|
_Cloning _
By: Lindsey
The biological definition of a clone is an organism that has the same genetic
information as another organism or organisms ("Cloning", 1997). From this
definition and from information about the science behind cloning, my current
view on cloning is that it is ethical. This statement ignores information
about how we can misuse cloning and what consequences occur when the procedure
is unsuccessful. I currently do not think cloning should be used until it is
perfected. I doubt however that we will allow cloning to be misused, and think
most people would probably have this opinion on cloning, but their lack of
knowledge on cloning, or their belief that cloning would be misused, is the
reason for differences of opinion. Thus, an elaboration on the history,
techniques, ethics, and reasons for researching the technology of cloning is
necessary. The first thing that must be cleared up is what is cloning, and
what is a clone. A clone is an organism derived asexually from a single
individual by cuttings, bulbs, tubers, fission, or parthenogenesis
reproduction ("Cloning", 1997). Parthenogenesis reproduction is the
development of an organism from an unfertilized ovum, seed or spore
("Parthenogenesis", 1997). Hence, cloning, biologically speaking, is any
process in which production of a clone is successful. Thus, the biological
term cloning is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an
organism. However, people can use the word cloning to intend other meanings.
For instance, we generalize many older and new techniques as cloning. This is
not a good practice because these techniques are different and impose unique
concerns and issues. In the world of scientific technology, cloning is the
artificial production of organisms with the same genetic material. Scientists
actually call the transferring of a nucleus from the cell of one organism to
an enucleated egg cell nuclear transfer (Wilmut, 1997). This will produce an
organism that has the exact genetic material as that of the donor cell.
Scientists are using current techniques exceedingly more, and with a variety
of species. Astonishingly, more clones are present in the world than one would
think. In nature, and even in the lives of humans, clones are present. As
stated earlier, a clone is an organism that has the same genetic information
as another organism. From this we can say that cloning occurs with all plants,
some insects, algae, unicellular organisms that conduct mitosis or binary
fissions, and occasionally by all multicellular organisms, including humans.
Monozygotic twins, or identical twins, are clones of each other. They have the
same exact genetic information due to the division of an embryo early in
development which produces two identical embryos. About eight million
identical twins are alive in the world, thus, already eight million human
clones inhabit the world. In unicellular organisms, a cell will produce two
daughter cells that have the same genetic material. Today, the only cloning
research is occurring in scientific model organisms. These are organisms that
research scientists from around the globe have collected copious amounts of
data. All this data is necessary so that advancements in research can continue
more efficiently. The most common scientific models are E. coli, mice, fruit
flies, and frogs. The first organisms that were cloned using nuclear transfer
were frogs. This is because they have large egg cells and scientists can
obtain up to two thousand of them from one ovulation. (McKinnel, 1979)
Successful cloning has occurred with livestock. The drive toward success is
not because livestock like cows and sheep are model organisms. Instead, the
farming industry has made and continues to make a big effort toward finding a
way to implement the technique of nuclear transfer for livestock. Research in
cloning is also occurring in primates. The reason for studying primates is the
similarities with humans. This leads us to the most talked about aspects of
cloning, the use of the techniques with human cells and eggs. Throughout this
century, conversation, novels, magazine articles, newspaper reports, and
movies have focused on the implications of cloning humans. Part of this media
creates thoughts of a utopian society, while some a horrific world; the
majority of them being the latter. For those who have had these frightening
thoughts, Dr. Richard Seed states he can accomplish the task of cloning a
human using nuclear transfer. Dr. Seed is a physicist who researched fertility
sciences in the 1980's and is now specializing in embryology. He states that
he has set up a fertility clinic that can conduct nuclear transfer. Dr.
Richard Seed is creating an uproar regarding the ethics of cloning. This is
ironic because cloning has occurred. (Flock, 1998) Cloning of humans in a
biological sense already has and is occurring. Scientists are researching by
splitting embryos to execute experiments to find data relating to cell
differentiation, the use of stem cells, and genetic screening. Amazingly,
genetic screening is occurring in Britain quite often. Fertility clinics aim
this service toward couples where the mother or father has a genetic disorder.
A fertility clinic will clone an embryo, then test it for genetic disorders.
