Picture a world where every science class in every school was taught by Albert Einstein, a Gordon Ramsay in every household, or a Chris Hemsworth greeting people at every mall. Now, this sounds like a utopia - to me at least. Human cloning, typically referred to as “reproductive cloning,” has been something of great interest during the 20th century, but has been pushed away recently.
The problem usually becomes with the difficulty in distinguishing the intentions of human cloning as a medical advancement as compared to a desire to procreate. And not to mention, the serious health implications that are associated with human cloning. But the question is: is all cloning bad? This is when it becomes important to recognize the different types of cloning because genes can be cloned, but individuals cannot be.
Gene cloning produces copies of genes or segments of DNA. Typically, there are two reasons why geneticists would consider cloning genes: (1) to gain further information about the nucleotide sequence of interest and (2) to manipulate the gene at hand (Lee and Hain). Isolating the gene and obtaining many copies of it are the only way to do any of the following.
How are genes cloned?
In this process, restriction enzymes are used to cleave at certain positions on a gene plasmid, also known as “foreign DNA”. This fragment of interest is then inserted into a vector - either bacteria, yeast, viruses, or plasmids - allowing the vector to be multiplied in lab conditions.
From the brief description above, gene cloning is not a harmful process and it rather has positive scientific implications. The moral concerns become introduced with what is known as “therapeutic cloning”. Now, therapeutic cloning - also referred to as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" or SCNT - is the cloning of embryonic cells to obtain organs for transplantation or for treating injured nerve cells and other health purposes (Ayala).
What is the process of SCNT?
It involves removing the nucleus of an egg cell [and] replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a somatic cell and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Instead of fertilizing the egg with sperm, the embryos are kept in vitro fertilization. At first glance, SCNT seems to be a medical breakthrough in our generation. Cloning has helped scientists realize the great potential that stem cell research holds for the world. More specifically, it allows an individual’s own cells to be used as a treatment or a cure, and could even create new embryonic cells if scientists could eliminate the hindrances keeping them from being able to use the cell (“The Value of Therapeutic Cloning for Patients”). On top of all this, therapeutic cloning even proved to be successful in curing a neurological disorder called Parkinson’s disease in mice (Aldhous).
However, the controversies around SCNT all stem from another huge controversy in itself, over when one regards the beginning of human life. For those that believe that life begins at conception, SCNT may be “equivalent to killing a living child” (Green). The reason for this is that the practice involves destroying the embryos after they are grown in the labs to extract the pluripotent stem cells.
For SCNT to be possible, human eggs are obviously necessary and it is important to recall that while men produce several million sperm every day, a woman can produce only one or two mature eggs every month. If organ and human trafficking are illegal, could the same be said with the distribution of human eggs? To further the argument against SCNT, the surgery to retrieve the eggs poses dangers like general anesthesia and bleeding on the woman (Green). Is risking one life for another justifiable? Proponents of SCNT respond by asking why it’s okay for a woman to put themselves into the same risks when they are helping single women or couples to have children, but not when it could be used to further research crucial in helping other people. In the future, some argue that therapeutic research could actually further enhance the success of organ transplantation along with nerve and tissue healing (Ayala).
From therapeutic cloning, and transitioning into the one that amazes many individuals - or Jurassic Park enthusiasts like myself - reproductive cloning. This type of cloning produces copies of whole animals. Now the catch is that even though the clone may look almost exactly like the original, they won’t behave the same. Their personalities will simply be different. This goes back to the terms: genotype and phenotype. Genotype is an individual’s genetic makeup whereas phenotype refers to an individual’s observable traits. Here, it is important to recognize that the same genotype can result in different phenotypes if exposed to different environments because after all, no one person grows up the exact same way, or encounters the exact same experiences. Hence, genes can be cloned, but whole individuals simply cannot.
