Cloning Essay Research Paper Last updated June

Free Articles

Cloning Essay, Research Paper

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Last updated: June 30, 1998Should Cloning Be Banned? Since Scots scientists reported the successful cloning of a sheep named Dolly last twelvemonth, new research into cloning has grown rapidy & # 8212 ; as has the ethical contention environing the process. In May 1998, scientists at a Massachusetts cell research house announced the production of genetically indistinguishable calves utilizing a new cloning engineering that could do it possible to make & # 8220 ; interior decorator & # 8221 ; cowss. And in June, bombilation about the successful cloning of a mouse swept through the scientific community.The evident success of animate being cloning has fueled the emotionally-charged argument over the chance of cloning human existences, which was set off several months ago when Chicago physicist Richard Seed announced programs to clone a homo within the following two old ages. Seed proposes to take DNA from a adult female & # 8217 ; s egg, replace it with familial stuff from the individual being cloned, initiate development of an embryo under research lab conditions, and so put the ensuing embryo into the adult female s uterus. Seed & # 8217 ; s proposal has generated tonss of media attending, most of it negative. President Clinton instantly renewed his push for federal statute law to criminalize both public and private efforts at human cloning. & # 8220 ; Personally, I believe that human cloning rises deep concerns, given our precious constructs of religion and humanity, & # 8221 ; he said in a national wireless reference. ( In June 1997, the President & # 8217 ; s National Bioethics Advisory Commission issued a study reasoning that human cloning should non presently be attempted ) . House Majority Leader Dick Armey ( R-TX ) has besides called for a cloning prohibition, stating Fox News Sunday & # 8220 ; I think this is a awful concern, something that we should non be messing in. & # 8221 ; Both claim there is wide support for a prohibition among members of the scientific and medical community. Several anti-cloning measures have been introduced in Congress. Earlier this twelvemonth, a Republican-sponsored step to censor cloning was stalled in the Senate. Elsewhere, 19 European states signed an understanding forbiding the familial reproduction of worlds. Besides, many provinces in the U.S. are sing or hold passed anti-cloning statute law. A cloning prohibition enacted in Michigan last month faces a possible constitutional challenge.Many research workers are concerned that Torahs forbiding human cloning will endanger of import research & # 8212 ; particularly in the country of sterility. A March 23 column in the New England Journal of Medicine called any program to censor research on cloning human cells & # 8220 ; earnestly misguided. & # 8221 ; Many research workers besides believe that, irrespective of whatever Torahs are passed, human cloning will finally go a world because it is an inevitible effect of scientific promotion. The contention raises cardinal inquiries about how engineering affects our lives and what it means to be human. Is at that place ground to fear that cloning will take to a Brave New World scenario? Would a human ringer be treated otherwise than other people? Should the authorities control cloning research? Or are politicians overreacting, working baseless public frights for speedy political addition at the disbursal of of import scientific research? Should & # 8212 ; or can & # 8212 ; progresss in biotechnology be controlled by the authorities to fulfill peculiar moral or ethical beliefs? Should we be cloning around? Breakthrough raises exciting & # 8212 ; and chilling & # 8212 ; possibilitiesFebruary 24, 1997Web posted at: 3:45 p.m. EST ( CNN ) & # 8212 ; The proclamation that a squad of British scientists had successfully cloned an grownup sheep has touched off a new moving ridge of treatment over the ethical deductions of such a effort. The accomplishment announced Sunday by a squad of scientists at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, marks the first clip anyone has successfully cloned an grownup mammal. & # 8220 ; There are a figure of familial diseases for which there is no remedy & # 8230 ; and this will enable us to transport out research into the causes of those diseases and possibly develop method to handle them, & # 8221 ; Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute said following the proclamation. While some scientists hail the cloning as a major discovery for research in agribusiness, aging, medical specialty and genetic sciences, others worry what it may bode. If sheep can be replicated, they ask, are worlds far behind? Suddenly the material of scientific discipline fiction doesn & # 8217 ; t seem so notional any longer as one considers the possibility of dictators cloning themselves, dead masterminds brought back to life, or beloved household pets resurrected. Sheep, cowss, hogs & # 8230 ; what next? At the centre of the contention is a cuddly 7-month-old lamb named Dolly, an exact transcript of a 6-year-old Ewe born through a procedure called & # 8220 ; atomic transplantation. & # 8221 ; Specifically, the Roslin scientists put cistrons from the Ewe into unfertilised eggs so implanted them in other sheep. Grahame Bulfield, manager of the Roslin Institute, told CNN Monday his squad has antecedently cloned mammals at assorted phases of development. What makes Dolly different, he said, is that she was cloned non from sex cells, but from mature mammal cells with no generative map. ( 272K/24 sec. AIFF or WAV sound ) & # 8220 ; I expect in the comprehensiveness of clip, we will be seeking to make the same experiments on cowss and hogs, & # 8221 ; he said. What about worlds? Possibly such experiments are under manner in other parts of the universe, but non in Scotland. Due to ethical concerns, Britain has banned human cloning, and research utilizing human embryos is purely regulated. CNN & # 8217 ; s Siobhan Darrow on the ethical deductions of cloning ( 196K/17 sec. AIFF or WAV sound ) Such experiments are non banned in the United States, although some American ethicians are naming for federal Torahs forbiding the pattern and an immediate international moratorium on human cloning. & # 8220 ; One of the chances should non be, possibly should ne’er be, the extension of this technique to human existences, & # 8221 ; said Carl Felbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, in an interview with CNN. & # 8220 ; Now that it may be possible we would state its should be prohibited if necessary by law. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; We & # 8217 ; re traveling to be confronting this issue with worlds, & # 8221 ; said Stephen Grebe, an associate professor of biological science at American University in Washington. & # 8220 ; With that possibility unfastened, I & # 8217 ; m concerned without equal precautions this will go a world. It may really good already be. & # 8221 ; Don & # 8217 ; t travel at that place, ethicians warnBut even if worlds could be cloned, they would non needfully be indistinguishable, harmonizing to Grebe who noted that human twins may look to be precisely likewise, but have distinguishable personalities. ( 281K/25 sec. AIFF or WAV sound ) While the chances of cloning may open exciting possibilities like the reproduction of an Albert Einstein or a Mother Teresa, it brings with it some terrorizing chances. & # 8220 ; Do we want needfully Albert einsteins and are we willing to accept the costs of alleged bad transcripts? & # 8221 ; Grebe asked. & # 8220 ; What about failed experiments? These are truly hideous issues and I think there & # 8217 ; s a moral chasm between the technological ability at this point and the public apprehension of the intent of this. & # 8221 ; Felbaum is uncomfortable with such guess. With respect to cloning Albert einsteins, he said, & # 8220 ; I would asseverate this is non a line we want to traverse. I would state this is non even a line we want to approach. & # 8221 ; ( 247K/22 sec. AIFF or WAV sound ) Correspondent Siobhan Darrow contributed to this study. Germline TherapyThe suggestion of making familial alterations to the human germline & # 8211 ; such that any alteration was automatically passed on to all subsequent offspring & # 8211 ; has been one which has exercised many people, both over its proficient and ethical facets. A few technological optimists have speculated on eliminating certain familial disease from affected populations, or even heightening humanity & # 8217 ; s familial potency. Rather more of us, it would look, kick at the idea of leting some human existences such far-reaching powers. There seem to be all excessively many chances for less desirable human utilizations of the thought. Many people involved in moralss have raised serious uncertainties about the wider deductions of impacting future coevalss in ways in which they have no say. One reaction has been to state that it is improbable of all time to go on. It might necessitate unsafe and unethical experiments on human existences. Indeed it is illegal in the UK under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Other grounds advanced are to make with pragmatics and funding. From a useful point of position, the terminal of eliminating a familial disease, if this was desired, could break and more cheaply be achieved by the agencies of curative abortion of affected embryos or fetuss. This poses every bit many ethically jobs as it would work out, since it dismisses the positions of those who think that expiration of gestation under such fortunes would be incorrect, or others who consider that abortion has already become far excessively permissive. Overall, it is a common position that germline therapy is surely a really distant chance. This position may now necessitate revisiting in the visible radiation of two events in the last few hebdomads that could do some of these inquiries closer than we had thought.

