16 Mason Saunders

Cloning.  Now, the connotation of that word leads most people, or at least me, to images of white lab coats, test tubes, or perhaps even stormtroopers. Regardless, cloning screams artificial. Upon a closer examination, it’s evident that it actually occurs in nature. These “clones” are created in two different ways:

i) asexual reproduction

ii) monozygotic twins

Asexual reproduction is actually more common than sexual reproduction.  The thousands of bacterium currently inhabiting the pores and ridges of your skin reproduce with this method.  They will split into two smaller, identical cells and continue on their normal cycle of cell growth so the offspring cells can split once again. The other occurrence is in monozygotic or identical twins. In this case, one zygote splits to form two cell masses and creates two living beings with the same exact genetic makeup. These types of clones fit into the broader definition, but for our purposes, cloning can have the operational definition of the artificial creation of another organism using nuclear transfer using a donor’s DNA.

Before the modern scientific advances, cloning could be found exclusively in the science fiction section. Today, this futuristic procedure is a modern possibility.  However, the act of recreating an individual purely for scientific ends has proved a highly contentious endeavor to say the very least. While there are still individuals who advocate for human cloning, the potential issues with the health of the clone and the abuse of cloning technology together far outweigh the benefits provided by the research. Therefore, human cloning should not be permitted for research or reproduction in the United States.

OK, so it’s possible to clone a human. Now what? Let’s think this through. The clone is at enormous risks to biological deformities, mental instability, and emotional health issues due to a highly complex process with huge margin for error. But what if modern science were to progress beyond this problem and a clone emerges entirely intact and does not suffer emotionally or psychologically from the stress of being under such scrutiny. What is to stop people from producing clones as living organ incubators? Or treating them as less than human? Will they be classified as a new human?  These are just some of the reasons that a large majority of Americans are opposed to human cloning.

The initial and less obvious issue with human cloning research is the failure rate. In order for a successful clone to be created the cloned zygote must first be in the “.1% to 3%” predicted success rate to even live through birth. Evan after a successful birth, they would be subject to a plethora of lethal mutations that the average person is not. One of the major illnesses that has plagued animal clones in previous trials has been LOS (Large Offspring Syndrome) in this situation the infant is born larger than natural and their organs grow to significantly bigger proportions than those of a typical organism. This expansion results in internal bleeding and breathing issues which eventually kill the clone.

Paralleling this is the unresolved issue of aging. As chromosomes replicate, they shrink in size so that the new chromosome is not as large as the parent chromosome. The actual part that is shrinking is called the telomere and they are a key factor in natural aging. So, as you can guess, if the donated genetic material is too old, genetic mutation and cancer are ever the more possible. Aside from this, scientists suspect that clones with aged telomeres could experience the same detrimental aging effects as someone much older than them. So essentially, instead of the clones building strong bones and thick artery walls, they’re bones would become brittle and their arteries would calcify thus making them more susceptible to lethal hemorrhaging and broken bones.  

Some may see this data and argue that mutated people are a reasonable price to pay for the greater good of science, however, we must not forget that this a human being. Although genetically identical to another person, they are nonetheless individuals with the same natural rights and capability to perceive the world as any other human.

Let's say, purely for the hypothetical that human cloning was a 100 percent safe process. There are still festering issues that have yet to be shoved into society’s spotlight, the most significant of them being the abuse of cloning technology. Abusing technology is as old as humanity, from the atomic bomb to anabolic steroids, we have eternally been misusing scientific developments. It's this flaw in our judgement that makes cloning humans such a terrible idea.

Did you know that the first successfully cloned human embryo was created by a man who lived in Lexington, Kentucky and worked in a clinic only 5 miles away from Henry Clay School? Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, a shady, individualistic character, is a fertility doctor who splits his allegiances between the United States and the Middle East Fertility Society. Back in 2001, Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori announced to the public that they were ready to clone a human being through nuclear transfer. His initial trials were to be performed on infertile women in order to provide them with a biological child without the inconvenience of a donor DNA. Although well intentioned, Dr. Zavos proved to be a rather immature doctor. When he was confronted by a BBC reporter about the potential dangers of cloning he was recorded as responding with “We don't need any permissions from anybody.” It is this egocentric, selfish attitude that makes human cloning such a minefield.

Some such abuses of cloning can be vividly illustrated in the book House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. This novel sets up a hypothetical in which a clone, Matteo Alacràn must struggle with an oppressive culture and the overbearing confusion that is reality to him. In Farmer’s plot, condition of clones was almost a carbon copy that of African slaves in the Deep South circa 1800s. The author tells of how they’re brainwashed and forced into grueling labor with not a single sympathetic thought by their employers. Those who are not treated as work mules were created as human incubators. People of stature in this society would clone themselves and adopt the clone as a servant or as their “offspring”. The child would then be kept in excellent shape and when it came time that their “masters” organs fail, they would be slowly harvested. It’s a brutal way to die. One week their master may need their corneas, the next their kidney, perhaps even later their liver. Thus the clone, no less of a human being than you or I, was subjected to an atrocious drawn out death in order to sustain the gluttony of their “master”. Good thing that's just a fiction book and nothing like that could ever happen! Wrong. Many current proponents of human cloning for organs believe that clones should not be legitimate individuals, but rather labelled as biological copies of another created purely for utilitarian reasons. At this logic, one out of every set of identical twins is an illegitimate person and they should be harvested for organs at the whim of the other.

In conclusion, human cloning, while a potential solution for creating biological children for individual parents, is not outweighed by the means, and therefore should not be permitted to occur in the United States.

"Cloning the First Human." YouTube. YouTube, 25 Oct. 2001. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

"What Are the Risks of Cloning?" What Are the Risks of Cloning? University of Utah, 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

"Cloning the First Human." BBC News. BBC, 25 Oct. 2001. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Farmer, Nancy. The House of the Scorpion. New York: Atheneum for Young Readers, 2002. Print.