Research on Human Cloning

Angel Vega
University of Texas at El Paso

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

Introduction
With the announcement of Dolly the sheep, the first successfully cloned mammal, came waves of
questions, concerns and of course oppression. The world knew that human cloning was the next
step and its the controversy within the idea of human cloning that Ill be explaining in this essay.
My goal is to present the ideas and opinions of experts and researchers on the biggest factors of
human cloning such as the technology, religion, morality, and ethicality. Ive come up with
questions throughout my research that helped guide me and act as the integral part of the
structure of this essay for easy understanding.

Question 1: What are the different views of experts on human cloning?

Question 2: What opinions do researchers have on the influence of religion on human cloning?
Question 3: According to researchers, how does morality relate to human cloning?
What are the different views of experts on human cloning?

There are a number of proponents for human cloning that have a number of different
reasons for supporting it. One of which is Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, a physiologist with a Ph. D. in
Reproductive Physiology, Biochemistry and Statistics from the University of Minnesota. Zavos
elaborates on the subject of human cloning by discussing the possibilities that are rooted in
human cloning. Zavos (2001) goes on to say, The replication of human DNA is inevitable and
shouldnt be fought. Human tissues can be reconstructed and used for a variety of medical
procedures such as treatments for cancer. Zavos emphasizes on the benefits of generating new
tissue through cloning and the possibility of giving paraplegics the ability to walk again.
His arguments are mainly logical and promote human cloning as a form of medicinal
advancement similar to Antibiotics and MRIs. His logos is solid because weve already gone

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

through the controversies that surrounded MRIs and antibiotics which are now widely accepted
in medicine. However, the logic is flawed in the sense that the seriousness of these subjects are
on two different levels. Human cloning involves more than just politics, it treads on ethics and
morality which are very sensitive areas to be involved with.
Dr. Zavos is strong representative of the proponents for cloning and on the other side is
the opponents who disagree with everything about human cloning whom of which includes Leon
Kass. Kass is an American physician and scientist as well as a chairman in the Presidents
Council of Bioethics who fully opposes cloning and anything related to it. In an article in the
New Republic entitled The Wisdom of Repugnance, Kass (1997) argues that the feeling of
revulsion felt with cloning is an emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reasons power
to fully articulate. (p. 4). He continues on by saying that the very feeling of revulsion is your
instinct telling you that its wrong just like the feeling when thinking of incest and cannibalism.
His argument is logical just as Dr. Zavos and follows similar logical steps. Incest and
cannibalism are vile topics and its the feeling that you feel when thinking about these topics that
Kass is addressing. He uses the If-Then Fallacy as the main point of argument and wants the
audience to associate cloning with cannibalism to show how unnatural it is for us to replicate
humans.
Kass concentrates and argues against cloning due to the repulsive nature that he claims
whereas Dr. Richard Seed argues that it is Mans destiny to become one with God. Dr. Seed is a
physicist with a doctoral degree from Harvard who started a company called Fertility &Genetics
Research Inc. In an interview conducted by National Public Radio Dr. Seed (1998) starts by
saying
I've said many times that you can't stop science... God made man in his own image. God
intended for man to become one with God. We are going to become one with God. We are going to

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God. Cloning and the
reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.

Seed was aggressive and confident that he could clone a human being and was driven by his
belief that it was our intention to be one with God. He develops a sense of pathos when
referring to God so much and because of that you feel that you can trust him especially since
almost all religious groups were completely against human cloning. Although he has ethos he
takes away from his support with his controversial remarks and the fact that he doesnt have a
documentable background on biology and medicine only hurts his position more.
The idea of human cloning brings up a number of different issues including the
psychology of the clone. This is under the assumption that we will be able to produce functional
and complete copies and its this assumption that Burley and Harris posit in their argument. In
the Journal of Medical Ethics, Burley and Harris take into consideration the psychological issues
that a clone would inherently face in their lifetime and argue against the development of cloning
with most of their rationale based on these issues. Burley and Harris discuss the possibility of
harm to clones by the fearful or prejudicial attitudes people may have about or towards them.
(p. 108). In other words, their concern comes from the perception of society on clones and how
society will interact with them. Throughout the article they use words such as Harmful,
expectations, and suffer which shows their concern and creates pathos. The view of these men
compared to the view of Dr. Seed in cloning is substantially different. Although they are in
opposition to each other, it is obvious to see the different types of concerns with cloning where
some are worried for the clones and others are worried for themselves.