If the embryo is tested negative for genetic disorders, then the fertility
clinic implants a clone of that embryo. This should guarantee that the child
will not have any genetic disorders. (Benoit, 1996) That is the current work
with cloning. It is becoming a part of our society already. Cloning is
currently a technology that many people could use. I believe it will become
more popular as prices for the technique decreases, and as the use of cloning
becomes increasingly acceptable. That is if we humans consider cloning an
acceptable technology, and that we would like to use for the twenty-first
century. Cloning has progressed so quickly, few of us know if we should be
even fooling with this technology. Some scientists say that we put
technologies to use once the pros outweigh the cons. A good place for us to
find that information is to look at the past and current research results with
cloning and why scientists research it. Amazingly, the first attempts at
artificial cloning were as early as the beginning of this century. Adolph
Eduard Driesch allowed the eggs of a sea urchin develop into the
two-blastomere stage. Then he separated it by shaking it in a flask and
allowing them to grow. The cells developed into dwarf sea urchins. Driesch
could not explain his experiments and gave up embryology for philosophy
(McKinnel, 1979). The first implantation of a nucleus into an egg cell
occurred in 1952 by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King in Philadelphia. They had
transferred the nuclei of Leopard Frogs' eggs (McKinnel, 1979). The egg cells
did not develop. Successful cloning of embryo cells was accomplished later in
the 1970's by Dr. John Gurdon. The frogs did not develop beyond tadpoles. In
1981, investigators announced they had transplanted nuclei from mouse embryos
into mouse eggs. However, other scientists tried to duplicate the experiments,
but found that they fabricated the cloning results. (Kolata, 3 March 1997)
During the late seventies and early eighties, there were few scientists still
studying cloning. Many had predicted that it was impossible to clone embryonic
mammal cells. Few continued with research. Many gave up and went into other
fields. However, some persisted and were rewarded for their efforts. In 1984,
Dr. Steene Willadsen announced that he had successfully transferred nuclei
from embryos of sheep to produce clones (Kolata, 1997). He also was successful
with cows and even monkeys. He advanced his methods, and began cloning embryos
that were in the 64-128 cell-stage. This suggested that perhaps nuclear
transfer was possible with differentiated cells. More exciting was when Dr.
Neal First produced cows by nuclear transfer from more developed embryos in
1994 (Kolata, 3 June 1997). Dr. First produced four calves. Two years later,
Dr. Ian Wilmut and Dr. Keith Campbell, of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh,
Scotland, produced for the world Megan and Morag, the first cloned sheep from
embryo cells. Their new technique involved the starving of the donor embryo.
This would put the cell in the right moment in the cell cycle, thus allowing
the genetic material to integrate more successfully with the egg cell. This
was the integral step of nuclear transfer. Dr. First had executed the same
step, but a laboratory staff member did it accidentally, and First did not
realize the significance of his staff member's blooper (Kolata, 3 March 1997).
Dr. Wilmut and Dr. Campbell became world famous. Their fame was not finished
yet however. On July 5 at 4:00 P.M. lamb number 6LL3 (Campbell, 1997), or
Dolly, was born in a shed down the road from the Institute. She weighed in at
14« pounds and was healthy. Scientists accomplished this by using frozen
mammary cells taken from a six-year-old pregnant ewe and fusing them with an
enucleated egg. The trick to fusing the cells is giving a small electric
current to the petri dish on which the egg cell is. This stimulates the egg
much like a sperm would, and usually takes the genetic material from the cell
and becomes a zygote. They let this zygote grow into an embryo, and then
transplanted the embryo in a recipient ewe, acting as a surrogate mother. This
procedure occurred late in January of 1996. This was the day of fusion date
for Dolly, which is the natural equivalent to a conception date. An
interesting note is that three different sheep were involved in producing
Dolly, versus the usual two or one (in-vitro fertilization). Furthermore, the
Roslin scientists used three different breeds for each sheep to prove that the
experiment was a success. (Kolata, 3 March 1997) After Dolly came other sheep,
cows and even rhesus monkeys cloned using similar techniques but with slight
variations. These cloned animals came from Roslin and many universities from
across America. They even produced clones which had genes that would produce
certain proteins. For instance, at Roslin, scientists are trying to produce
sheep that produce milk with beneficial proteins for Cystic Fibrosis
patients.(Kolata, 24 February 1997) The goals and purposes for researching
cloning range from making copies of those that have deceased to better
engineering the offspring in humans and animals. Cloning could also directly
offer a means of curing diseases or a technique that could extend means to
acquiring new data for embryology and development of organisms as a whole.
