D#16, WP#3 Revisions

One of the first things to work on this paper would to be updating the information of where stem cells come from. Almost a day or two after turning in this paper i read in the news paper there was a breakthrough in which stem cells replicas were created from skin cells. This would create multiple revisions needed to removed and update the block of research that relied upon that argument. I did miss some source formatting that should have been underlined to provide a more flawless argument source. Also, once again i wish that i would have remembered to fluff out my annotations to be specific in the details that i found after reading more in depth to write my paper.

Mike Whipple

Adams

ENG 102

21 Nov. 2007

Cloning Eradicates Existing Life

Once upon a time, cloning was a element of science fiction stories; today, it is closer than one may believe. Whilst one pioneers an field of discovery, boundary lines and restricting rules must be created to benefit not only the discovery, but also all subjects it relates with currently and in the future. Human cloning has the potential and if not banned will harm traditional human ways of life, cause massive public outcry of morals and lastly allow corporations to "follow the yellow brick road," gaining access to create humanoids for specialized task. On this note, the global scientific community and Legislature of the U.S. need to manifest enforce strict rules and complete ban of human cloning.

If allowed to persist in a non restricted environment, cloning will ruin traditional life. The reasoning is that currently only methods of cloning destroy life. In order to perform either therapeutic or destructive cloning one must start with an embryo from a human female and then extract stem cells; which in turn results in killing the embryo (Best). Author Megan Best, states that “…it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.” Sacrificing life for life is a false reasoning in logic, that in order to increase experimental life, life must be taken. For example, in most of the countries around the world, it is against the law to murder another human without significant cause. Since earliest of times of human society, it has been instinctively programmed into the brain to save lives. This is still evident in today’s society through hundreds of volunteer search and rescue crews; in addition to the publication of multiple stories in which lives are saved by average citizens. Another example in direct relationship of harming humans is the exploiting and damaging effects upon women that are results from research cloning (Best). In destructive (also known as full-body) cloning success rates currently are at un-motivating lows in one to two percent of animal subjects succeeding in a living embryo (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In order to produce clones in any manner greater than one or two specimens, a large donor base must be established; causing exploration of women strictly to harvest eggs from participants (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). Donors would be constantly in demand and must deal with the procedure of harvesting eggs which can lead to reproductive harm and exposing procedures (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56) . In objection, others argue that benefits from donating are worth the side effects due to the fact that donors are pioneering an expanding research field. In contrast to the pressure on individuals to simply deal with side effects of donating, “…the National Academies recommend that ‘Human reproductive cloning should not…be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail’” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee 16). Like most research, cloning has its risk, but to remove chances of life from embryos and causing reproductive harm to humans should not be a risk that needs to be accepted.

Another topic of issue is the global scientific community need to restrict and set in order the fine lines of cloning research in order to prevent chance of massive public outcry of morals. The principle leading this declaration is rules are needed in order to draw the line between ethics and experimentation of human embryos in cloning research. In response to this opposition claims that if ban or more restrictive ruling is put in place for widespread use of cloning, it will inhibit future potential discovery of other aspects in the field of genetics that perhaps would be ethical accepted and beneficial to life. However, if a moratorium, or a halt of activity to determine all aspects, is imposed, in a several years information on safety and success rate of human cloning will be significantly greater. Thus, giving the scientific medical board more time to understand and examine the legislature. After the process of examination occurs then it would be plausible if new methods in the field of cloning could be amended into legislature. One example of damaging decisions is the hidden consequences that often occur within quick unreasoned decisions. In this year, 2007, the United States House of Representatives turned down a cloning bill, H.R. 2560 (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The bill was “…carefully constructed to encourage the creation of any number of cloned human embryos” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). In addition, the created embryos would be grown for a number of days ”…so that in order, they can be killed…to harvest their stem cells or used in other research that [would] kill them a practice opposed by about 75% of the public” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The goal of the bill was to create a pathway that could be taken by research teams in order to continue progress at unregulated rates.

