Cloning, a subject once the exclusive purlieu of Science Fiction authors, came onto the real-world scene in 1995-96 (Team24355) in the form of a sheep named Dolly. Hereto for the majority of Science Fiction’s treatment of the subject had produced an unrealistic idea which more closely matched the concept of a doppelganger (dictionary.com), a physically identical double which possessed all the knowledge and experiences of the original. The reality of cloning is much more mundane, and one which humanity has had experience with since time immemorial. Dolly was really just a manufactured identical twin.

That is, an identical twin is, in actuality, a clone: a creature which is genetically identical to another creature. Paranormal mythologies aside, such a creature does not share memories or experiences with the original any more than two genetically differentiated creatures do. The difference between Dolly the sheep and a traditional identical twin is her method of manufacture. Natural identical twins occur through a process known as “polyembryony” (Britannica), in which a single fertilized egg results in multiple embryos, and ultimately multiple infants with identical genes. Dolly, however, was created through a highly technical process by which the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with the nucleus of a cell from an existing animal.(team 24355) This results in the development of an embryo genetically identical to the existing animal. While there have been some discoveries that indicate that genetic material itself ages, and that successive generations of clones may be prone to increased mortality and shorter life-spans (MSNBC), this information is still under debate and undergoing scientific examination.

Scientists tend to think in terms of “how can it be done” and “can it be done successfully.” And, so far, they have been allowed to pursue cloning in this spirit of scientific inquiry. But a debate was sparked by the announcement of Dolly’s creation, an ethical debate. At the root of this debate is a basic question: is cloning morally acceptable or unacceptable? I shall endeavor to examine some of the basic positions that the various proponents and opponents have taken in this matter.

First, we will speak of a few reasons that cloning has been championed by some. Order of presentation may prove to be important, because many of the objections to cloning some as direct responses to these points.

Spare Parts: It has been concieved that a cloned zygote could be used to produce stem cells, which may be used to grow organs, nervous system components, muscle, skin, and other kinds of tissue in the event of need. In more extreme and outrageous scenarios, limbs may even be produced. Another method of producing this result might be the introduction of “cloned” cells into a non-human animal in order to grow similar replacement parts.

Genetic Screening:Another idea that has been bandied about is that of screening offspring for possible defects. An ovum (fertilized egg) could be cloned, and one of the resulting clones could be tested for defects. Should there be none, the original could be implanted. If defects are detected, the parents could destroy the ova and start over again.

Genetic duplication of experimental subjects:In genetic research, it may be ideal to use multiple identical subjects for experimentation. Having a “control” that is genetically identical to an “experiment” can produce more meaningful results with smaller sample populations. Using extensive in-breeding, there is already a breed of mouse that produces genetic clones naturally, but only cloning could produce this effect for multiple species.

Genetic preservation of species: One possible benefit of cloning would be the ability to “resurrect” populations of species or breeds of creatures who are endangered or extinct. A popular example would be the attempt to clone a wooly mammoth using an elephant egg. A more practical example would be the preservation of creatures that are still on Earth, but whose days may be numbered. If a wide enough genetic sampling were taken and preserved, viable populations of adequately varied members could be reproduced when habitat is recovered sufficiently to support them.

Genetic preservation of ideal or vital specimens: If a particular creature should prove to be ideal or vital in some way, then a genetic duplicate could be made to replace it when it has died. While there is no guarantee that a genetic duplicate would embody all the elements that made the original so vital (nature vs. nurture!), the risk of losing an irreplaceable creature may justify such an endeavor. To take an obvious example, a genetic duplicate of Albert Einstein may possibly possess the same “genius” as his original. With the proper upbringing and environment, perhaps such a clone could contribute greatly to mankind. Or a winning racehorse could be duplicated and studied to learn what made him so fast.

There are, however, many objections that have been made to cloning as a whole. And, as stated before, many of these objections deal directly with some of the supposed benefits of cloning.

Sanctity of Human Life: This is an objection that covers most of the previous arguments for the use of cloning. The premise is that human life is special, and that killing humans is morally reprehensible, even if just in zygote form. So the creation of a human being with the primary idea of using it to produce spare parts is unnacceptable from a moral standpoint. That is, the creation and destruction of a zygote is not justified, and it would be better that the original die or live in a diminished form (disabled in some way). Likewise, the destructive testing of a zygote to screen for possible genetic defects is also unacceptable. Even in a case where no defects are found, one zygote must perish. And in the case of a defect being detected, at least two zygotes die. For someone who feels that every zygote is sacrosanct, no matter how imperfect, this is homicide even in the best possible scenario.

Threatened Biodiversity: If cloning were used to preserve ideal specimens, or to perpetuate an endangered species, it is possible that the genetic diversity of the species being cloned may be compromised. That is, if a significant portion of that population is produced from a single example, then all that specimen’s weaknesses may become prevalent. Doomsday possibilities of a single virus destroying an entire population of clones, or a world filled with a specific defect or cancer susceptibility, or a species which cannot reproduce without inbreeding are all possible. Also, unknown beneficial properties of the discarded or displaced natural specimens may be lost forever. This objection is not as inescapable to its adherents as the sanctity of human life crowd, as all these scenarios are technically avoidable. But the pessimists among us may say that Murphy’s Law would make these problems inevitable.

The Superman and the Slave: This is an objection which, like cloning in general, has been explored in science fiction for decades. Cloning, combined with genetic engineering, might allow for the creation of either a race of super-humans which embody someone’s ideal of mankind, or a race of complacent and/or ignorant slaves. Two extremes of the same scenario, one might end up enslaved by or enslaving a race of modified “humans.” And, while this argument seems outlandish, adherents would request that you ask yourself what the Nazis might have done if they had access to modern genetic engineering and cloning technologies. Never underestimate mankind’s ability to creatively abuse its power, they might say.

The Tower of Babel -or- Playing God: The religious among us have said that genetic engineering in general and cloning in specific, is a lot like the biblical humans who were said to have tried to build a tower to heaven. That is, it is an attempt to act the part of God and “rise above our station.” One should not tinker with His creation, they might say. An answer to this argument might be that the alleviation of suffering or the preservation of His creatures by whatever means necessary is not bad, but may be an answer to His calling. Either way, this argument relies more upon religion than reason.

We are still at the beginning of the argument, however. All these arguments for and against cloning have yet to be resolved, and like many moral questions, may be unresolvable in anything other than a subjective manner. The one thing that I believe, above all else, is that no amount of wrangling, objecting, or banning will ultimately prevent the advance of cloning technology.

Objections to the nuclear bomb didn’t stop it from being developed. Objections to commercial genetic engineering didn’t stop it from being done. When it gets down to it, there are too many humans, with too many motivations, and too many opportunities, for any scientific possibility to go unfulfilled forever.

This author would assert that cloning is neither bad, nor good. And that it is better to proceed in a controlled manner, setting precedents along the way, than it is to attempt to halt this technology, and force it into the shadows. Put the fire in the fireplace, and tend to it well. Only then can you be safe and warm at the same time.

Works Cited

Team 24355, Kayotic Development. Conceiving a Clone [Online] 1998. URL <http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/>

Britannica.com. “Polyembryony” Encyclopedia Britannica [Online] 1999-2000. URL <http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,62235+1,00.html>

Dictionary.com. “Doppelganger” Lexico LLC [Online] 2001. URL <http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=doppelganger>

MSNBC. “Report:Dolly May Age Prematurely” MSNBC Health [Online] May 26, 1999. URL <http://www.msnbc.com/news/273594.asp?cp1=1#BODY>

¶ 3:36 PM