Human cloning oversteps ethical boundaries

  Phoebe Chang Chang is a third-year
history and communications student who loves lemon Snapple iced
tea. E-mail her at [email protected].

Wool is being pulled over our eyes ““ cloned wool, that is.
Since cloning Dolly the sheep in 1997, scientists have found ways
to duplicate sheep, goats, rats and pigs and are on the verge of
cloning humans. Two scientists, Panayiotis Zavos and Severino
Antinori, promise to clone the first human by next year. Antinori
already has successfully implanted a fertilized egg into a
63-year-old woman.

When we think of cloning humans, images of clones taking over
the world emerge in our minds. We see clones turning on their DNA
parents (whom they are exactly the same as). The realm of cloning
has been limited to sci-fi literature, but today cloning is a clear
and frightening reality that governments, societies and people of
the world need to grapple with.

When it is often blown out of proportion, cloning seems scary
and unethical. But even when viewed objectively, cloning still
inspires fear. Cloning humans still has unethical implications that
suggest that the negative effects of cloning outweigh its potential
benefits to the world.

It takes hard work and many deaths to produce one clone. It took
277 eggs implanted in sheep to successfully conceive Dolly, the
first cloned animal.

Cloning experiments have a 5 percent success rate, making the
risks involved in cloning an animal extremely high and the
possibility of success very narrow. Most fetuses from these
experiments were abnormal, died early and had physical defects.
Drs. Zavos and Antinori are presumptuous in promising to clone
human beings by next year, especially when the failures of many
experiments are evident. It should not be considered at this stage
when there is too much risk.

Four U.S. states ““ California, Louisiana, Michigan and
Rhode Island have laws banning any type of cloning research. Twelve
nations worldwide have banned human cloning, but there are still
other nations willing to allow this kind of research.

Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin Most scientists
throughout the world are abiding by a moratorium on cloning.
However, Drs. Zavos and Antinori have negotiated with countries
that do not have such laws governing them and hope to begin their
business there.

It’s not sci-fi anymore ““ it’s reality.
President Bush announced that he will not currently allow human
cloning in the United States. Clinton had also said that during his
term.

As a leading country, we are faced with a huge dilemma. Do we
jump on the bandwagon of scientific progress and stay at the
cutting edge of technology, or do we allow ourselves to see all the
negative implications and results of human cloning?

People throughout the earth are going to always try to clone
humans, but it is the responsibility of the United States to keep
an eye to monitor the progress of this technology.

Clones are more likely to die earlier than their models because
their cells have already divided multiple times. Clones are also
subject to abnormalities that experimenters may not be aware of at
the time of origin. After a few years, clones may develop
unexpected abnormalities while living a normal life like their DNA
parent. Scientists do not know when and how clones become mutated.
Clones, as they grow up, may develop dysfunctional body parts and
mutations, severely affecting the course of their lives.

Putting fellow human beings through such pain is cruel and
unnecessary. Cloned humans are true, living people. We are not
dealing with lab mice; we are dealing with people.

As a country that espouses the creed of human rights for every
person, we cannot allow human cloning. Clones and their DNA parents
are genetically identical. Because of their genetic composition,
clones would have the same feelings, the same abilities and the
same complexity of mind as any human being. The idea alone of being
a clone would put a person in a maze of finding self-identity and
have huge societal issues.

We cannot subject any human being to developing unexpected
physical abnormalities and possible early death because they are an
experiment. Clones would not be able to stop themselves from being
experiments. Science imposes a framework, a context that this human
being is the scientific experiment. Scientific testing on humans
has not been practiced and should not be practiced on human clones.
Is furthering scientific knowledge worth sacrificing human
beings?

Clones allow people to live vicariously through them. What DNA
parents want is a second chance and they find it through the
possibility of cloning themselves. They have interesting
intentions, which are not at all practical. People desire that
their clones would live the life that was “meant to be
theirs.” But if it was meant to be yours, you would’ve
lived that life. It is not economical nor profitable to extend
one’s life another 70 or so years.

The world is constantly changing because there are always new
people being brought into this world. The earth is only so big and
we, without human cloning, are already using up most of it.

By the year 2050, the earth’s population will reach its
maximum capacity of 11 billion people. If we add in the factor of
human cloning and its potential popularity, humanity will be
crowded off the earth or starved to death. It is not fair to take
up more chances at living than were given to you. Maybe if we
settle on Mars we’ll have enough room, but that doesn’t
seem like it will happen soon.

Cloning humans should not be done today nor should it ever be
done. Drs. Zavos and Antinori are venturing into a realm where the
boundaries between the positive and the negative impact of
scientific discoveries on the future are extremely fuzzy.

Proponents of human cloning say that cloning has the potential
to lead us to discover cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, cystic
fibrosis and other diseases. It could also help find solutions for
baldness and replace the need for cosmetic surgery. It’d be a
wonder-cure then, wouldn’t it? It would be a panacea for all
physical concerns ““ the key to immortality, a fountain of
youth.

Yet the price that humanity would pay in terms of pain, radical
societal alteration and sacrifice of human lives does not seem
worth all the loosely-based potential human cloning offers in the
world.

But the fact remains ““ we are on the verge of discovering
how to create people, but we cannot willingly allow ourselves to
support research that can, and for the most part will, result in
more human suffering. These potential cures for diseases fade into
the background when set up against the dark picture of the negative
effects of cloning. Clones would most likely suffer from
disabilities and deformities, and would lead to an overcrowded
world, and a myriad of ethical issues weighing the world down.

The more common and widespread genetic engineering becomes, the
more we will have to face this issue in the voting booths and on
campus in UCLA’s research laboratories. We must take a stand
in our community and in our country.