The last addressed reasoning is the allowance of biotechnology corporations to gain control of many aspects of life due to relaxed or nonexistent legislature. In normal practice an inventor or investment group completes a request for a patent once a product is designed and prototype is created. This is the case of “…life science companies [having] leaped…by patenting both human embryos and stem cells” (Gerdes). With human embryos and stem cells already claimed in patents, human life would slowly be reduced to a product (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning). Imagine walking by the puppy store in the mall, seeing kids adoring over baby puppies; pressuring the parents to buy the cutest one. Then, in the next store window down seeing cloned human babies in viewing units dressed to sell, much in the same fashion as pets. The true push for life science companies to obtain a patent is to gain an advantage on the retail market. While some state that companies are needed to aid in the covering cost of development and funding for programs, it can be seen that the goal of most companies is to produce the most perfect product while still maintaining profit. Companies would strive to produce the genetically perfect human body (Gerdes). Of course it can be conceived that no company would risk creating a "ugly" faulty clone, because it would be undesirable to most of the public and never sell. Also, creating a defective clone would defeat the purpose of taking control and playing “God” through selective breeding. Other evidence points towards the potential that specialized clones could be created with programmed task and missions. It would be of no issue for the government or powerful companies to create mass armies of soldiers or highly trained groups of clones designed to wreck havoc such as creating a marketing protest or simply a riot (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning 127). Through mass training with special environment upbringing human clones could create large scale genocide and in wrong hands kill off races considered to be of lesser quality. On a much larger scale one could use human clones as weapon of mass destruction.

While the saying goes "rules were meant to be broken," it is rules that establish the world’s opinion as a hole. If you disagree with an issue, speak out in peaceful manner. Many of the people that oppose a cloning ban, due to the restriction of research, do not realize that it allows anyone with good or ban morals to effectively create mayhem at free will. An enforced and proficient ban would produce a stable grasp on government and corporation cloning research, prevent widespread outcry, and secure the traditional respect to human birth and life. There are already new birth defects everyday being discovered, imagine if more were lab created.

Annotated Bibliography

Best, Megan. "Human Cloning Is Unethical." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Community College. 20 Sep. 2007 . In this resource it is presented against allowing any type of cloning from destructive to therapeutic purposes. It also contains a list of four reasons for cloning to be unethical. In brief order they are: not ethical to destroy potential life for aid to those already alive, creation of embryo for destruction is opposed, exploitation of woman, leads to reproductive cloning.

Committee on Science. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. National Academies, 2002. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . In this source I was able to find a chapters on should and how banning cloning would be carried out. Also, the source documents what current legislature actions have taken place and are currently in action. Most interesting is it list 12 findings on why cloning should be banned.

Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Ed. Michael C Brannigan. Seven Bridges, 2001. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007 . This resource could become a central backup of all technical aspects of cloning because it dives straight into my research question on the ethics and issues created by the research along the lines of human cloning. It contains information on both sides, such as the benefits and downfalls.

Gerdes, Louise I, Ed. “Human Cloning Will Harm Society.” Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . This source claims that cloning will produce a controlled world ran by corporations that control reproduction and traits of any human. Also, included in source is documentation of the patent on cloning. Furthermore, the source claims it is owed to humans to naturally reproduce and have offspring.

Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Ed. Silja Voneky. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . This source contains multiple aspects and different religious beliefs and culturing. This demonstrates the religious viewpoint which could pertain to the audience selected for human cloning. Near the end of the book there are a few chapters that cover the legal in U.S. and internationally.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee(CB). 2007 Amendments to the National Academies' Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research . Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2007. .
This source is a very recent overhaul of the guidelines put in place for cloning. This covers all types of cloning stating which methods are related to humans and/or to lab animals. In addition, it defines different types of cloning available to scientist and the specific procedures entailed within.

"U.S. House Turns Back Stealth Attempt by Democratic leadership to Pass 'Clone-and-Kill' Bill." National Right to Life News 34.7 (July 2007): 11. General OneFile. Gale. Mesa Community College. 12 Oct. 2007
.
This source is a recent report on how a bill, to allow widespread use of cloning embryos and harvesting for research, was attempted to be pushed through the House of Representatives. However, this bill came up short of votes and was shot down. The abstract also contains a great deal of facts and statistics such as 75% of Americans oppose harvesting of lab grown embryos. Also includes list of other nations already with ban on cloning.