While cloning for research is allowed in a few areas, reproductive cloning is completely banned across the globe. So why is this the case? Rewinding to July of 1996, Dolly the sheep was the first mammal to be artificially cloned from an adult cell, which proved that it was possible to create exact genetic copies. However, when scientists analyzed Dolly’s DNA on her first birthday, they noticed that her telomeres - caps at the end of the DNA that protect it from damage - were shortening (Brenner). Typically, mammals that are cloned “suffer from serious health handicaps, gross obesity, early death, distorted limbs, and dysfunctional immune systems and organs” (Ayala). Even Dolly, who lived an average life of 6 years, was found to have developed progressive lung disease and even osteoarthritis and was euthanized to keep her from suffering (Brenner). Could the diseases that Dolly developed be correlated with the fact that she was a clone?
How are animals cloned?
Somatic cells of interest are removed from an animal, and then the DNA (along with the entire nucleus) of the animal’s somatic cell is transferred into the host oocyte (egg cell). It is left to develop in a test tube during its early embryonic stages. Clearly, cloning animals itself poses some risks, so cloning humans is not any easier, if not almost impossible without any repercussions. Those who have considered cloning humans have discovered that one major hindrance is that the two spindle fibers - protein structures essential in dividing genetic material - are too close to the chromosomes in human and primate eggs. On the contrary, in other mammals, the spindle fibers are spread throughout the egg, preventing the spindle fibers from being lost when the nucleus is removed (“Cloning Fact Sheet”). A loss of spindle fibers can result in what is called chromosomal non dysfunction, which can result in disorders such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and monosomy X (Turner syndrome).
There are certain scenarios where cloning individuals seems justifiable: a couple that cannot reproduce but wants to have children, or a same-sex couple that wants to have their own children. In such cases, there doesn’t seem to be anything morally wrong, but unfortunately, there has not been technology developed that is advanced enough to produce a healthy clone (Ayala). Some even believe that with the proper research, human cloning could help cure many diseases like cystic fibrosis and can even facilitate organ transplantation. But organ transplantation brings up a morally questionable point: should a clone be used as a source of organs? Don’t they still have the same appearance and functions as a human - and consequently, the same rights?
Greedy individuals might even use human cloning as an opportunity to design their ideal children but, the real world isn’t Build-A-Bears. On top of that, even if human clones were to be successful, wouldn’t their mere existence be a violation of their individual separate rights from the original (Brenner)? If cloning is claimed to be done for the intents of human development, does this assertion make it okay for a human being to be exploited for mankind? Should we let someone into the world who will only live in misery until their last days for the sake of groundbreaking research? To avoid this, many countries have drawn a line against human cloning altogether. For instance, the French Parliament on July 9, 2004, adopted a law that permits embryonic stem cell research but looks down upon human cloning as a “crime against the human species” (Ayala).
Once again, cloning genes is plausible, but cloning individuals is not. Pushing the human race forward does not mean leaving humans - even clones - behind. Before releasing a new species out into our soils, we have to ensure that we are not abusing them for our advantage.
Works Cited
Aldhous, Peter. “Therapeutic Cloning Used to Treat Brain Disease.” New Scientist, 23 Mar. 2008,
www.newscientist.com/article/dn13523-therapeutic-cloning-used-to-treat-brain-disease/.
Ayala, Francisco J. “Cloning Humans? Biological, Ethical, and Social Considerations.” PNAS,
National Academy of Sciences, 21 July 2015, www.pnas.org/content/112/29/8879#sec-5.
“Cloning Fact Sheet.” Genome.gov, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact
Sheet.
Green, Ronald M. The Ethical Considerations. 24 Nov. 2001, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-
ethical-consideration/.
Lee, Don, and Patricia Hain. “Why Clone Genes?” Passel, https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/04f682d94025/3#:~:text=There%20are%20basically%20two%20reasons,molecule%20in%20a%20test%20tube.&text=A%20second%20motive%20would%20be,combine%20different%20DNA%20molecules%20together.
“The Value of Therapeutic Cloning for Patients.” BIO, archive.bio.org/articles/value-therapeutic-
cloning-patients.