Barnett 1

Ethics On Animal Cloning

Sarah Barnett

11 January 2015

Sarah Barnett

Professor Leslie Trelease

 Barnett 2

English 1010

12 January 2015

Ethics on Animal Cloning

Innovation and scientific exploration form the structure of society. Through trial and

error, sacrifice and determination, humanity has reached this century. Humanity still manages to

discover and thrive, but not without criticism. Ethical consideration is critical to any discovery.

Criticism lies in the animal cloning controversy, which may yield consequences or endowment.

The following will exclude the information regarding human cloning, but will analyze the

scientific research, health concerns, biodiversity, and morality behind the phenomenon of animal

cloning.

The 1970s was the first decade that cloning was attempted somewhat successfully. Frogs

were the inherent surrogates of cloning. Unfortunately, the amphibians never lived past the

tadpole stage. Scientists attempted cloning more frequently throughout the next two decades.

Cloning was a complete failure until 1995, when Roslin Institute in Scotland successfully cloned

two lambs. They achieved this by implanting early embryos into the nuclei of ordinary sheep

eggs and implanting it into fertile female sheep. The scientists appetite for success was escalating

once animal cloning was achieved (Lerner).

The same scientists perfected this technique by using a somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Instead of using a sperm or egg cell, they used an adult animal cell. These scientists obtained an

unfertilized egg with the nucleus removed, then inject the desired animal nucleus from the

somatic cell into the egg. However, this experiment was not free of flaws. The embryos that were

implanted into a surrogate mother typically have a zero to three percent life expectancy. It is

likely that the one percent that survives, will suffer from epigenetic dysregulation -which is the
 Barnett 3

probability that ninety percent

of clones are deformed

(Rosenberg).

The first

successful cloned

mammal was the one

out of 277 cloned

embryos. In 1996, Dolly

the sheep was cloned.

The scientists utilized

the Somatic cell nuclear

transfer by injecting the

egg into an ewe, which

eventually delivered

Dolly. Although

suffering many

metabolic, immune

system and

cardiopulmonary

problems, she was the precursor to many other cloned mammals (Lerner).

Once scientists accomplished cloning mammals, experts decided to take it further. In

2009, Kobe Japan, a reproductive biologist, Teruhiko Wakayama, claimed to have cloned mice

that had been frozen for 16 years. The same approach could be used to resurrect an extinct
 Barnett 4

species. Researchers began cultivating the permafrost of Siberia, where giants once thrived. The

preservation that the permafrost offered to the researchers was monumental. Extinct animal

carcasses were frozen in time, even hair follicles could be rendered. Using Wakayamas

approach, and the siberian permafrost, scientists believe they could revive the Ice Giant, the

woolly mammoth. Unfortunately, thirty percent of the mammoth DNA sequence is lost, the only

way to capture a clone is to recover and complete its DNA sequence. I laughed when Steven

Spielberg said that cloning extinct animals was inevitable, says the scientific consultant for

Jurassic Park. But Im not laughing anymore, at least about mammoths. This is going to happen.

Its just a matter of working out the details (Mueller).

Details are not the only problem, ecosystem could presumably be impacted. Extinct

species that have been reintroduced to the new millennia would experience a foreign habitat.

Tom Gilvert, an expert that helped organize the collection of the mammoth DNA sequence, says

that Cloning would give you a single animal, which would live all alone in a park, a zoo, or a

lab-not in its native habitat, which no longer exists. Youre basically creating a curio. If this new

technology allows for the resurrection of an extinct species, the public would no longer care for

already endangered species, since scientists can just repopulate the species through cloning. If

this were to undercut efforts to conserve currently existing species, that would be a tragedy, says

Hank Greely, a Stanford bioethicist (Grunbaum). The introduction of a new species could disrupt

the food chain, and possibly disrupt the psychology of the introduced species.

The uneasiness of a resurrected species psychology is mostly identical with the publics

standpoint of animal cloning. The populace is disgusted. A poll conducted in September by the

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that sixty four percent of people object animal

cloning, mainly for religious purposes (Weise). Health Research Funding recently presented an
 Barnett 5

article that highlighted the ethical debate in the eyes of religion. Roman Catholicism, United

Methodist Church, and the World Council of churches were opposed to any type of cloning,

while Islam and Judaism restricted the act. Cloning is only accepted by Raelism. The deity of

Raelism is thought to be extraterrestrial that created humanity, named Elohim. Elohim promised

to return and grant eternal life through the process of cloning. This religion believes that animal

cloning will be the precursor to immortality (Jerome). The other religions find tampering with

nature and cheating god is an immoral act. Natures course is the right course, as shown in the

perspectives of these morally literate individuals, not only this but animal suffering.

The animal abuse complication is emphasized in The European Group on Ethics in

Science and New Technologies study. This study was commanded by its President, Jose Barroso,

in order to criticize the animal abuse that cloning causes. This group that investigated these

appeals offered a statement saying that the abnormalities, disease and health problems that are

conspicuous in surrogates and clones support the negative effects of animal cloning. About 20

percent of cloned calves do not survive the first 24 hours after birth and an additional 15 percent

die before weaning. (Kanter) the group stated. The FDA Risk assessment supported this claim

by contributing substantial information displaying the risks paralleling premature death in clones

and conventional animals (see graph). This evaluation presents information that the negative

effects on the cloned animal is a crime.