Germanium

netically Altered Environmental Risks Ecosystems Evolution Environmental Agricultural Genetic Superweeds Overview ofIssues and Dangers Is it safe for the biotech industry to tamper with millions of years of complex evolution at the genetic level of our foods and environment?Molecular biologists and the biotechnology industry are making radical alterations to our food and environment through genetic engineering. Are they irresponsibly downplaying the risks and unforeseen negative side-effects? Human genes are being spliced into pigs, fish genes into tomatoes, and insect genes into potatoes. They are inserting virus, bacteria, and other genes into anything from the vegetables we eat to the ingredient crops of infant formula, soy milk, french fries, common sweeteners and food bases, soda, ketchup, cookies, and pizza. Many consumers are not yet aware that genetically engineered foods are already on the supermarket shelves. Unscientific Despite claims that they could not occur, many recent unforeseen problems with genetically altered organisms verify the criticism that no-one can predict the complex and subtle side-effects of this kind of genetic manipulation. Serious problems have already occurred, and the long-range implications and risks of genetic engineering are unknown. Contrary to the image being generated, this industry is not a particularly scientific endeavor. Powerful economic and political forces are driving the widespread implementation of genetic technologies, and, as is often the case, industry is putting profit before safety. These mutated foodstuffs have no track record, yet the U.S. and other countries have, despite serious concerns from the international scientific community, approved these products for commercial distribution without requiring adequate testing or informative labeling. It appears they do not believe that the public has the right to know what they are eating. Scientific advancement is a powerful tool with many benefits, however, science shows us that the more powerful a technology is, the more caution needs to be exercised in its usage. Genetic engineering is a very powerful technology, and a significant section of the scientific community believes that governments and research institutions should require, as a fail-safe measure, absolute safety first, in the introduction of this new technology. Genetic engineering is far from being an exact science. Molecular biologists can intentionally or unintentionally create changes in the complex genetic and biological make-up of plants and animals that result in new unknown proteins and constituents, whose consumption can bring unknown side-effects. New, unsuitable organisms can also be created which threaten the environment. According to some eminent experts in this field, the scenario is disconcerting: Erwin Chargoff, often referred to as the father of molecular biology, warned that all innovation does not necessarily result in “progress”. Chargoff once referred to genetic engineering as “a molecular Auschwitz”, and warned that the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. “I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate,” he wrote in his autobiography, Heraclitean Fire . Noting the “awesome irreversibility” of genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that, “…you cannot recall a new form of life… It will survive you and your children and your children’s children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard-of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it.”(26) Concerns are shared by many scientists. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a body of more than 1600 respected scientists from around the world, including more than 100 Nobel Laureates in the sciences[1]) believes that genetic engineering of foodstuffs can present significant risks to health and the environment. They advocate sustainable agriculture as a more intelligent, viable solution(2). The European Union (EU) has raised serious concerns about some genetically engineered crops now on the market(3,4,7,11), as has Japan(11). The EU has approved a measure requiring companies to label genetically modified food. Norway has also required the labeling, and banned certain types, as well as the release of genetically modified crops, animals, and other organisms into the environment. Austria and Luxembourg have banned the import of genetically modified grain, and other countries are considering doing so(11). Genetic Engineering is spreading fast The growth of the genetic engineering industry is not a small issue. At present, the genes of virtually every grain, vegetable, fruit, and legume have been genetically altered in the laboratory. Many of these crops are used in a wide range of common foods, and have arrived in the supermarkets. The short and long range side-effects of such products are unknown. The bottom line it seems, with regards to genetic engineering, is that, without our consent, we are all being used as guinea pigs by a profit driven industry, for a dangerous technological experiment. Modifying DNA Genes are the working blueprint for every part of an organism, whether human, animal, or plant. They constitute the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the biological intelligence of the organism – a natural entity of unrivaled complexity and sophistication. So much so that a new, fast growing branch of research in computer science involves the attempt to utilize the DNA’s awesome computing power. If ever accomplished, it is estimated such a computer will be able to perform trillions of computations simultaneously in a single test tube of DNA. Or, store in one small jar, millions of times as much information as is possible in today’s largest computer memories, making today’s supercomputers seem primitive(54). Utilizing this computing power is one thing, but when it comes to understanding the immense complexities of DNA and its interactions within the body and the ecosystem, scientists are shooting in the dark. Genetic engineering is the process of modifying the information contained in the DNA, particularly by artificially transferring the genes specific to one type of organism into another. These organisms are often referred to as ‘transgenic’. Why do it? Genetic scientists want to transfer seemingly desirable qualities from one organism to another. For example, to make a crop resistant to a chemical pesticide, so that more pesticide can be used on crops, or, to make a product more marketable (eg. tomatoes that will squash less easily in harvesting, packing and shipping), therefore cheaper. However, the situation with the current failures of genetic engineering (Bt cotton, rBGH in milk, canola[oilseed rape], Flavr-Savr tomato, etc. [see below]), the subsequent rejection by farmers, the public’s rejection of these products, along with the dangers predicted by many scientists, makes the biotech companies financially threatened. Huge investments by these companies may not pay off after all. Since, by nature, such large transnational companies are ruled by the need to raise stock price values, this seems to put them in a difficult situation. These large companies are currently switching from the pesticide and hybrid crop industry to biotechnology because these other technological practices are now failing worldwide – pest resistance is rendering pesticides useless and intensive farming is crippling the ability of the land to produce. This battle against nature has floundered, and now a new ‘agricultural revolution’ is promised with genetic engineering, but this is already showing serious signs of failure and damage to health and environment. Why is it dangerous? Many scientists have expressed strong concern about genetic engineering. According to molecular biology expert, Dr. John Fagan of Maharishi University of Management: “Of the technologies now in use, genetic engineering is especially dangerous because many of the most common applications of this new technology threaten to generate unexpected, harmful side effects that cannot be reversed or corrected, but will afflict all future generations. The side effects caused by genetic manipulations are not just long term. They are permanent….Genetic engineers cannot fully and reliably predict the biological effects of these alterations. They cannot adequately predict how these manipulations will influence cellular functioning, the physiology and behavior of the organism as a whole, and the ecosystem into which that genetically engineered organism will be introduced. It is impossible to confidently predict the effects of genetic manipulations because of the complexity and interconnectedness of living systems. Whether we examine the simplest single-celled microorganism, or a human being, or the global ecosystem, we find a huge number of complex components. These take part in extremely intricate, coordinated interactions; all as part of one, vast, integrated, unified phenomenon – life.” (25p.6-7)

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

x

Hi!
I'm Katy

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out