post 13: cloning articles

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:03:16


cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.