Currently, the agricultural industry demands nuclear transfer to produce
better livestock. Cloning could massively improve the agricultural industry as
the technique of nuclear transfer improves. Currently, change in the phenotype
of livestock is accomplished by bombarding embryos of livestock with genes
that produce livestock with preferred traits. However, this technique is not
efficient as only 5 percent of the offspring express the traits (Kolata, 25
July 1997). Scientists can easily alter adult cells. Thus, cloning from an
adult cell would make it easier to alter the genetic material. A transgenic
organism has had its genetic information artificially altered. The goal of
transgenic livestock is to produce livestock with ideal characteristics for
the agricultural industry and to be able to manufacture biological products
such as proteins for humans. Farmers are attempting to produce transgenic
livestock already, but not efficiently, due to the minimal ability to alter
embryos genetically. Scientists can harvest and grow adult cells in large
amounts compared with embryos. Scientists can then genetically alter these
cells and find which ones did transform and then clone only those cells.
Scientists also ponder the idea of cloning endangered species to increase
their population. The possibilities are endless. However, we are actually
doing much of this research for the improvement of life for humans.
Embryologist Dr. Steene Willadsen, when talking of past research, stated, "I
was checking fences, looking for holes in the scientific fabric, ways to break
through what others considered dogma." (Kolata, 3 June 1997). Scientists
foresee the cloning of pigs to produce organs that humans will not reject
(Wills, 1998). Also, as mentioned earlier, livestock can produce biological
proteins helping people who have diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's, and
Cystic Fibrosis (Kolata, 2 December 1997). Cloning also provides better
research capabilities for finding cures to many diseases. There are also
possibilities that nuclear transfer could provide benefits to those who would
like children. For instance, couples who are infertile, or have genetic
disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. Equally important, women who
are single could have a child using cloning instead of in-vitro fertilization.
Nuclear transfer could also provide children who need organ transplants to
have a clone born to donate organs. Cloning could also provide a copy of a
child for a couple whose child had died. Cloning does offer some negative
affects it could have to life. The biggest problem with asexual reproduction
is that genetic diversity becomes limited. If a population of organisms has
the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe out the population.
This is because not one organism has an advantage of fighting the disease over
the other. The technique of nuclear transfer is also early in its
developmental stages. Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out the
procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and Roslin
scientists produced many lambs with abnormalities (Wilmut, 1997). This is the
main reason science is holding out on cloning humans. I also believe we should
not attempt nuclear transfer to produce an adult human until the technique is
perfected. Other arguments for cloning include if we are taking nature into
our own hands by cloning. Religious organizations consider nuclear transfer to
cause men to be reproductively obsolete (Post, 1997). Religious groups claim
that cloning defies the rule or their belief that humans have souls. They also
consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own
hands. People question when we will draw the line for getting involved in
natural events (Bruce, 1998). There is also a debate as to the moral rights of
clones. Some say this will occur because there is no birth of newness (Post,
1997). We would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple
who conceived naturally. If natural reproduction were to occur, genetic
variation would occur. They say cloning would deprive someone to have any
perception of uniqueness. They argue that identical twins are not unique from
each other. However, they are new in genetic variation and unique from
anything that came before them. People also wonder what mental and emotional
problems would result if a clone were to find out that he or she was cloned.
Although nuclear transfer produces clones, scientists confess that they are
not exact clones because the recipient egg does not receive all the genetic
information from the donor cell. The genetic material that does not make it to
the egg cell is found in ribosomes which are present in the cytoplasm. In
addition, mutations can occur and genomic imprinting could cause other
differences. Scientists even say monozygotic twins, or identical twins, are
not as identical as we thought. Scientists also predict that dizygotic twins,
or fraternal twins, would maintain more similarities than clones. The reason
seems that fraternal twins grow a bond during their first nine months (Wills,
1998). This is an example that genetics does not fully contribute to the
personality of a person. Time spent intrauterine for nine months haves a
greater effect than genetics is a good example. Also, the statement that
identical twins are unique and new only in the sense of their new genetic
combinations is absurd. I know identical twins myself that are extremely
unique, and perhaps strive for differences. Constitutional law scholar
Laurence Tribe said that human cloning would 'alter the very meaning of
humanity' (Post, 1997). I think a clone would especially find the meaning of
humanity and become unique. I think Tribe is confusing that we strive to be
unique because we are human not because we have chromosomal DNA that is found
nowhere else. Sidney Callahan, a psychologist, argues that "the random fusion
of a couple's genetic heritage gives enough distance to allow the child also
to be seen as a separate other" (Post, 1997). Yet I cannot stand that I look
like my father when he was my age, and currently I am under the impression
that I was conceived naturally. Thus I believe the old-fashioned way of having
kids is not giving me enough distance, so what is the difference for a clone.
