factors that determine how people perceive issues.

The older generation that is here represented by my dad is known to be more affected by gender stratification where they assign more importance to boys than to girls. My mother who belongs to the middle group does not suffer from gender stratification and appears to reason in similar manner to the youthful generation which is represented by my younger brother and sister.

Religion is noted as a strong factor that influences how people attach values to those things that they interact with which intern influences how they interpret situations. Religion beliefs are known as very strong forces that have resulted to very distinct decisions.

Education was also noted as an important ingredient factor that determines how we interpret situations. Education helps individuals become is noted in the discussion as bringing forth the enlightenment in society by equipping them with appropriate information and skills that help them make informed choices. My family members being all learned enabled them to address the posed questions appropriately.

Since they were all well knowledgeable and conversant with the topic about human cloning, they made their contributions and adequately defended their points with relevant backing. Therefore, education is an important factor in any society as it determines how individuals in that society perceives, expresses or reacts to diverse situations.

A society that is not well educated is associated with being ignorant and takes many things for granted, while an educated society is characterized with being well informed and employs very strategic approaches while dealing with its problems, without taking anything for granted.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 4). The Concept of Human Cloning. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/

"The Concept of Human Cloning." IvyPanda , 4 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Concept of Human Cloning'. 4 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

• Cloning: Genetically Identical Copy
• Testing Makeup Products on Rabbits
• A Gang Known as the Dead Rabbits
• The Biomedical Model of Health in Medicine
• Kinship of Family
• Anthropological Comparison between the Chinese and Hindu Society
• Strawberries History
• Establishment of the rye grass