 Barnett 6

The Food and Drug Administration not only

stresses the animal abuse that occurs in animal cloning,

but complications in consuming clones. Originally, the

FDA declared that cloned animals as a source of

sustenance is unhealthy because the health risks were

unknown. The FDA overturned this ruling in 2008. The

report was summarized by Elizabeth Weise, an

employee in USA Todays San Francisco bureau. She

explains that the Food and Drug Administration

deemed cloned meat identical from those animals that are consistently bred naturally. The FDAs

Center for Veterinary Medicine composed a paper that clarifies, None of the studies identify

any remarkable nutritionally or toxicologically important differences in the composition of the

meat or milk. Public opinion of the FDAs decision is one that caused mass hysteria.

Opposing people believe the FDAs 2008 edict was questionable. One of these opposers

was Martha Rosenberg, an author whose writing has appeared in Boston Globe, San Francisco

Chronicle, and Chicago tribune. The debatable report claims that the excess amounts of glucose,

calcium, and phosphorus levels can be explained by the clones growth, but the FDA denies that it

should raise any concern. Rosenberg introduces that the clones that survive usually experience

deformities, such as heart and intestine problems, large offspring syndrome and enlarged

umbilical cords. The clones with deformities may require surgery, oxygen and many other things

to compensate for the defect. Health Research Funding conducted a survey in 2005, asking the

population of the United States if they were uncomfortable consuming animal cloned products,

66 percent felt distress. Rosenberg also explained in her article that there were several instances
 Barnett 7

when citizens questioned agriculture leaders, these leaders replied by not knowing whether or

not cloned meat was in the food supply.

Will Verboven supports the FDAs report, claiming that cloned meat in the food supply

does not need to be a taboo. Urban populations are often oblivious to the rural aspects of the

livestock field, which often use scientific procedures to obtain ideal animal breeding. The market

adopts new technologies to manufacture food as cheaply as possible, regardless of public

awareness. Animal cloning would foremost be the repetition of optimal genes, and avoid the

disease infested DNA, which could possibly eliminate the discomfort of disease (Verboven).

Another positive effect of animal cloning is organ donations. Animal cloning can supply

the biological surrogate new organs if the original cannot function properly. It guarantees the

farm animals spare organs if needed. Not only do clones supply organs for animals, but humans

as well, through xenotransplantation. The transplantation of organs between species started in

1960 when surgeons resulted to chimps and baboons organs. The species difference ultimately

resulted in immune complications. A well known surgical operation was on an infant with an

inborn illness called Hypoplastic left-heart syndrome. After the patient obtained a heart

transplant from a baboon, she survived 21 days, but if the surgery had not occurred, she would

have deceased within a few days of being diagnosed. Although, the relocation of organs from one

species to another has not been successful, cloning provides a viable source instead of sacrificing

healthy animals. The ideal imitation of animals will grant scientists the ability to design models

to help them interpret the questions of human health (Lerner).

In addition to saving lives, population preservation is important ecologically. The somatic

cell technology contributes the capability to repopulate threatened and endangered species, or

revive extinct species. The somatic cell nuclear transfer has been applied to the Republic of
 Barnett 8

Korea to bring back the rare gray wolf. The SCNT recently delivered a cloned dog (Lee et al.,

2005), which gave hope to those in Korea that anticipate the return of the gray wolf conservation

(Hossein). These vertebrate groups are of small concern compared to that of amphibians. The

International Union for Conservation of nature characterised thirty percent of amphibians as

threatened in 1996.

Since 1996, amphibian critically endangered species has increased over 28 times. Habitat loss,

Chytrid and over collecting are only some of the many reasons these cold-blooded vertebrates

are in danger. Of the 5,527 known amphibious species, only one third of the population are

defined as low concern, while the others are relatively concerning (7, baillie, bennun, brooks)

Repopulation is of grave concern to the environment and to humanity.

Biodiversity is a pressing concern as much as repopulation. Biodiversity is the variety of

life; the increasing number of organisms in ecosystems escalate the probability of species

surviving diseases, natural disasters or drastic climate changes (Grunbaum). Animal cloning

could increase biodiversity which would effectively help the ecosystem. Biodiversity was only

recently recognized as being important to both the nation and the globe (Schlager, Lauer). The

public became conscious of this threat in the 1970s and 1980s. Some believe the reason for this
 Barnett 9

neglect is from the biblical passage: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;

and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living

thing that moves upon the earth. Our civilization and our values are dictated by our thought of

dominion over Earth, and other species. By taking possession of species and resources, we

declare ourselves the hierarchy and take advantage of those who cannot speak for themselves.