So anyone who argues that cloning disregards the laws of God and the souls of
humans, they should reconsider their views. Cloning does not artificially
produce copies of adult humans. Nuclear transfer is the artificial making of
an embryo that will develop into an identical twin. No machine that can
produce carbon-copy humans when performing nuclear transfer is involved. At
this point, I believe we should not use cloning. However, if we are to venture
into cloning we must make many precautions. I think the best way to do this is
to research the consequences. Yet, I do not believe cloning of animals is
acceptable. Thus, I do not think we should conduct cloning experiment on
animals. In summary, cloning is ethical, unless there is lack of respect for
the lives of animals and humans, and for the ongoing inhabitation of life on
earth.
_Bibliography _
Bibliography Benoit, Dr. B. "Why Clone Human Embryos?." (3 March 1996) HUMAN
CLONING AND RE-ENGINEERING. [WWW Document] URL http://cac.psu.edu/~gsg109/qs/
Bruce, Dr. Donald. "Cloning, A Step too Far?"( 1998, January 5) Society,
Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland, [WWW Document] URL
http://webzone1.co.uk/www/srtproject/srtpage3.htm Campbell, Keith; Kind, A.
J.; McWhir, J.; Schnieke, A. E.; Wilmut, Ian. "Viable offspring derived from
fetal and adult mammalian cells." Nature Magazine. 27 February 1997: 810-813.
Carlin, Peter Ames; Biddle, Nina A. "That ewe, Dolly?" People Weekly. 10 March
1997: 113-114. "Cloning." Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. 1997 edition.
Flock, Jeff. "Who is Richard Seed?" (9 January 1998) CNN Interactive, [WWW
Document] URL
http://cnn.com/CNN/bureaus/chicago/stories/9801/cloningdoc/index.htm Ibrahim,
Youssef M. "Ian Wilmut: For Scientist, Secrecy Gives Way to Spotlight" The New
York Times. 24 February 1997: publication web-site page. Griffin, Harry.
"Cloning and genetic modification: a brief history of Nuclear Transfer." (11
December 1997) Roslin Institute Online, [WWW Document] URL
http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/history.html Kerschen,
Arthur. "How to Clone a Human (Version 1.1)" (2 February 1998) Human Cloning,
The How to Page, [WWW Document] URL
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ahk/cloning/human.html Kolata, Gina. "Clinton's
Panel Backs Moratorium on Human Clones" The New York Times. 18 May 1997:
publication web-site page. Kolata, Gina. "In Wisconsin, an Attempt to Clone a
Cow" The New York Times. 23 February 1997: publication web-site page. Kolata,
Gina. "Lab Yields Lamb With Human Gene" The New York Times. 25 July 1997:
publication web-site page. Kolata, Gina. "On Cloning Humans, Never' Turns
Swiftly Into Why Not.'" The New York Times. 2 December 1997: A2, A24. Kolata,
Gina. "Rush Is on for Cloning of Animals" The New York Times. 3 June 1997:
publication web-site page. Kolata, Gina. "Scientists Reports First Cloning
Ever of Adult Mammal" The New York Times. 23 February 1997: publication
web-site page. Kolata, Gina. "Steen Malte Willadsen: Iconoclastic Genius of
Cloning" The New York Times. 3 June 1997: publication web-site page. Kolata,
Gina. "With Cloning of a Sheep, Ethical Ground Shifts" The New York Times. 24
February 1997: publication web-site page. Kolata, Gina. "Workaday World of
Stock Breeding Clones Blockbuster" The New York Times. 25 February 1997:
publication web-site page. Macklin, Ruth. "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No."
US News &World Report. 10 March 1997: 64- 5. McKeen, Mike. (1997, December 11)
Roslin Institute Online Welcome to RIO. [WWW Document] - Copyright 1997 Roslin
Institute. URL http://www.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk McKinnel, Robert Gilmore. Cloning: A
Biologist Reports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.
"Pathogenesis." Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. 1997 edition. Post,
Stephen G. "The Judeo-Christian case against human cloning." America. 21 June
1997: 19-22. Specter, Michael and Kolata, Gina. "After Decades and Many
Missteps Cloning Success" The New York Times. 3 March 1997: publication
web-site page. Travis, John. "A Fantastical Experiment: The Science Behind the
Controversial Cloning of Dolly." Science News. 5 April 1997: 214-215. Travis,
John. "Ewe Again? Cloning from Adult DNA." Science News. 1 March 1997:
132-133. Wills, Christopher. "A Sheep in Sheep's Clothing?." Discover. January
1998: 22-23.
Word Count: 2882
|
