 |
 |
Indiana Statesman ... Cloning potential justifies research To the Point By Erin Willman February 23, 2004 A week and a half ago, a team of South Korean scientists announced that they successfully harvested a line of stem cells from a cloned human embryo. This development sparked debate across the globe about the ethical implications of human cloning and its possible value. In order to understand the debate surrounding human cloning, a little background information is necessary. There are two major kinds of cloning: therapeutic and reproductive. The beginning of the process is the same for both kinds: a nucleus from one cell (which contains the genetic information of an individual in the form of DNA) is implanted in an enucleated egg. In reproductive cloning this egg is implanted in the uterus and carried to term, creating an individual that is a clone of the DNA donor. In therapeutic cloning, the embryo develops for about five days and then its stem cells are harvested. Stem cells are cells that have not received signals that cause them to become a specific type of cell and can therefore be stimulated to become any type cell in the body, possibly producing organs needed for transplants or replacing damaged cells in patients with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or other degenerative diseases. Opponents of cloning state numerous reasons why a worldwide ban on human cloning is necessary, but these arguments are often misinformed and illogical. Many opposed to human cloning insist that there is no way to develop cloning technology and simultaneously prevent the birth of a human clone, therefore all types of cloning should be banned. Following this same line of logic, it could be said that all types of ice cream should be banned because it is impossible to continue to produce ice cream without some people eating too much and compromising their health. With the proper standards, scientists can continue to develop cloning technology with no dire consequences. Another popular argument against cloning research is that its benefits are only speculative. First of all, scientists know that stem cells can be directed to become any cell in the body, therefore replacing any cell, organ or tissue that is degenerative with another made from an individual's own DNA which would eliminate risk of rejection. Also, further benefits will remain speculative if more research cannot be conducted. The benefits of scientific advancements such as organ transplants and blood transfusions were speculative until they were researched and tested, and where would modern medicine be without these procedures? The most popular reason given for banning cloning research is that it is unethical to destroy an embryo in order to harvest its stem cells. However, many scientists have proposed using leftover embryos from fertility clinics for research. These embryos would be discarded whether or not they were involved in cloning research. What is unethical about using embryos that would otherwise be discarded to advance science and possibly save lives? Cloning research is still in the early stages and in order for cloning technology to become beneficial, more work needs to be done. A complete ban of all human cloning research is a hasty reaction to an oversimplified view of a complex and potentially beneficial scientific advancement. SOURCE: Indiana Statesman http://tinyurl.com/3336d * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn