1 Warren

Cheyne Warren
Erin Rogers
4/27/2014
Uses of cloning
When the idea of human cloning comes to mind, many people images from the media
where a licentious clone aims to kill. These shows are obviously fictitious and carry their weight
in cloning myths and misportrayal. Because of these commonly accepted stereotypes and
misunderstandings, people often fight against cloningparticularly human cloning. This brings
to question what the benefits of cloning are and whether or not any cloning, much less human
cloning, should be allowed. While many argue that cloning is wrong, there are many positive
uses of cloning. These uses include stem cell research and growing organs for transplants,
creating children for infertile couples, and resurrection biology.
History of Cloning
Human cloning is one of the hottest topics of our time, and for good reason. The first
successfully cloned animal was Dolly the sheep in 1996 (Green, Taboos of Science). To
understand cloning, however, a little history must be known. Cloning is performed with somatic
cells, a.k.a. skin cells (Concannon, Siegel, Halverson & Freyermuth, 2010). This technique was
used on Dolly the sheep and is known as Somatic Nuclear Transfer
(HealthResearchFunding.org). Since Dolly, human cloning has been on the minds of many
scientists. However, research into human cloning is illegal in 13 of the fifty states, the European
Union, Canada, and Australia (Green, Taboos of Science). Furthermore, there has been no
2 Warren

successful human clone born although in 2009 biologist Panayoitis Zavos claimed to have
cloned 14 human embryos and transferred 11 of them into 4 women (Green, Taboos of
Science). Despite this claim, there was no following result of a clone being born and some
believe his claim was fictitious (Green, Taboos of Science). In 2013, healthresearchfunding.org
reported that Organ Health and Science University had created the first cloned human embryos
(HealthResearchFunding.org). These embryos were then harvested for stem cells on a medical
basis, thusly killing the embryos and no clone was born (HealthResearchFunding.org).
Human Cloning; from Death to Illness
Human cloning is laced with ethical and religious arguments. The largest of these issues
arise with high mortality rates of the cloned embryos (Green, Taboos of Science). The question
called into being is whether or not the embryos count as a human being and can be justifiably
sacrificed for scientific research, cloning, or stem cell collection. The Family Research Council
(FRC), which disagrees with human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, states the embryo
has no consciousness or awareness of any sort, concluding that it is not even sentient
(Family Research Council). Justifiably, under this consensus stated by opponents to cloning,
human life is not being thrown away because of embryo death. Embryo death also occurs
naturally, as studied by The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) of the
United Kingdoms. This stated, the study conducted was on cattle, which are obviously not
human. However, studies of human embryo death are not readably available and because both
humans and cattle are mammals, it is safe to assume the research is at least semi-actuate to
humans. The DARD concluded on study conducted with cows that, while the fertilization rate
in cattle may be as high as 8590%, the conception rate is more likely to be 40-60% and the
death of the embryos occurred naturally ("DAIRY HERD FERTILITY."). It is illogical to argue
3 Warren

that embryo death due to the high mortality rates of cloning is unethical when an average of 40-
60% of embryos naturally ("DAIRY HERD FERTILITY.").
Drawing back to the FRCs conclusion that embryos are not sentient and thusly are not
human life, it is safe to conclude embryos are a collection of rapidly dividing cells. Another
example of a congregation of cells would be human skin. Steve Mack, who has a post-doctorate
in molecular and cell biology, states that an average adult human looses a rough estimate of
3,000,000 cells per second (Mack, Steve). This high cell death rate is similar to the death of the
lost embryos, yet no ones arguing that humans shouldnt shed because is causes the death of
human life. This statement sounds ridiculous because, like every living thing, it is impossible to
stop a natural process such as cell death. This is the same with embryos. A fertilized female
cannot condone certain embryos to die, be it cloned embryos or naturally conceived embryos.
Some argue cloning results in sickly and deformed offspring if the surrogate is able to
conceive and the child is born. However, many others report cloning doesnt result in these
claimed irregularities. The FRC argues that many cloned cattle are born with physical
deformities and cloned mice develop psychological issues (Family Research Council). On the
other hand, the University of Utahs Genetic Science Learning Center strongly disagrees. The
Genetic Center reports that clones are not necessarily damaged," and many are perfectly
normal (Genetic Science Learning Center ). They note some famous clones, including Dolly the
sheep had physical issues, but many [clones] live long, healthy lives (Genetic Science
Learning Center ). The health issues involving cloning is where the line is strongly divided, and
not many answers have sprung. Despite many studies, no one seems to have reached a
conformed consensus on this. However, it is much more likely the Genetic Science Learning
Center, a specific-interest division in a higher education facility, would be more reliable than a
4 Warren

conservative organization with their attentions divided between many aspects. The division of
science that invests time and money in studies is much more credible than a bias charity group.
Human Cloning; the Cure to Infertility?
When it comes to human cloning, cloning for infertile couples is one of the first issues
that comes to mind. Some claim this is a dehumanizing procedure that will only end in a child
with low self-esteem and selfish parents living through them vicariously (Family Research
Council). This slippery slope of the condoning image of the parent follows little logic and only
works assuming parents never live variously through their naturally conceived, non-cloned
children. The FRC also argues children who arent begotten will only be abused by their
zealous parents (Family Research Council). Gregory Pence, from the Human Cloning
Foundation, strongly disagrees with the politicians, explaining cloning just another way to
create a family (Pence). Pence points out the same paranoia of an unloving existence was
attributed to test-tube babies who turned out to be some of the most-wanted, most-loved
babies ever created in human history (Pence). The general idea of test-tube babies and clones
are closely related; a couple creates a child unnaturally, but just because the offspring wasnt
conceived naturally it doesnt mean the child will be any less loved. Another end of having a
child for an infertile couple would be adoption, which is perfectly legal, and again the FRCs
claims cant stand against it. The major difference between adoption and cloning for a
perspective parent would be that the resulting offspring would be genetically related. Many
supporters of human cloning for reproduction purposes see it as a sort of cure to infertility and
another method to create a genetically related child (Pence). It is ludicrous to think that a cloned
human would be any less human and any less loved by parents who invested millions of dollars
5 Warren

in their children. These parents were willing to make the sacrifice for their child, and claiming
the child will not be loved is preposterous.
Another topic on the plate of human cloning is stem cell research. Stem cell research has
branched in many directions, including growing certain organs (Family Research Council). This
is a major leap in medicine because organ transplants are dangerous, and often the non-native
material is rejected by the body (Family Research Council). Because cloned stem cells would
carry identical genetic information of the donor a transplant with an organ carrying the same
genetic information would not be rejected (Family Research Council). Purposely cloning an
ailing person to cultivate a replacement organ from the stem cells would result in the desired
organ carrying the same genetic information and thusly reducing the danger of transplants
dramatically (Family Research Council). Stem cells can also be utilized to defeat lukimia, which
is a cancer of the white blood cells, the basis of your immune system (Genetic Science Learning
Center, Stem Cells in Use). Because of these scientific wonders, opponents have little to argue
against stem cell research so they turn to religious and moral arguments to refute cloning. The
FRC writes, it is little wonder that people who do not have moral objections to the deliberate
destruction of human embryos are very excited about the promise of research cloning.
However, upon supporting this argument, they contradict their very own statement earlier that
embryos are not people and are not sentient. This also conflicts the DARD study with the natural
death of embryos. This said, it is also important to note this argument has no scientific merit and
relies purely on emotions. Furthermore, stem cell research saves lives of living people who are
suffering at the expense of a collection of cells that has no consciousness. This is not destroying
human life, this is saving it.

6 Warren

Resurrection Biology; What Would You do with a Drunken Mammoth
When it comes to cloning non-humans, advantages crop up as well: namely, resurrection
biology. Resurrection biology would bring, or nearly bring, extinct animals back to life (Green,
Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Of course, this brings into
question why we would do such a thing. Some believe that if the animals fell at the hands of
humans, such as the Tasmanian tiger, it is out moral obligation to bring it back (Green,
Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). One such animal in this
situation, the Pyrenean ibex, was brought back temporarily but unfortunately, the infant quickly
died (Green, Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). There are
also environmental boons to recreating an extinct species. Species such as wooly mammoths are
currently being studied as subject of resurrection biology because of this reason (Green,
Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back from Extinction). Mammoths are extremely
important to maintaining the permafrost layer by felling trees (Green, Resurrection Biology:
How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Without them, the permafrost layer is melting
and thusly releasing poisonous methane gas into the air (Green, Resurrection Biology: How to
Bring Animals Back From Extinction). This is why some resurrection biology enthusiasts dream
of reintroducing the wooly mammoth (Green, Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals
Back From Extinction).
Despite this jewel of resurrection biology, there are ethical and logical considerations that
must be taken. One downside of resurrection biology would be the lack of genetic diversity;
without enough genetic differences in the species, they would unhealthily inbreed, and, as Hank
Green from Scishow states, bringing to life one individual does not constitute the restoration of
a species (Green, Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Along
7 Warren

with the inability of genetic variability comes the worry that previously native species would turn
invasive because of the change in environment since their extinction (Green, Resurrection
Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). A moral obligation brought to mind
would be the nurturing and placement of these resurrected animals. If a wooly mammoth were to
be cloned and was healthily birthed, how would that animal learn to behave like a mammoth
should? Without an experienced adult animal to up bring it, the clone would not learn how to
behave, eat, or generally survive as a wooly mammoth (Green, Resurrection Biology: How to
Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Even if an extinct species was cloned, where would they
be placed if their habitat had been destroyed? Along this line of thought, humans have enough
trouble dealing with the wild animals of today and if an extinct species were to be introduced to
the environment, it might lead to disastrous interactions between the animals and humans
(Green, Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Before we clone
extinct animals for resurrection biology or any other reason, these consequences must be
considered.
If we were to decide the downsides outweighed the good, there is another way to wield
resurrection biology. Instead of cloning already extinct animals, animals that are endangered and
going extinct could be cloned and brought back from the brink (Green, Resurrection Biology:
How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction). Animals on the endangered species list such as
rhinos, leopards and turtles which are all critically endangered (World Wildlife Fund). With
resurrection biology, these animal species may thrive well into the future.
The Xerox Being and Other Irrational Fears
Many people have studied the fear of the public towards cloning, and have even set up
myth lists to ease the paranoia. Giovanni Maio, of the European Molecular Biology Organization
8 Warren

(EMBO) wrote an article on an extensive study done on the portrayal of cloning in the media.
The study concluded themes of major fears played upon in the films, and noted that, even in
documentaries, cloning was always portrayed as a dark and dangerous thing to dabble with
(Maio, 2006). He noticed a large conglomerate of similarities, including an evil doing creator, a
society of calamity, the evilness of the clone, and the fact that resolution came to the characters
at the death of the clone(Maio, 2006). In documentaries he noticed the portrayal of scientists and
labs, as well as the particular few scientists that were chosen because of their views of cloning
(Maio, 2006). Maio also noted the abundance of failures of cloning mentioned in the films, rather
than focusing on the positives (Maio, 2006). The University of Utahs Genetic Science Learning
Center went so far as to create a list of cloning myths including instantaneous cloning and carbon
copy humans because of the general publics fear and misunderstanding of cloning (Genetic
Science Learning Center). Maios study and the loads of cloning myth lists go to show that
cloning in the media is poorly portrayed and even more poorly understood by the general public.
Many people are frightened of cloning, however human and animal cloning alike could
lead to a better future. Stem cell research leads to much safer transplants, human cloning can be
used to create genetically related offspring to couples that could otherwise not reproduce.
However, human cloning is illegal in many places, and there are many ethical issues that need to
be considered before human cloning takes off. Resurrection biology can be used to reintroduce
animals that have been extinct or can be used to bring animals back from the brink of extinction,
but again, issues must be considered. Overall, cloning can be used for the greater good and
higher purposes if people could release the misconceptions of cloning gleaned from the media.
There may be a future instore where wooly mammoths once again walk the earth and cloned
children are another form of adoption.
9 Warren



Bibliography
Concannon, J., Siegel, M., Halverson, K., & Freyermuth, S. (2010). College students'
conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. Journal of Science Education
and Technology; Springer, 19(2), 117-186.
"DAIRY HERD FERTILITY." College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise, 1 Jan. 2005.
Web. 18 May 2014. <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/conceptionfailureembryonicdeath.pdf>.
"Family Research Council." Family Research Council. Family Research Council, n.d. Web. 18
May 2014. <http://www.frc.org/content/the-ethics-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research-and-
human-cloning>.
Genetic Science Learning Center. "Cloning Myths." Learn.Genetics 23 March 2014
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningmyths/
Green, H. (Producer). (2012, July 30). Taboos of Science [Web Video]. Retreived from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_dEsw1Ff1U
Green, Hank. "Resurrection Biology: How to Bring Animals Back From Extinction." YouTube.
YouTube, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 May 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-
0mT4oQH3o>.
HealthResearchFunding.org, "Pros and Cons of Human Cloning." HealthRF. HealthRF, 6 Dec.
2013. Web. 18 May 2014. <http://healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-human-cloning/>.
Mack, Steve. "Re: How many cells does a human lose every second?." Re: How many cells does
a human lose every second?. Madsci Network, 7 Feb. 2001. Web. 18 May 2014.
<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/981770369.An.r.html>.
10 Warren


Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture. Science & Society Viewpoint, 7(3),
241. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400652
Pence, Gregory. "The Top Ten Myths about Human Cloning." humancloning.org. Human
Cloning Foundation, n.d. Web. 30 Mar 2014. http://www.humancloning.org/myths.php>.
"Stem Cells In Use." Stem Cells In Use. Genetic Science Learning Center, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 18
May 2014. <http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/stemcells/sctoday/>."Species
Directory."
WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 May 2014.
<http://worldwildlife.org/species/directory?direction=desc&sort=extinction_status>.