What opinions do researchers have on the influence of religion on human cloning?

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

John Evans (2002) states in an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
that there are two types of human cloning: reproductive and therapeutic. (p. 747). The
difference between the two are that reproductive involves the DNA of the whole specimen and
therapeutic is only a small segment of DNA for specific tissues. Evans mentions that therapeutic
cloning has been around for years and hasnt had as much opposition as when reproductive was
introduced. (p. 748). Evans goes on to say that the controversy began when the possibility of
cloning beings with conscience life was something that was indeed possible. The issues arise
when you ask questions regarding the Humanship of a clone and whether it could be
considered a person. Religion plays a huge role, according to Evans, and has been the greatest
opposition to cloning. Evans continues and argues that human cloning will slowly grow in
popularity as society changes. In the same article, he says that the benefits form cloning
outweigh the consequences because it provides an opportunity for greater advancement for
humankind. (p. 749). The general religious population expostulate with the opinions of
supporters and argue against them the most, however, their biggest arguments are based off the
artificial creation of life and the act of playing God which is nothing tangible or measureable.
The argument goes back to Dr. Seed and his belief that we are to become one with God
which is the complete opposite of what traditional religions believe. In The Will of Our Minds,
Monsignor Sgreccia directly addresses Seed saying that this ranks among the most morally
illicit acts, ethically speaking. Within the Ten Commandments we are told to recognize only God
himself as the one and only true God. (p. 47). The argument is strong but only if both sides are
on the same field of belief; the argument only appeals to those who believe in Christianity
otherwise its just concepts that lack tenability. However, Joshua Lipschutz presents the question

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

of morality rather than an argument of religion in To Clone or Not to Clone. Lipschutz (1999)
doesnt argue using the rules of religion but rather the Integrity of human consciousness and
the respect for other humans that weve developed as a society for the past centuries. (p. 134).
In other words he says that human cloning isnt a question of being wrong within a religion but
rather the ethical and moral aspects that we live by. He brings up the consciousness of a clone
and how the existence of conscience is what matters and not how it came to be. Lipshutz is a
supporter of human cloning and he states that he considers himself a religious man. That being
said, he provides a new view on the morality of human cloning which is challenged by the trend
of religious non-supporters and non-religious supporters.

According to researchers, how does human cloning relate to morality?

In Human cloning and Human Rights, Steven Malby discusses the push for a ban on
reproductive Cloning as it is, as he states, a violation to human dignity (p. 102).
He continues by saying that reproductive cloning is affront to human dignity because the clone is
a replication of someone that already exists. He argues that Everyone has the unalienable right
to being brought to life as his or her own self rather than a copy of someone that already exists.
(p. 105). He persists on the fact that copies have to live up to something because there is already
an expectation set by the donor which ties into what Burley and Harris were arguing. Malby
elaborates by saying that the clone had his or her right taken away because he or she isnt able to
be the original and is always in relation with the original. Malby is against cloning just as Burley
and Harris for many of the same reasons. It all goes back to the assumption that cloning
technology will advance to the point where we can get near-perfect clones with the ability to
manipulate genes which leads to Carmel Shalevs theories and opinions.

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

Carmel Shalev introduces with the possibility to manipulate genes and in a case where we
created what he calls sub-humans that had great strength and little intelligence. Shalev (2002)
argues that there is a violation of ethics and morality when we create our own slaves and
everything is out of their control. (p. 137). Shalev sees the whole concept of human cloning
similarly to Dr. Seed but Shalev looks at how morality will suffer rather than how much money
could be made.
Conlusion

There are a variety of different views and perspectives on a variety of different issues all
within the idea of human cloning. This controversy is led by many who see cloning as the future
and those who see it as the past. Dr. Seed was perhaps the most ambitious in terms of his goals
and Sgreccia was the most founded in morality; two points on the spectrum while they wait and
see how society responds to what they say.
Supporters of human cloning tend to be non-religious while non-supporters were often
religious. This detail in sides brings up a question of what they are arguing about and why. As
seen by Dr. Zavos there are applications of therapeutic cloning that has helped medicine for years
and has only evolved. However, when the possibility of beings brains and thoughts that can be
clones is at the edge of the frontier the oppression rises to push back human innovation which
begs the question of whether were going too far with cloning. Dr. Seed believes this to be the
next step for humankind while religious leaders argue that we need to respect God and leave his
domain alone.

Running head: RESEARCH ON HUMAN CLONING

References