In this case study I am going to answer the question entitled “Is cloning safe and moral” which is also the title of my case study. I am firstly going to explain and write definitions for words, processes that you will need to know in order to understand this case study. I will then show you all the for and against arguments regarding cloning and if it’s safe and moral finally I will go on to present my views and what I think about cloning and whether I think it is safe and moral. Definitions of words that you will need to know! Alleles – Different versions of the same gene.
An allele looks like the following picture (taken from Google images): Biased – Having a particular point of view from among several available: often unwilling to consider alternatives. Cells – The smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semi permeable cell membrane. Most cells will look like the following Picture (taken from Google images also): Chromosome – Threads of gene found in the nucleus of a cell. These normally look like the following (taken from Google images):
Clone – An organism genetically identical to another, I will explain the cloning process later on in this background science part. DNA – A long molecule that makes up chromosomes. Embryo – An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctive recognizable form. Fact – Something that people accept without much dispute. Genes – The material in the nuclei of the cell that controls what an organism into its DNA. Genetic Profile – Information about the genes of an individual. Genetic Screening – Testing the population for a particular allele.
Nucleus – The part of the cell containing genetic material. A nucleus looks like the following (taken from Google images): Opinion – What people believe to be the case. Opinions can be shaped by people’s values or experience, and may not be based on evidence. Stem Cells – An unspecialized cell that gives rise to a specific specialized cell, such as a blood cell. A normal stem cell looks like the following (this picture is taken from Google images): Now I am going to describe the processes that you may need to understand for this case study.
The cloning process is very fiddly and involves using a microscope as the process is carried out because the cell is so small. First of all an egg cell is taken from a mammal. The egg cell is around 0. 1mm in diameter. The original DNA is taken from the egg cell. This DNA represents a copy of the mother’s genetic material. The picture below, taken from Google images, shows how the DNA is taken with a pipette. It is possible to puncture the cell wall and take the DNA without destroying the rest of the cell. Having removed the DNA, the nucleus of the cell is taken from another adult and is inserted into the egg cell.
The animal this nucleus comes from is the animal that will be “cloned”. This nucleus has its own DNA, which will act as blueprint for the characteristics of the end creature. GENE THERAPY When a gene is damaged, the blueprint for the construction of the protein is imperfect he result protein is therefore abnormal. The goal of gene therapy is to cure a genetic disease by repairing the damaged gene responsible for the disease. It involves introducing a normal copy of the gene into cells containing the damaged version. The cells then can produce the normal protein.
That is the process of gene therapy although it can go wrong resulting in the genes being worse or the same. Now I am going to present the for and against arguments/points regarding cloning, I will then explain them and show whether or not they may be biased. In article one, Robin Lovell-Badge gives his views which are for cloning as he says “MANY diseases will be cured and countless lives saved thanks to this decision” Robin Lovell-Badge is an embryologist and geneticist so his argument may be biased as he may lose his job if he does not support cloning so this information could/could not be reyalable. However in article three Dr.
Patrick Dixon says “it is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them….. through is based on scientific nonsense” that is the views of a doctor therefore he knows what he is talking about and is taking a professional approach showing his points to be relayable he also gives points of advances for example “Clinical trials are already showing results in people with heart failure while animal studies have shown successful repair in brain after stroke, heart muscle, spinal cord and other tissues,” therefore he is not biased and not for or against cloning as he looks at both sides of the argument.
Article five is about the UN vote which urges a human cloning ban and in this article people present their views towards the cloning ban.
Richard Garder, of the royal society said “This [proposal] would deny many patients with illnesses like Parkinson’s disease, chronic heart disease and juvenile diabetes, the potential of effective treatments” therefore showing that he is against banning human cloning meanwhile in article six there is a sentence that starts with “1997 Italian laws forbid “all forms do experimentation or intervention whose objective, even indirectly, is the cloning of all humans and animals” so Italian government made a stand against cloning.
Further on article six goes to say about how religious people felt towards this it says “Roman Catholics unimpressed… Anglicans defending the decision” the decision it refers to is the British government and how they wish to introduce legislation that allowed research on human embryo cells, further on in this section entitled “Religious Divide” it talks about Coronial Thomas who won the chainman of the bioethics committee he says “Obtaining stem cells from a human embryo is wrong, because it involves killing a human. ” Which gives an idea that he is unpleased about the governments’ decision.
Moving on in article five, gives an argument from catholic countries they voted in favor of the UN proposal that I explained above. Next I have taken bits from article two which is stating the view points one being “human cloning is essentially inevitable, and we would do well to embrace its great prospects” that was said by Robert Yang, California, USA. He is obviously for cloning and wants everyone to realize that it is going to happen and that it is inevitable. In the same article opponents say that all embryos, whether created in the lab or not, have the potential to go on to become a fully fledged human.
Other fears there are safety concerns. Which is most of the concerns that people have in this article that are against cloning. Government leaders have also presented their views on the cloning process and if they think that it is safe on the whole. Tony Blair described the decision to ban all forms of human cloning “immoral and running against the law and justice” so Tony Blair, prime Minster of great Britain is discussed and wants there to be permit ion for people to clone humans but his decision is likely to be not biased.
However between what Tony Blair thinks, and in article four, what the US president George W Bush feels as he says “im very concerned about cloning… I worry about a world in which cloning will be acceptable” further down the page he then goes on to say “if the bill does that then I will veto it” showing that Bush feels strongly about cloning being banned and wants his views to be known again this decision is likely not to be biased. Continuing to look at article four Professor Chris Higgins UK medical research said “it really is an advance.
It offers the possibility of stem cell therapies without rejection. This is a biased decision statement as it is from UK medical research council. Julia Millington who is against cloning has said “cloning research purposes, which involves the manufacture of human embryos destined for experimentation and subsequently destruction, is profoundly unethical” and also “experimentation upon human life at any stage of development has no place in a civilized society. ” This then highlights the fact that the first quote by Chris Higgins is based as he is a UK medical research councilor so therefore can lose his job.
The other quote I made was by a Pro-life alliance so therefore her arguments are going to be biased too, as she is from the Pro-life which promotes a healthy natural life and cloning is messing with nature, so she could get sacked. In article one Anne Atikins, a social commentator and wife of an Anglican cleric gives her views on human cloning as I show you these quotes from things she has said remember that she is a wife to an Anglican cleric so her views may be biased in this article however she has said “therapeutic cloning will push back the boundaries of science……… uman history is full of instances of appalling atrocities that we as a species, seem able to peretrate against ourselves. The slave trade, ethnic cleansing, the holocaust. How do we do it? By convincing ourselves fellow human beings are not human. ” Therefore shows briefly that she is against cloning but her decision may be biased. So in all of the above the above I have looked thought the articles and picked out the best quotes that demonstrate the for and against best and I have then explained them and stated whether or not I think that the person making the quote is biased or not.
So in conclusion and the answer to my question in my views is that I think hat cloning is at the moment not as safe as science could make it, I think that in the future science will be able to make this process safer. As for if cloning is moral or not I think it’s moral if you are tying to save a life if you are just seeing if it is possible there is no need and therefore can be restrained. So all of the above are the views and my views on cloning.