Problem Discussion
Cloning is a highly controversial subject in the realms of healthcare and ethics. On the one hand, human cloning would allow to release the burden of people who cannot have children in traditional ways. On the other hand, cloning is still a relatively unexplored field, which raises concerns for the clones’ well-being. Furthermore, it poses the issue of clones’ mental development and their ability to find their unique identity.
If the issue of cloning were analyzed through the lens of Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative would suggest that cloning is unethical. According to Kant, a human being stands in the center of the universe and cannot be treated as a means to an end (Rachels, 2003). A clone of a human being that is capable of independent thought processes and emotions would be considered a human being. Therefore, creating it would be using another human being as means to solve another human being’s problem without the clone’s consent.
Source Annotation
APA Reference: Rivron, N., Pera, M., Rossant, J., Martinez Arias, A., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Fu, J.,… & Isasi, R. (2018). Debate ethics of embryo models from stem cells. Nature (564), 183–185.
Annotation: In this article, Rivron et al. (2018) discuss the ethical implications of embryo cloning. This work presents evidence that human stem cells can organize into an embryo-like structure inside of a dish. It states that using mouse models, researchers were able to replicate “extra-embryonic organs” that act as a mitigator between the embryo and the mother (p. 183). In addition, it mentions that with the rapid development of cloning technologies, the question of whether it is ethical to experiment on “cloned embryos” will become more prominent (p. 184). The controversial point that it raises lies within the suggestion that the ethical consideration in experimentation on cloned embryos should be regulated based on its resemblance to the natural structure. Since human embryos possess several distinct qualities and identifying them would be a straightforward task, this point is valid. The authors warn that “transparency and effective engagement with the public is essential to ensure that promising avenues for research” (185). In addition to being informative of development in embryo cloning, the article succeeds in focusing the reader’s attention on the importance of the public’s full understanding of the ethical nature of this procedure.
APA Reference: Ogar, J. N., Idagu, U. A., & Bassey, S. A. (2018). Ethics in a technological society. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 1–4.
Annotation: In the given article, Ogar et al. (2018) examine the ways the use of technological advances threatens the moral guidelines of society. It gives an example of a controversial technological advancement in the form of “embryonic stem cell research” in which “embryo destruction” takes place (p. 3). Further, it argues that this process can be seen as unethical since an embryo possesses 46 chromosomes and has a unique genetic code. However, embryos do not possess full human features, and therefore, this process can still be ethical. The authors show a perspective that states, “no matter how great the benefit of stem cell research is for human beings, it is not justified to kill a human being” (p. 3). This article serves an important purpose as it provides perspectives on the value of human life and which role cloning plays within it.
APA Reference: Häyry, M. (2018). Ethics and cloning. British Medical Bulletin, 128(1), 15–21.
Annotation: In this article, Häyry (2018) examines various standpoints on human cloning and reproduction. It shows that since 1970, the arguments regarding human cloning for reproduction purposes have not changed. It argues that mass cloning would have a strong impact on society due to meddling with “gene pool” and the advent of “industrial production of lower-class citizens” (p. 17). These arguments are sound since the same genetic output, if created repeatedly, can lead to technically the same blood relations. In addition, it is entirely possible that opportunistic venturers might use cloning as a way to profit. On the other hand, the article points out that well-controlled genetic engineering would prevent such outcomes and help “replace the clumsy traditional way of making babies” (p. 18). Furthermore, it states that “happiness consists of the preference satisfaction of individuals” (p. 18). This work was extremely important since it shed light on varying perspectives regarding cloning for reproduction, taking into consideration both an individual and society.
APA Reference: Chadwick R. (2018). Reproductive cloning revisited. Bioethics, 32(3), 146.
Annotation: In the presented article Chadwick (2018) describes the practical uses of cloning through “fetal cells” (p. 146). The work states that, despite the fact that cloning is a slow-moving area of development, the possibility of human reproductive cloning still stands since the advent of “gene editing” (p. 146). It states that the already controversial issue of primate cloning for research on human diseases that are otherwise difficult to study is a more pressing matter than human cloning. While the issue of primate experimentation is crucial for ethical consideration, it does not equal complete disregard for human cloning since it can have detrimental impacts if left unattended. Chadwick states that the reasons behind interest in the area of cloning differ. First, it is “curiosity (what would it be like to ‘meet myself as a child?) (p. 146). Next, it is the possibility of creating “a reproductive technology which might enable people who could not pass on their genes to do so” (p. 146). The article is essential to understanding the subject of cloning since it examines not only the human side but also the animals’ side.
APA Reference: Vajta G. (2018). Cloning: A sleeping beauty awaiting the kiss?. Cellular Reprogramming, 20(3), 145–156.
Annotation: In this article, Vajta (2018) shows that animal cloning through “somatic cell nuclear transfer” and changing “genomic material” could be highly beneficial for society (p. 152). However, various ethical biases cause the matter to go stagnant. It argues that if it were not for certain imposed biases, the idea of cloning would be more widely accepted. It states that “however, even if not expressed openly, most people still have concerns against clones and cloners, and explain their aversion with one or two arguments obtained from the media” (p. 150). This is a difficult statement not to agree with, considering that the media’s input highly influences people’s perspectives on the majority of issues. In addition, it shows how detrimental people’s biases could be by saying that the “mental barrier hampered hundreds of thousands of infertile patients to get the most efficient available treatment” (p. 149). This work is essential for the given discussion since it helps see the ethical considerations in a different light, and it gives a critical assertion to society’s mental barriers and their sources.
References
Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th ed. McGraw Hill Higher Education.