Humanity is a race that has been -and always will be- built on discovery. Humans either

nourish and nurture the discoveries or bleed them dry. With the case of animal cloning, humans

bleed it dry. Discoveries made by humanity are dominated and possessed, as if this discovery is

owned. Since Europeans landed siege to North America, to the red, white and blue flag pinned

on the moon, humans designate their dominance. This dominance can lead to arrogance and

narcissism, traits that authorize humans to selfishness. Animal cloning is an act benefitting only

the dominant race, not the victims. The victims are the animals themselves, bred for the

purpose of sustenance and scientific research, only to be butchered and examined. Society

assumes cloned animals to be made from test tubes in a lab, but they are born. Just like humans

and our domestic pets. Animal cloning is an excuse to drain all of the worlds beasts, after all,

scientists can just fix it, which is false. Repopulating the world through cloning does not differ

from repopulating naturally, the only difference is the genes, but people remain ignorant to this.

Similar genes to the healthy surrogates does not seize the animals ability to experience pain.

Testing on clones is just as immoral as animal testing.

Scientists are attempting to resurrect animals that no longer belong in this world. A world

that evolves. Natural selection is an essential device to evolution. This is selective breeding, in

other words -survival of the fittest. Every species that has arrived to this era, are descendents

from the fittest. These thriving species are adapted to the harsh climates, the battles over
 Barnett 10

territory, the mating rituals, the predators, the prey and the essence of the circle of life. Instead of

creating a species that already had its opportunity, humanity needs to preserve and nourish the

already endangered species. Nature killed off this species for a reason. It may feel intriguing,

walking with prehistoric creatures, but eventually it will become dull; then humanity will once

again create another intriguing discovery that will endure more criticism. Animal cloning is a

discovery; a discovery that is not needed. The world abides to all living creatures, and it is time

humanity follows its lead.

The proposal following this research includes a documentary informing the citizens of the

United States about the causes, and the pros and cons regarding animal cloning. This

documentary will include ethical appeals and scientific research, to allow the citizens to gain

background information to conclude their own opinions. Allowing citizens to idly stand by, with

no knowledge of this research, cannot put to rest the controversy of the animal cloning topic.

This proposal will educate the public. The documentary time duration should vary between one

hour and one hour and a half; and will vary according to location and production time. A studio

will be needed as well as on set interviews inside labs that hold the secrets of animal cloning. It

should be finished in September of 2016, to edit and style the documentary to reach the desired

public group before airing in November of that year. Editing should be used to highlight the

desired focal point of the messages, with little animation. The employee regulating concept and

storyboard are going to be needed to gain value and inspiration to the intended audience, and

he/she must have experience. The actors/presenters will be critical in this documentary, for

credibility will be the foundation of these presenters. Depending on demand and experience, the

wages will be varied. Scientists, and highly credible individuals will be needed, preferably the

researchers in the previously mentioned research, such as: K. Lee Lerner, Ian Wilmut and
 Barnett 11

Mohammad Hossein. The quality of this documentary will be held on the shoulders of the

camera and the equipment. A camera that is suited for the human profile and is flexible regarding

lenses, angles and intensity. Equipment should include lighting, audio and any tools needed to

enhance the quality. This documentary will take full advantage on audio by including narration,

with a well known voice. The cost of the entirety will not exceed $1.3 million, unless

corporations and businesses increase the funding. Funding will come from The Fledging Fund,

Connect fund, Wilmut Association, and World Wildlife Fund. Budgeting the entire documentary

will vary widely based on the professionality of the video, and the funding involved.

Animal cloning is an act that has received an abundance of debate, but the masses remain

ignorant to the concerns. This proposal is a method to educate and inform the public. The

proposal must actively avoid biased opinions, and allow the audience to speculate their own

conclusion; based on facts, health impact, biodiversity, xenotransplantation, morality and

possible consequences.

Works Cited

Grunbaum, Mara. "Back from the dead: should scientists bring extinct species back to life?" Science

World/Current Science 2 Sept. 2013: 8+. Web. 17 Nov. 2014

 Barnett 12

Hossein, Mohammad Shamim, et al. "Endangered wolves cloned from adult somatic cells." Cloning and

Stem Cells 9.1 (2007): 130+. Science in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Kanter, James. "Europe's ethics panel says cloning harms animals." New York Times 18 Jan. 2008: C4(L).

Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 17 Nov. 2014

Lerner, K. Lee. "Animal cloning." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda

Wilmoth Lerner. 5th ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2014. Science in Context. Web. 17 Nov.

2014

Lerner, K. Lee. "Xenotransplantation." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda

Wilmoth Lerner. 5th ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2014. Science in Context. Web. 19 Nov.

2014.

Mueller, Tom. "Recipe For A Resurrection." National Geographic 215.5 (2009): 52. TOPICsearch. Web.

17 Nov. 2014

"Pros and Cons of Animal Cloning - HRF."HRF. 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Jan. 2015.

Verboven, Will. "Make that cloned, please: the benefits of cloning food animals may yet overcome the

public's distaste." Western Standard 12 Feb. 2007: 34.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18

Nov. 2014.

Weise, Elizabeth. "FDA: Cloned animals' meat is safe." USA Today 28 Dec. 2006: 01A. Science in

Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.